Wikipedia:XfD today

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Shortcuts

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


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Candidates for speedy deletion
Draft:Forex Flock Ltd
Draft:H.G Bishop David
Li Yu-yun
Morè(clan)
Draft:Simenona Martinez
The Lost Causes of Bleak Creek
The Mousetrap(show)
University Department Of Chemical Technology(UDCT),Bombay
University Department Of Chemical Technology(UDCT),Mumbai.
USS Maine(ACR-1)
UTC(Internet)
Van Snyder (DJ)

Articles[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 18

Files[edit]

File:The Supremes - Someday We'll Be Together (Italy).png[edit]

File:The Supremes - Someday We'll Be Together (Italy).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JonathanLGardner (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The other image File:1969 - Someday We'll Be Together.png was uploaded first and should be used instead for now. Per WP:NFCC#3a, using more than one cover art of same recording discouraged. George Ho (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of Unalaska, Alaska.png[edit]

File:Seal of Unalaska, Alaska.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Indefatigable2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It is difficult to reach the minimum threshold for copyright protection if it only consists of simple circular geometric shapes and text. The fair use label should be replaced by {{PD-textlogo}}. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unalaska, Alaska logo.png[edit]

File:Unalaska, Alaska logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Indefatigable2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Simple text arrangement alone is unlikely to meet the minimum threshold for copyright protection, and the fair use label should be replaced with {{PD-textlogo}}. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relicense per nom and undelete larger version. - Eureka Lott 22:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill Clinton Boulevard2.jpg[edit]

File:Bill Clinton Boulevard2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Genjix (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I requested its undeletion, since Kosovo now has liberal Freedom of Panorama, thinking that it may show the Bill Clinton statue or one of the buildings along the road. My assumption went wrong (mostly due to deleted files not visible to me as a non-admin). The main object here is a billboard, and Kosovar FoP does not cover works that are typically mean for temporary exhibition, inclusive of most billboards. If the underlying image of Bill Clinton is from a freely-licensed US government source, then it can be kept and transferred to Commons under a suitable PD-USGov tag. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: The image I nominated dates to ca. 2010. A Commons file that incidentally includes the billboard is c:File:American flag on Bill Clinton Boulevard in Prishtinë.jpg (dates to 2018) which shows a very different billboard: a proof that Bill Clinton billboard here is not meant to be permanent. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logan-Cache Airport overview, Oct 2016.jpg[edit]

File:Logan-Cache Airport overview, Oct 2016.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GoMan195531 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC1, airport still exists. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 11:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gift IFSC.jpg[edit]

File:Gift IFSC.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DSP2092 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Seems to be an artist rendition of the place. Permission needed. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 14:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Regular Epic Final Battle Part 1.webp[edit]

File:A Regular Epic Final Battle Part 1.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Masterof6cartoons (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Also affected:

File:A Regular Epic Final Battle Part 2.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Masterof6cartoons (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:A Regular Epic Final Battle Part 3.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Masterof6cartoons (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No need for three non-free images. We should pick at most one to keep, and delete the others. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shin hae chul.jpeg[edit]

File:Shin hae chul.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dantus21 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file Sangjinhwa (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gaga meat dress.jpg[edit]

File:Gaga meat dress.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nokia621 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Press photo. Fails NFCC#2. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Anglo-Dutch Wars orders of battle[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disinformation operations[edit]

Nominator's rationale: this is follow-up on this previous discussion. After purging it is more clearly about disinformation, but does not clearly distinguish itself from its parent Category:Disinformation. Hence manually merge (only insofar appropriate). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coddlebean, Nederlandse Leeuw, and Hmains: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    do not agree 'Disinformation' is a about a fact: false and misleading information. 'Disinformation operations' is about a process, something that people are organized to carry out, generally by a political entity of some kind. Very different articles involved, as they should be. Hmains (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invasions by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category will never have more than its current 2 subcategories: Category:Invasions by country invaded‎ and Category:Invasions by invading country‎. It exists only by virtue of the ambiguous meaning of the word "country", which is only explained by the two subcategories. It therefore does not aid navigation, and should be upmerged to its parents so that direct navigation to the subcategories is possible. NLeeuw (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. "This category will never have more than its current 2 subcategories"? Check again, your argument is invalidated. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just stacking the category with grandchild categories. It really doesn't aid navigation. It remains a redundant layer. NLeeuw (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated and delete all new subcats, merely creating extra container categories doesn't improve navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support deleting all new subcats as nom. I don't know if I should tag them as well, but I think we should make clear to the creator that creating new subcats isn't very helpful in the middle of a CFD, and in fact somewhat disruptive. (There is probably a guideline against it, but I can't find it right now). I would ask @AHI-3000: to please stop creating new subcategories of this category for the duration of this CFD. Thanks in advance. NLeeuw (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete subcats Per WP:NARROWCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish prisoners and detainees[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that the intersection of being jewish and a prisoners and detainees is defining under WP:EGRS. Do we have categories for Christian gulag detainees? I also think that Jews who died in prison custody in not a defining intersection between location of death and ethnicity. Mason (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope I don't derail the entire discussion by bringing up the Holocaust, but... being Jewish as a prisoner is perhaps one of the most defining identity aspects in the 20th century. Just saying... The religious aspect does not appear to be as important as the "ethnic" or "cultural" aspects of Jewishness, so the comparison with Christian prisoners only goes so far. NLeeuw (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ukrainian-Jewish emigrants to the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between being a Ukrainian emigrant to the United Kingdom, Being a Jewish emigrant to the United Kingdom, and being Ukrainian-Jewish. Mason (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freely licensed images of non-free subject[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "Subject" should be plural. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, as the concern is based on English usage. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:C2B WP:PLURALCAT. NLeeuw (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountaineering organizations[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These are both climbing and mountaineering organizations so the separation is no longer useful, better to have one single category called Category:Climbing and mountaineering organizations Aszx5000 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountaineering film directors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There are several major 'climbing' directors (e.g. Jimmy Chin) that would fit in here but the category needs to be renamed (no need for two separate categories as there is a lot of overlap in the film sector). Aszx5000 (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about mountaineering[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As per the recent CfD on Category:Climbing and mountaineering books, the Category:Works about mountaineering should be merged into Category:Works about climbing, which should then be renamed as Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountaineering films[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As per the recent CfD on Category:Climbing and mountaineering books, the Category:Mountaineering films should be merged into Category:Climbing films, which itself should be renamed as Category:Climbing and mountaineering films. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egyptian films by year[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Misconceived category scheme without precedent or siblings. Despite the name of the parent category here, the contents are not actually "by year" -- Wikipedia does not categorize films for the intersection of country with individual year of release anyway, so that wouldn't even be supportable. Instead, what's actually here is two subcategories for Egyptian films by century -- but that's not a thing we do either, because that's far too wide a classification to be useful when it comes to film, and no other country has anything like this.
And for added bonus, by far the majority of Egyptian films haven't even actually been filed under here at all: Category:Egyptian films by genre has around 500 films under it, while this has just 37.
We can and do cross-categorize films on the intersection of country with decade, so no prejudice against the creation of that scheme here if desired, but by-century is too broad to be a useful grouping when it comes to films.
The Category:Lists of Egyptian films by year subcategory is fine, but is already in Category:Lists of Egyptian films, so no replacement of this is needed. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the request was on grounds that are not actually applicable. While it is true that some other countries do have "films by century" categories, no other country has them to contain individual films as these do — where they do exist, they exist exclusively as container-only parents for the by-decade categories that Egypt doesn't have, and no other country has individual films being directly catted "by century" at all. So, again, if somebody is willing to buckle down and create by decade categories for Egypt, then these could be kept as parents for those by decade categories — but until by decade categories do exist, these do not need to exist with individual films filed directly in them, because that just isn't how films are categorized. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople who died in wars[edit]

Nominator's rationale: A non-defining intersection of unrelated characteristics. User:Namiba 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I do think that the Olympians category could make an interesting list, but the category itself isn't defining at the intersection, unless the sportperson died while they were actively participating in the sport. Mason (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should we do about Category:Lists of sportspeople who died in wars? AHI-3000 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem defining. I am also dubious about all the contents of Category:Lists of sportspeople who died in wars for similar reasons. However, the articles should be dealt with there before messing with the category. This is not a "but what about this one" situation where just because another bad category exists, this one can be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of films by date[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that it is redundant, it helps keep the parent category less crowded.★Trekker (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is 14 or 15 subcategories, that does not make the difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deuteronomistic history[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The category explanation is not universally accepted, see the last paragraph of the section Deuteronomistic history. If not merged, rename to Category:Former Prophets as a more useful title – see the section Former Prophets in the article Nevi'im. – Fayenatic London 11:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:India MPs 2019–present[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The 2024 Indian general election was declared and is currently going on. The term of the previous MPs definitely ended in 2024. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why such a rush? Let's not close this discussion until the 2019 parliament is formally dissolved. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer / oppose per Marcocapelle / WP:CRYSTAL. NLeeuw (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian musicians by ethnic or national origin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per parent categories Category:Musicians by ethnicity and Category:Canadian people by ethnicity. With the exception of the Asian subcategory this is about people's own ethnicity, not about their ancestors' nationality. The Asian subcategory may be moved directly under Category:Canadian musicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executed French people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, primarily because this is diffusion by defunct administrative divisions (defunct since 2015), and secondarily because diffusion by administrative division leads to a trivial intersection. Manually merge insofar the articles aren't already in one of the other subcategories e.g. Category:French people executed by Nazi Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. There's really no need to diffuse by location. Century and crime would be more useful for diffusion Mason (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drakengard[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There seems to be enough articles for a split, with 11 going to Nier and 7 going to Drakengard. Bringing to CFD as I am uncertain in this split, and with Nier not having a series article yet. Category:Nier would also likely be a subcategory of Category:Drakengard. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Drakengard still concerns both series and is solely titled "Drakengard". If it is split off into a Nier series article I'd have no qualms with this, but it's putting the cart before the horse. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think a series article needs to be created before a category is created. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Zxcvbnm. As is, the Drakengard article covers both the Drakengard and Nier as part of the same series, and makes no implication that they should be separate. I am sure there is enough coverage that one could make a separate Nier article, but that none exists at this point suggests to me that it isn't necessary, or that it is better to keep them together. Regardless of the reason, the categories should follow suit. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

West Ardougne[edit]

This location in RuneScape is not described in the target article. A reader is better served by not having been redirected there. WP:RFD#DELETE #8 and 10. Викидим (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blagger[edit]

This was flagged up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Searching for "Blagger" currently redirects to a page with no mention of the word. by user:Oathed with the comment seems weird that it doesn't link or disambig to Blagger (video game). Not sure how to mark a page for "Disambig page needed". At the very least this does need a hatnote to the video game, but I'm not acutally sure the video game isn't the primary target. Neither the present target nor Pretexting (linked as the main article) use the term. The only other uses I'm finding (Blaggers ITA (formerly known as The Blaggers) and The Blaggers Guide would be at most see-alsos on a dab page.
The video game article was created at this title but moved in March 2018 by Zxcvbnm with the summary "Merge, in order to disambiguate" but they just changed the redirect target and added a hatnote. The hatnote was removed without explanation by an IP in 2020, but the mention of "blagging" had been removed in July 2018 as part of a cull of unreferenced information by Michaelgt123. None of "blag", "blagging" or "blagger" has ever been included in the Pretext article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freaky deaky Dutch[edit]

possible WP:FANCRUFT Okmrman (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fancruft. The phrase is spoken in the movie Goldmember but it is implausible as a reasonable redirect, as people familiar with the phrase will undoubtedly be familiar with the film name. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANDSF[edit]

Likely primary topic is Afghan National Security Forces, not this internet protocol component. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANDSF (disambiguation) will likely be deleted unless it decided to be moved to this title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its prod expired, so ANDSF (disambiguation) is no more mwwv converse∫edits 21:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nominator. Internet search results for "ANDSF" alone refer overwhelmingly to the former military. --NFSreloaded (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and add hatnote per nom. Okmrman (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since the current target is also known as "ANDSF" and a hatnote has already been placed there. CycloneYoris talk! 01:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark (MCC cricketer) and others[edit]

These redirects were articles created in 2017 by (blocked user) BlackJack, and PRODed by @Blue Square Thing: in 2019, but redirected by @Andrew Davidson:. The names of the subjects of the redirects do not appear in the target article, and are never likely to, and do not appear in List of Marylebone Cricket Club players (1787–1826) because that list is for first-class players, which these apparently weren't. It's confusing to have a redirect to a target with zero substantive information about the subject so I recommend delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've check each person in CricketArchive's database to check whether any additional information has been added about them, but in no case has anything that might be able to suggest notability been added. There are still no forenames, dates or so on. None of them played first-class cricket either. There are, by the way, three players simply called Warren who have played non-first-class matches for MCC, two Markhams, two J Lewis', three Jones', three Jacksons and two Cookes, so I'm not sure how helpful such redirects would be. If I came across these articles today I'd be likely to PROD them still, so, unsurprisingly, I'd suggest deleting the redirects. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"[edit]

A variant of the title without quotes, What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children !?, redirects to Think of the children (which prominently mentions Helen Lovejoy). Additionally, I don't think redirects surrounded by quotes often exist here. Xeroctic (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another variant, with minor typographical differences, "What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children?!" (notice the reversed interrobang in the last sentence) redirects to Think of the children as well. Xeroctic (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valéncia[edit]

Nominating on behalf of Agpshi, who nominated this redirect via PROD with the following rationale: The name with an acute accent is not used either in academic or official sources and, in spite of some recent attempts at making it official (stemming from one of the parties currently governing the city, Vox), it has never been so and it is unlikely that they will succeed. CycloneYoris talk! 09:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – First of all, why was the redirect target changed? As far as I know that shouldn't happen until the discussion is closed, should it? Ok I see this is standard for rfd.
Second, the question here isn't whether Valéncia is some kind of official name. It's a name that is in use, and even if you consider it to be a misspelling, some people are likely to type it in when looking for Valencia. So it needs to be a redirect. GA-RT-22 (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Valéncia" itself is an historical name. It's also mentioned on LOTS of Valencian articles as well as books written in Valencia. Here you have a prime proof of this, coming from a Valencian Book Editorial (L'Oronella) = https://www.oronella.com/botiga/histories-de-valencia/
I have found this 1996 source from the University of La Rioja based on 1850-1930 information, that is already mentioning this name: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6888722
Same mentioned in the University of Valencia Scientifical Production website = https://producciocientifica.uv.es/documentos/6409378dc654e74950596fde
The official Spanish Government Judiciary and Justice Courts website (MUGEJU) directly writes it as Valéncia/Valencia, and this is an official government site, ruled by Partido Socialista Obrero Español which is the opposing party to both regional ruling PP and even more Vox. Source: https://www.mugeju.es/que-es-mugeju/nuestras-oficinas/delegaciones-provinciales/valenciavalencia
Without mentioning tons of many more reliable sources, historical sources... And without mentioning that all Valencian regionalism parties and associations always write Valéncia, as it's also written in the Norms of El Puig standarized Valencian, which is part of the Royal Academy of Valencian Culture, the oldest Valencian language institution (much older than the actual Academia Valenciana de la Llengua which was created in 1998 and RACV in 1915) so the page Valéncia should include the redirect to the page of Valencia.
And not only that, but also written text that Valéncia is a correct form of spelling Valencia in Valencian. As both Valéncia and València are accepted. Even an inform from the actual AVL (the organisation that regulated the Valencian language) from 2007 said that the proper Valencian name of Valencia is Valéncia: https://www.esdiario.com/valencia/138023357/avl-defendio-acento-cerrado-valencia.html
I am Galician and I have been living in Valencia for a good amount of years. I'm neutral over this, but I do actually know quite a lot about the local and regional history. There is no benefit from trying to hide out what a lot of people think and what also is backed up by many RSs. I have deleted myself the word "Valéncia" from the lead of the page Valencia and I wrote by myself that's officially called València (check my history) but still, we can't delete the will of many people, especially when it's properly sourced even with academical sources.
I hope you will take a proper look at this as I've spent 30 minutes writing this. Thanks. LucenseLugo (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the AVL has never accepted "Valéncia" as a proper spelling. As you can check from reading the newspaper beyond the headline, that was just a personal statement by Abelard Saragossà (a great academic, on the other hand). So you are wrong: "Valéncia" is not a correct form and it is not accepted by the AVL.
The RACV may be as old as they want, but that does not legitimate them. The Society of Homeopaths, for example, is about the same age. To begin with, the ortographic rules developed by the RACV are from 1979, whereas the rules employed by the AVL are from 1932 (Norms of Castelló). And, in terms of usage, it should be quite clear that you cannot compare. L'Oronella, which you have mentioned, is the only secessionist editorial currently active in Valencia, they are highly linked to the RACV and their production is scarce (153 books between 1999 and 2005).
In the second place, the proposal did stem from Vox, insofar as the mayor of Valencia (PP) wanted the name to be changed to València/Valencia, instead, as you can see here: https://valenciaplaza.com/vox-impone-al-pp-el-acento-cerrado-en-el-nombre-de-valencia-y-desata-la-primera-pelea-entre-ediles
In the third place, "Valéncia" is not a historical name. It did not have an accent back when accents still did not exist and the only accepted name ever since Valencian was made official again is "València".
Four, the University of Valencia and the one you think is from the University of La Rioja sources are the same. I should mention that the La Rioja source is not from the University of La Rioja, but, just as any Spanish academic knows, from Dialnet, an bibliographic database hosted by the University of La Rioja. And Producció Científica UV takes its data from Dialnet (I know it because I work there). So the source is not from that university, but from whoever authored the article (in this case, Joaquín Azagra).
And, highly related to my fourth point, that source (the only academic source you provided) seems to be a misspelling based on the fact that Spanish does not have a grave accent. Check the index of the book in which that chapter is contained: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/libro?codigo=9785
As you will see in that index, whoever transcribed the name of the article made many accent-related mistakes. He writes "origens" instead of "orígens" and "demográfica" instead of "demogràfica", for example (and those two accents are the same no matter whether you use the Valencian official rules or the alternative rules employed by the RACV).
Finally, I suggest you take a look at the introduction to the book in which that chapter is contained, which is accessible online and which was authored by Azagra himself: https://www.raco.cat/index.php/HistoriaIndustrial/article/download/63111/84922
If you are willing to accept that that book chapter supports your claims about "Valéncia" being an academically acceptable name, I guess you will also accept that "Valencian Country" is an appropriate name for the Community, right? But, still, you have in the past called a source biased only because it used that name (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valencian_language&diff=prev&oldid=1180807282). So I guess you are no longer willing to use that book chapter as a source.
So the only source you are left with is MUGEJU, which is not, as you claim, "the Judiciary and Justice Courts website" but just a mutuality for the members of the judiciary.

--Agpshi (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't read all of that.
Here we are voting to keep it or deleting it.
At the moment 3 of us voted to keep it and you are the only one who wants to delete it, as you made this. Please stick to the voting. LucenseLugo (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, is there some way to find out how many people searched on this term before the redirect was in place? If it's "none" then I could be convinced we don't need it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medicare’s problems[edit]

This redirect was an article for less than an hour. While the Medicare (United States) article does mention "Medicare's problems" relating to fiscal policy, they are not the same "problems" ("coverage limitations") mentioned in the WP:BLARed article. Additionally, "Medicare" may also refer to the Canadian and Australian systems, each of which surely has its own problems. I think this is a figurative WP:XY case, and this redirect should be deleted; there are just too many things its title could mean. (Note: the apostrophe is a curly one, not the straight one ordinarily used on Wikipedia.) PleaseStand (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Janata Party, Mrghalaya[edit]

Unlikely misspelling of Meghalaya. Gotitbro (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrosexual[edit]

Not mentioned. Retarget to wikt:gastrosexual if there's no mention anywhere else. --MikutoH talk! 04:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flexisexual[edit]

Retarget to wikt:flexisexual or sexual fluidity. This section doesn't exist or was changed nor is it mentioned there (anymore). --MikutoH talk! 04:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Rosenfeld(rugby league player)[edit]

Apparently, this redirect has too significant of an edit history to be speedily deleted for WP:X3. However, the page history doesn't look that substantive and it's just someone trying to make a page for a topic that already had a page. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Parser function[edit]

Both of these redirects should probably target the same page. I'm neutral on which option to pick. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget the latter to Help:Magic words#Parser functions. Its title does not unambiguously refer to either target, whether the list of parser functions available here (both words are capitalized) or those provided by the ParserFunctions MediaWiki extension (there is a space between the words). The first target is nevertheless better, because it provides useful information regarding this particular site that the reader may be looking for, as well as a link to the same MediaWiki.org page in the section hatnote (no extra click versus a soft redirect). PleaseStand (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American actress[edit]

This seems oddly and overly specific. I feel like we wouldn't want to make a habit of having nationality-plus-profession redirects to articles on professions that do not have an affinity for nationalities (which most do not). I note, by the way, that American actor redirects to Lists of American actors. BD2412 T 00:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Lists of American actors. Much more useful to readers than the current target. Thefficacy (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on creating a mini-dab at this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Lists of American actors to match American actor. No real opposition to making a mini-dab, but I'm not particularly swayed by the idea, either. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:Neighborhoods of Miamisburg, OH[edit]

Template with just one link. Lost in Quebec (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sawankhalok Line[edit]

Redundant with Template:State Railway of Thailand Railway Stations. Jonashtand (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The State Railway navbox is extremely large and should be trimmed down. It's very hard to see where Sawankhalok line is and perhaps each line/section of railway stations should have their own navbox if they have enough minimum of links for navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Short Film Golden Bear Winners[edit]

Navigation box that isn't providing much navigation. Of the 67 films that have won this award since it was first introduced in 1956, just six of them currently have articles linked to in Short Film Golden Bear -- if there are others that have articles but have been overlooked for linking, I don't have the depth of knowledge to find most of them -- and only two of them even had their articles properly linked in this template prior to me finding it just now, so that I had to wikilink them in here myself. I additionally caught one instance where a film that won this award in the 1980s was being erroneously dual-listed as also winning it in the 1970s instead of the film that actually won it in the earlier year -- and even that, I only caught because it was one of the titles I had to link, and thus had a "hey, wait, didn't I already link that one?" moment when I got to the second appearance, so there may still be other errors in here that I failed to notice.
Additionally, the article is so cluttered up, with the names of the directors alongside most (but not all) of the films, that it takes up more visual space on the few articles than necessary and it's somewhat difficult to even find the few wikilinks on a casual scan at all because they're strewn throughout so much unlinked text.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a larger number of films listed here have articles to link -- but with very few films in this template actually having articles at present, and short films being much harder to write properly sourced articles about at the best of times due to receiving much less WP:GNG-worthy coverage as a rule, for the time being the article is sufficient and a navigation box isn't helpful. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monclova Radio/doc[edit]

Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2015 Mount Union Purple Raiders football navbox[edit]

Only three total blue links that lead to individual standalone articles and three total transclusions does not warrant existence of this navigation template. No prejudice against recreation once enough articles have been created related to this topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bluffton Beavers men's basketball coach navbox[edit]

Only three total blue links that lead to individual standalone articles and two total transclusions does not warrant existence of this navigation template. No prejudice against recreation once enough articles have been created related to this topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lindsey Wilson Blue Raiders football coach navbox[edit]

Only three total blue links that lead to individual standalone articles and two total transclusions does not warrant existence of this navigation template. No prejudice against recreation once enough articles have been created related to this topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

Paulin Basinga[edit]

Paulin Basinga (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't believe this closure was appropriate. I provided legitimate points to clarify the raised issues to keep the page, there are as many "Keep" same as "Delete". None of the votes for "delete" replied to the comments. I recommend this AFD be reopened. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy endorse as a bad-faith appeal. The appellant says, there are as many "Keep" same as "Delete". That is an outright lie. Even going by nose count alone, there are two Keeps and four Deletes. We could go into the weakness of those two Keep arguments, but I don't think DRV should entertain dishonest appeals even if they have merit, which this one doesn't. Owen× ☎ 10:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Couldn’t have been closed any other way. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clear consensus to delete. However I do not believe this DRV was made in bad faith. Frank Anchor 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you believe the appellant got mixed up when counting "Keep" and "Delete" !votes? It strains credulity to think this is anything but their attempt to misrepresent facts. Owen× ☎ 17:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is most likely the appellant discounted some delete votes for unstated reasons. I don’t agree with that assessment if that is the case. Frank Anchor 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1222059439"