Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Request for deletion)
Shortcuts
If you think a page should be deleted, read the deletion policy to make sure.
Then follow these instructions on how to request a page for deletion. To find more information on what discussed deletions and quick deletions are:
PLEASE READ THIS

Before nominating: checks and alternatives

change
Shortcut

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:

A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines
  1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion.
  2. The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
  3. Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines
B. Carry out these checks
  1. Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for quick deletion.
  2. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)
  3. Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
  4. Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
  5. Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
  6. Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lead.
C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
  1. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for RfD.
  2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
  3. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to fix it.
  4. If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.
D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
  1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
  2. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an RfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an RfD nomination may still be appropriate.
  3. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}.

Discussed deletion

change
Put the deletion tag on the article.
  1. Click "Change source" at the top of the page to be deleted.
  2. In the edit box, add this tag: {{rfd|REASON}}. Put it at the top of the page, above the rest of the text. Then, replace the text "REASON" with a short reason why the page should be deleted. Do not be too specific here. You can add more details on the discussion page (see below).
    • It is a good idea to write a change summary to let others know what you are doing. You can say "nominating for deletion", "requesting deletion", or something like that.
  3. Click "Save changes" at the bottom to save the page with the deletion tag at the top.
    • You can also check the "Watch this page" check box to add the page to your watchlist. This lets you know if the page for deletion has been changed. If the deletion tag is removed any time before the discussion is closed, it should be put back.
Create a discussion page.
  1. If the deletion tag has been added to the page, a box should appear at the top of the article with a link saying "Click here to create a discussion page!" Click that link.
  2. You should be taken to a page starting with "Creating Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/..." along with the current year and the name of the article to be deleted. In the edit box, the following tag should have already been added: {{RfD/Preload/Template}} . Replace the text PLACE REASON HERE with a more detailed reason why the page should be deleted.
    • It is helpful to include links to the various policy pages about Wikipedia (that begin with Wikipedia:). Here are some examples of this: "This article is [[Wikipedia:COMPLEX|not easy to understand]]" or "Not a [[Wikipedia:notable|notable]] topic''. This will make others more aware of why the page is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies.
  3. Click "Save changes" to save the new discussion page when you are done.
    • A change summary you can write for this page is "creating discussion page", "starting deletion discussion", or something like that.
    • As with the page for deletion, you can check the "Watch the page" box. This will let you know if someone else has replied to your discussion.
List it here
  1. Copy the title of the discussion page to the clipboard. You can do this by dragging the mouse over the text from "Wikipedia" to the end of the page title to highlight it, then right-clicking and selecting "Copy".
  2. Go to the list of deletion requests, and click "change source" beside the words "Current deletion request discussions".
  3. At the top of the list of discussions, paste the title from the clipboard (right-click and select "Paste"). Add a pair of curly brackets before and after the title to make a template that will copy the content of the discussion page onto the main deletion page, like this:
    {{Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/(name of page to be deleted)}}
  4. Finally, click "Save changes" to add the discussion to the list. If the page saves successfully, you should see your deletion discussion at the top of the list. And that's it!

If this is too complicated for you, there are some gadgets like Twinkle that you can use. This allows you to do it faster.

Quick deletion

change
See also: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Quick deletion

If you think a page has nonsense content, add {{non}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page does not say why the subject is important, add {{notable}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page should be deleted per other quick deletion rules, add {{QD|reason}} to the top of the page.

Notifying the user

change

Generally, you should try to be civil and tell the user that created the page to join the discussion talking about the page. This can be done by adding {{subst:RFDNote|page to be deleted}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talkpage.

Discussions

change
See also: Wikipedia:Deletion review
  • The discussion is not a vote. Please make suggestions on what action to take, and support your suggestion with reasons.
  • Please look at the article before you make a suggestion. Do not make an opinion using only the information given by the nominator. Looking at the history of the article may help to understand the situation.
  • Please read other comments and suggestions. They may have helpful information.
  • Start your comments or suggestions on a new line. Start with * and sign after your comment by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs and make sure your comment is indented (using more than one *).
  • New users can make suggestions, but their ideas may not be considered, especially if the suggestion seems to be made in bad faith. The opinion of users who had an account before the start of the request may be given more weight or importance.
  • Suggestions by users using "sock puppets" (more than one account belonging to the same person) will not be counted.
  • Please make only one suggestion. If you change your mind, change your first idea instead of adding a new one. The best way to do this is to put <s> before your old idea and </s> after it. For example, if you wanted to delete an article but now think it should be kept, you could put: "Delete keep".
  • If you would like an article to be kept, you can improve the article and try to fix the problems given in the request for deletion. If the reasons given in the nomination are fixed by changing, the nomination can be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an administrator.
  • Try to avoid confusing suggestions, such as delete and merge.
  • Requests for deletion is not a war zone. You can click here for more information, although the page is not in Simple English.

Remember: You do not have to make a suggestion for every nomination. You should think about not making a suggestion if:

  1. A nomination involves a topic that you do not know much about.
  2. Everyone has made the same suggestion and you agree with that suggestion.
  • All times are in UTC.

Current deletion request discussions

change

Battle of Dewair

change
Battle of Dewair (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Shakib ul hassan has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The sources followed others that they falsely claim have been written by the historian Jadunath Sarkar[1][2][3], but there is no evidence of this. The works of Sarkar they cite link to an introductory page about the scholar, not to any of his works[4]. The sources used are unreliable and highly biased, contravening WP:NPOV. Moreover, the page's content also violates WP:GNG since it does not have significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. In summary, the article fails to be up to publishable standards and needs deletion. Shakib ul hassan talk! 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 13:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Janmejay (author)

change
Janmejay (author) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Kuskrey has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Page is published like a CV for the Subject with no Notability Other Please check if I am not Wrong Ksy 10:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 10:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The Crow Eaters

change
The Crow Eaters (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Garudam has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No source whatsoever and It could not be expanded, simply because it does not have enough independent significant coverage. Not even the parent article that is Bapsi Sidhwa revolves around this topic. Garudam (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

Keep, per English Wikipedia BigKrow (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 10:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Thalison Lanoa

change
Thalison Lanoa (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The Comitê Nacional de Arte Brasileira may or may not be notable, their website is here. The person we are talking about here is an 18 year old, who is married. If we look at other arts-inspired institutions, officeholders often are highly-distinguished people. Looking at this acssociation, its officeholders look young. I am therefore unsure if the association or its officeholders have enough notability, for inclusion. Comments? Eptalon (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 10:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Rozvi Empire

change
Rozvi Empire (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Garudam has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: There is little to no coverage on this entity, Britannica does not refer it as "Rozvi Empire" to begin with. Garudam (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

Keep per English Wikipedia BigKrow (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 09:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The Loud House: The Louds' First Movie

change
The Loud House: The Louds' First Movie (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

2601:644:907E:A70:D1E8:7350:E433:8B6B has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This is a hoax, but for some reason Fr33kman declined the quick deletion. 2601:644:907E:A70:D1E8:7350:E433:8B6B (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 20:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Battle of Tinos Strait

change
Battle of Tinos Strait (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: not finding anything reliability just takes me to this simple English Wikipedia page... BigKrow (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 19:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Stan Zurkiewicz

change
Stan Zurkiewicz (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable, company and self promotion. BZPN (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


E4 Entertainment

change
E4 Entertainment (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable, company promotion. BZPN (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Our Lady of Life Church, Mattancherry

change
Our Lady of Life Church, Mattancherry (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Raayaan9911 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-Notable Places, Sources are not good now. Raayaan9911 11:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 11:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


List of programs broadcast by Universal Junior

change
List of programs broadcast by Universal Junior (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

2601:644:907E:A70:8C6D:67DF:63B6:F123 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I was not sure if this really exists. 2601:644:907E:A70:8C6D:67DF:63B6:F123 (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 06:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Similarity between Moses and Krishna

change
Similarity between Moses and Krishna (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Reads like a personal essay, not encyclopedic. No significant scholarly resources to merit an article this long. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


List of Hopla episodes

change
List of Hopla episodes (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Ternera has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not really seeing what this contributes to the project, especially when there is already a list of episodes in the Hopla article. Ternera (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 18:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


St Antony's Forane Church Kannamaly

change
St Antony's Forane Church Kannamaly (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Fr33kman has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable fr33kman 17:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 17:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Bhar caste

change
Bhar caste (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Shakib ul hassan has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: A single-line explanation for a caste group doesn’t provide enough context or detail. Additionally, I checked the source, and it doesn’t satisfies WP:GNG Shakib ul hassan talk! 22:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Moussa Said

change
Moussa Said (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Griffinofwales has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per GNG with no significant coverage in sources. He is not presumed notable per NOLY or NATH (enWP notability guidelines specific to the Olympics and track sports). Note, he does meet one criteria within our own guideline (PEOPLE#Athletes) but to quote that guideline "Meeting one or more of these guidelines does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Griff (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 21:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


List of shopping quarters in Armenia

change
List of shopping quarters in Armenia (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

GoingBatty has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Although the page title claims this is a list of "shopping quarters", it seems to be primarily a list of television stations, many of which have redlinks, no links, or links to American TV stations. GoingBatty (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 17:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Alexsys Soriano

change
Alexsys Soriano (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

2601:644:907E:A70:295C:3ECC:AAAB:B7CD has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Is this even a real person? No sources found for this specific name in Cuba. 2601:644:907E:A70:295C:3ECC:AAAB:B7CD (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 07:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Wahhabi-Qasimi Piracy in the Persian Gulf

change
Wahhabi-Qasimi Piracy in the Persian Gulf (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Kuskrey has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No Such History found Other please check if I am not wrong Ksy 07:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 07:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma

change
Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

2601:644:907E:A70:295C:3ECC:AAAB:B7CD has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Complex, AI-generated and unsourced 2601:644:907E:A70:295C:3ECC:AAAB:B7CD (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 07:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Saudi Invasion of Oman (1806-1808)

change
Saudi Invasion of Oman (1806-1808) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Kuskrey has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No Such History Found Other please check If I am not Wrong Ksy 07:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 07:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


African-American self-determination

change
African-American self-determination (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

24.130.150.141 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: It looks as if this was created by putting the first paragraph of the enwiki through an LLM and making it even more complicated. 24.130.150.141 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 21:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The battle of Basra 1803

change
The battle of Basra 1803 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

24.130.150.141 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I don't see any reliable sources about this battle. There are a lot of others at en:Battle of Basra, but I can't find one that happened in 1803. 24.130.150.141 (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  •   Delete - This article was declined as an enWP draft for the same reason, there are no sources found that indicate this battle actually occurred. Personally, I do think this battle probably did occur, as the timeline fits with the events that led to the Wahhabi War, but unfortunately we have no way of proving it. Griff (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Colorado Department of State, Petitioners v. Micheal Baca, Polly Baca, and Robert Nemanich

change
Colorado Department of State, Petitioners v. Micheal Baca, Polly Baca, and Robert Nemanich (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This title is OR. No such name exists in reality and is not used by readers. Same case as the rest of the redirects created by Invasive Species. BZPN (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap I see nothing wrong with keeping these title as they seem to be the official case names. Clearly don't see any reason to delete it.--BRP ever 16:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - The short case name, which is what Justia and SCOTUSblog (major law review sites) use, is Colorado Department of State v. Baca or Baca v. Colorado Department of State. That is an acceptable redirect. For this long case title, Google has 4 results for this term, 3 of which are WP results. To me, that indicates that the redirect is a very obscure synonym for the article (R#DELETE point 8) and meets deletion criteria. Note, I do agree with BRP that redirects are cheap, and were this a one-off situation, I also could see a reason to just keep it instead of a 7-day RFD discussion, but I would like to avoid the precedent for mass-creating very obscure redirects. Griff (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete per Griff, The shorter names are acceptable and are well known, the long title isn't well known and let's be honest no one's got time to type this long-winded title in the search bar, Shorter titles do the job better, --–Davey2010Talk 18:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete the full case name is generally not used as the identifying name outside of specific legal systems. Web sites that present summaries of cases generally use the short case name as the page name, when mentioned in discussions you usually see the short name only. The article articles *does* include the full case name, so someone doing a copy-paste for search would end up on the correct article. The use of the full case name as a redirect seems to be fairly rare at best here or on enwiki - I checked about a dozen major or recent supreme court decisions and did not find any with a redirect of the full, formal case name. While I agree that redirects are cheap, I think that especially here having redirects that have a chance to be used, that aren't going to turn up in the search results for a page and are used in sources outside of stating the formal case name makes sense. This wouldn't meet any of those. Ravensfire (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Naturally I always take the opinion, like BRP, that redirects are cheaper as they do not save on storage space or anything like that. Once it's created, there is not really a benefit of deleting them. I don't want to set a precedent of encouraging redirects like this, per what Griffinofwales has said here or what Chenzw mentioned on a similar case, Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. 578 (2020), writing the full legal citation as opposed to just the case name. While this is relatively obscure, there is still a slim chance that a user may use this redirect. I appreciate many also mention the search bar in these discussions, I imagine it isn't just me who uses the address bar for finding pages with the assumption it will redirect with what I'm looking for? My point is: If someone is feeling lazy and happens to be reading on a more detailed version of the case and simply copy and pastes it into the address bar on this Wikipedia, they will instead be met with a delete screen, when they could have just been redirected with the same amount of effort. No maintenance needed, no storage space taken up - it's there already, we don't want these things to be created but it's here now, what is the benefit of deleting it? --Ferien (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien: there's not even a slim chance that a user could use this redirect (by the way, it's easier to make a typo here than to type it all correctly). And besides, where is the timelessness of this title? After all, it contains the names of current officials. What if they change in a few years? Are we going to keep changing the redirect title every few years? There is no logic in this. This redirect is useless. BZPN (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting they would copy it out manually, I did say copy and paste from a legal document. The current officials will change, but the case was made in 2020 so naturally we are using the names of the officials in the case at the time its outcome was decided. Incoming officials will not be involved/relevant in this case. --Ferien (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone pastes the full title into the address bar on enwiki, they get [6] no article found screen, not much better than the deleted page. Incidently, I discovered that the person who created this redirect didn't even bother to create one using the short name. Enwiki doesn't have an article on this case, but does have a redirect (only with the short name) to the same Chiafalo case. It does not have a redirect on the full case name. Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 16:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Peter B. Chiafalo, Levi Jennet Guerra, and Esther Virginia John, Petitioners v. Washington

change
Peter B. Chiafalo, Levi Jennet Guerra, and Esther Virginia John, Petitioners v. Washington (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This title is OR. No such name exists in reality and is not used by readers. Same case as the rest of the redirects created by Invasive Species. BZPN (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap I see nothing wrong with keeping these title as they seem to be the official case names. Clearly don't see any reason to delete it.--BRP ever 16:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - The short case name, which is what Justia and SCOTUSblog (major law review sites) use, is Chiafalo v. Washington. That is an acceptable redirect. For this long case title, all of Google's results use Chiafalo v. Washington as the primary reference. To me, that indicates that the redirect is a very obscure synonym for the article (R#DELETE point 8) and meets deletion criteria. Note, I do agree with BRP that redirects are cheap, and were this a one-off situation, I also could see a reason to just keep it instead of a 7-day RFD discussion, but I would like to avoid the precedent for mass-creating very obscure redirects. Griff (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete per Griff, The shorter names are acceptable and are well known, the long title isn't well known and let's be honest no one's got time to type this long-winded title in the search bar, Shorter titles do the job better, --–Davey2010Talk 18:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete the full case name is generally not used as the identifying name outside of specific legal systems. Web sites that present summaries of cases generally use the short case name as the page name, when mentioned in discussions you usually see the short name only. The article articles *does* include the full case name, so someone doing a copy-paste for search would end up on the correct article. The use of the full case name as a redirect seems to be fairly rare at best here or on enwiki - I checked about a dozen major or recent supreme court decisions and did not find any with a redirect of the full, formal case name. While I agree that redirects are cheap, I think that especially here having redirects that have a chance to be used, that aren't going to turn up in the search results for a page and are used in sources outside of stating the formal case name makes sense. This wouldn't meet any of those. Ravensfire (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete While yes redirects are cheap, this title would not provide any use for the encyclopedia, and as Griff said above, a shorter version of the name seems to be used more commonly.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Naturally I always take the opinion, like BRP, that redirects are cheaper as they do not save on storage space or anything like that. Once it's created, there is not really a benefit of deleting them. I don't want to set a precedent of encouraging redirects like this, per what Griffinofwales has said here or what Chenzw mentioned on a similar case, Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. 578 (2020), writing the full legal citation as opposed to just the case name. While this is relatively obscure, there is still a slim chance that a user may use this redirect. I appreciate many also mention the search bar in these discussions, I imagine it isn't just me who uses the address bar for finding pages with the assumption it will redirect with what I'm looking for? My point is: If someone is feeling lazy and happens to be reading on a more detailed version of the case and simply copy and pastes it into the address bar on this Wikipedia, they will instead be met with a delete screen, when they could have just been redirected with the same amount of effort. No maintenance needed, no storage space taken up - it's there already, we don't want these things to be created but it's here now, what is the benefit of deleting it? For the record, the justification for this is copy and pasted from Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Colorado Department of State, Petitioners v. Micheal Baca, Polly Baca, and Robert Nemanich as it is an identical case. --Ferien (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien: there's not even a slim chance that a user could use this redirect (by the way, it's easier to make a typo here than to type it all correctly). And besides, where is the timelessness of this title? After all, it contains the names of current officials. What if they change in a few years? Are we going to keep changing the redirect title every few years? There is no logic in this. This redirect is useless. Comment also copied from Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Colorado Department of State, Petitioners v. Micheal Baca, Polly Baca, and Robert Nemanich BZPN (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting they would copy it out manually, I did say copy and paste from a legal document. The current officials will change, but the case was made in 2020 so naturally we are using the names of the officials in the case at the time its outcome was decided. Incoming officials will not be involved/relevant in this case. --Ferien (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 16:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Category:Paintings by Francesco Filippini

change
Category:Paintings by Francesco Filippini (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Griffinofwales has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I am nominating all articles within this category as they do not meet GNG, as they have not received significant coverage or shown notability otherwise. Griff (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
Hi Auntof6, it is a nomination of the articles (which hopefully the nomination statement makes clear) within the category, and the category itself (which will become empty if this RFD is successful). Instead of 20 RFDs, I figured one combined RFD would be the best course of action, since the nomination criteria is the same for all. Griff (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 15:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


H₂weh₁yú

change
H₂weh₁yú (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Davey2010 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Nominating per en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H₂weh₁yú - The article starts off with "₂weh₁-yú is believed to be a god who controls the wind" (emphasis mine), Pretty much an wp:OR article, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 13:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

  Delete per AFD. To summarise that AFD, and my own deletion reasons, while the concept of this wind god is well-established, there is not any true evidence within the sources that a wind god named H₂weh₁yú ever existed. I encourage anyone commenting on this request to review the very well-researched AFD on enWP. Griff (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 13:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Chamar Rajput

change
Chamar Rajput (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

NXcrypto has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The redirect "Chamar Rajput" is false and promotes a hoax. Rajputs and Chamars are different social groups, and this title spreads incorrect information. It seems to have been created with caste bias. NXcrypto Chatting 13:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 13:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mortoza Polash

change
Mortoza Polash (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Bovlb has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Cross-wiki spam with repurposing and conflation. I just separated the Wikidata item from the conflated entity. The claimed award appears to be a stolen accolade. Bovlb (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Great Shiite invasion

change
Great Shiite invasion (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Mahmut8121 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: the page is too simple and there is no sources about it Mahmut8121 (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 11:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:Gurjar clans

change
Template:Gurjar clans (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Griffinofwales has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Nominating this template and all associated clan pages. There are nearly 2000 of these clans and are certainly not notable. The sources in the articles are passing references. If some clans have something "useful" to include in an article, it can be included as part of the Gurjar article. Griff (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 02:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


2018 siirt Raid

change
2018 siirt Raid (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

174.160.82.127 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This was created just because en:2018 Siirt raid didn't say "PKK victory" and the creator wanted it to say that. It's not clear that it actually was a PKK victory, given 3 PKK militants killed afterwards. So this article was just created to say something different than the enwiki article. 174.160.82.127 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 20:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Keep. /Withdrawn as User:Shakib ul hassan has expanded and cited the article, I know closing whilst having delete !votes present isn't preferred however BigKrow's comment re topic being fake is obviously untrue and I don't believe BZPN would mind me closing this either, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 12:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandragupta II's conquest of the Vahlika Hunas

change
Chandragupta II's conquest of the Vahlika Hunas (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Davey2010 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non notable topic, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 17:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  •   Keep: Rationale provided by the nominator is entirely incorrect, as it is evident they did not conduct a proper WP:BEFORE search. It is difficult to understand how this event fails to meet the GNG when sources broadly and explicitly discuss it. The article's issues were primarily related to style, cohesion, and lack of content, all of which I have now addressed. Garudam (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your rationale is completely wrong for 2 reasons;
    This article wasn't nominated based on the style, cohesion, or lack of content, It was nominated for deletion based on the notability (or lack of). FYI I rescue articles similar to this at RFDs on a daily basis and I'm very much an inclusionist so I strongly object to your comments regarding my BEFORE search and the reasons for this nomination. –Davey2010Talk 19:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again you're incorrect here. An article on the same topic previously existed as Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh on Enwiki which was redirected to Chandragupta II as the issue was SIGCOV and clarity which contradicts your notability part, moreover Google hits do not affirm notability, generally it presents some blogs which are unreliable anyways. Coming to Google books which is the only good WP:BEFORE done so far, It appears that you overlooked the hits on Google books as there's certainly at least two [8][9] RS'es at the first sight that describes this event. And lastly the other wiki argument should be avoided.
    PS: I sincerely respect your dedication however I'm myself a deletionist on Enwiki even so I carefully examine the quality of sources and notability of the topic before jumping into any conclusion. Best regards. Garudam (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I'm correct here. Okay I wasn't aware of it's existence at Enwiki however that further solidifies my point; It's a non notable topic. You can criticize my BEFORE search as much as you like point is I thoroughly searched the results page, News and Books and so far did not come across anything substantial or IN-DEPTH so I've done my part here, I won't be responding further as we obviously don't agree and no amount of replying will help either of us, Have a great day and Happy editing, Best Regards, –Davey2010Talk 01:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Davey,
    I understand your concerns about the notability of the article. The version you nominated for deletion did fall short of meeting WP:GNG. However, I’ve since added more WP:RS to strengthen the article’s general notability. Additionally, I’ve introduced a new section titled Modern Reconstruction, which aims to piece together this particular historical event. Let me know your thoughts! Shakib ul hassan talk! 11:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete per nom. BZPN (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Shakib ul hassan, Thanks so much for expanding and citing this, Maybe I did get this wrong but yeah I'm certainly happy for this to be kept as it does appear to be a notable subject, Thanks again for your hardwork it's much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Battle of Kore (1991)

change
Battle of Kore (1991) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Seems like it doesn't exist, i searched found nothing. Delete? BigKrow (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 17:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Ror dynasty

change
Ror dynasty (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Enwiki AfD: en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ror dynasty. Either the dynasty is fictional, or details about it are fictional and not significant enough for its own article. No reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 05:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Colt Gray

change
Colt Gray (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Griffinofwales has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: WP:CRIME: "A person who is notable only because they were the victim of, or committed a crime or crime, should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article." Griff (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 03:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Battle of Nasibpur

change
Battle of Nasibpur (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Information I found goes to virus site BigKrow (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  • Merge any useful content to Indian Rebellion of 1857 as this battle isn't mentioned on that article. I can confirm that the battle did occur but the article does not show notability through a lack of DEPTH in coverage and the sources in the article do not agree with the article content, do not reference the battle or are not reliable. Griff (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 21:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Krishna II's Attack on Palas

change
Krishna II's Attack on Palas (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Can't find anything BigKrow (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  • Keep No Explanation and Stupid reason you are just nominating articles for deletion with baseless reasons like "Can't find anything" , "Seems Hoax" please refer WP: Talkfirst. Mr.Hanes   Talk 03:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, No reason provided for deletion. Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - As the article itself states, there is "not much" known about this battle. The sources also do not provide significant coverage of the battle (also reference DEPTH). There is some information in the article that may be appropriate in the history sections of the Rashtrakuta or Pala Empire articles, but the subject of this article does not meet our guidelines for an article. Griff (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 21:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Third Gupta Interregnum

change
Third Gupta Interregnum (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Fr33kman has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Declined QD. Is this notable? fr33kman 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

Redirect to Gupta empire. BigKrow (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yes it is highly notable please refer the sources. Mr.Hanes   Talk 03:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - This article is a very well-written article, but doesn't have any factual basis, mostly because it is clear that no one actually knows if a dispute occurred (as stated in the article). The article has many conjectures, maybes, and possibilities, but it is just guesses. While redirecting would seem like a good idea, no one other than us refer to a Third Gupta Interregnum. I appreciate the time Mr. Hanes put into the article, but in my opinion, this article falls somewhere between A4 and A6. Griff (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to the comments to keep the article, I still believe that the tone of the article should reflect the factual information that is in the sources, rather than the guesses, and it would be better to include this information in the Gupta Empire article, which has no information on this war or some of the important facts that this article contains. Griff (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep and move to Gupta war of succession. This source alone has 7 pages of coverage, the topic is very much notable and there is little to no conjectures as almost all of the sources follow the same pattern of interpretation of the inscriptions. Pinging Mr.Hanes if they can cite more sources, that would be great. Garudam (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, another source has almost 13 pages of coverage, I will be citing it. Mr.Hanes   Talk 12:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep The topic seems significant enough to merit its own article. That said, after reviewing the cited sources, I couldn't find any references to the term Third Gupta Interregnum. Based on the information I found here, it might be more appropriate to rename the article to Gupta Civil War. Shakib ul hassan talk! 19:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 20:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Yaha per hai mera shaher Achalpur

change
Yaha per hai mera shaher Achalpur (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

2601:644:907E:A70:7547:7317:E4F6:13E0 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable song, fails WP:NMUSIC. 2601:644:907E:A70:7547:7317:E4F6:13E0 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 17:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


List of wars involving Soran Emirate

change
List of wars involving Soran Emirate (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Griffinofwales has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Lack of notability for the battles contained within article. They are not sourced (or single sourced with only minor coverage), do not appear to be notable or significant within history, and have little information. This RFD applies to the list, as well as all articles linked within the article in the list. Griff (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Are kya bolti meri achalpur public

change
Are kya bolti meri achalpur public (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: non notable? BigKrow (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 18:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Jyoti Ratre

change
Jyoti Ratre (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Veeranshi Jha has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This article seems to be created for promotional purposes. The author first tried to create the page on the main English Wikipedia, but it was deleted after an AfD discussion concluded that the subject does not meet the inclusion criteria. After that, they recreated the article here. Please note that the author has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing.

The article is promotional. Almost all reliable sources focus solely on the subject’s Mount Everest climb, while the remaining sources are either unreliable or lack detailed coverage. Beyond climbing Mount Everest, she has no other notable achievements in mountaineering. References about her Everest climb come from general media rather than CLIMBER-specific sources. This is a clear case of WP:BIO1E.

Also fails WP:GNG as there is no extensive or substantial coverage of her in reputable media outlets. Veeranshi Jha (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  •   Delete per nom's well-presented reasons. The AFD at enWP also referenced NCLIMB, which Jyoti does not meet either. All the sources do not provide SIGCOV or are focused on her Everest climb. Griff (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 13:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Man Singh's campaigns against the Yusufzai Afghans

change
Man Singh's campaigns against the Yusufzai Afghans (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No page on English Wikipedia. Possible misspelled title? BigKrow (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  • Keep If any article isn't created on English Wikipedia it doesn't mean that the article is fake, also the soruces mentions the Name doesn't Seems to be fabricated. Mr.Hanes   Talk 17:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still we need good sources... BigKrow (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope the article - The nominator should review BEFORE prior to nominating articles for RFD, as none of these reasons given are valid reasons to delete an article. As well, this article seems to cover the Battle of the Malandari Pass, which occurred in 1586 and formed an important part of the Mughal-Afghan Wars in that time period. Since the article indicates a broader scope, I recommend that the article be re-structured to cover the Mughal-Afghan wars in a more general way. Griff (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The article covers historical event during the Mughal-Afghan Wars, including the Siege of Kabul and campaigns against the Yusufzai tribe, which are well-documented in credible sources. While the article title may require refinement, the topic is notable. BigKrow, I don't understand why you would nominate an entire article for deletion merely because it isn't in English Wikipedia. NXcrypto Chatting 03:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This request is due to close on 17:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.



Countries and regions that do not require a visa in advance for British citizens

change
Countries and regions that do not require a visa in advance for British citizens (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
Countries and regions that do not require a visa in advance for Emirati citizens (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Countries and regions that do not require a visa in advance for United States citizens (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Countries and regions that do not require a visa in advance for Japanese citizens (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Countries and regions that do not require a visa in advance for South Korean citizens (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Countries and regions that do not require a visa in advance - List by country (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. This should probably be merged with an article like w:en:Visa requirements for British citizens, but we don't have one here yet. --Ferien (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 14:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Nas Estrelas (album)

change
Nas Estrelas (album) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Depextual has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). Depextual (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 19:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


I Miss You (film)

change
I Miss You (film) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Depextual has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable enough per Wikipedia:Notability (movies). Most filmmakers display their films at festivals, that it itself doesn't make it notable. Depextual (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 19:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Noé Murayama

change
Noé Murayama (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Kuskrey has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No Notability Other please check if I am not wrong Ksy 17:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0613669/ BigKrow (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Keep - The article does need to be better sourced, but the esWP article provides better information on his life and helps provide context to his imdb profile. He starred in a film that won an award at Cannes and the Mexican government hosts a biography on his life, which provides a good argument for notability per ENT. Griff (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


VidLii

change
VidLii (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Depextual has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable website. The last RFD was closed as soft deleted. Depextual (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 08:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Bassey Edem

change
Bassey Edem (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Depextual has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Likely not notable Depextual (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 08:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Dissolution of Soran Emirate

change
Dissolution of Soran Emirate (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
Battle of Rawandiz (1836) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: no Wikipedia page BigKrow (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 12:42, 28 December 2024 07:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC) 02:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Turk Shahi–Arab Conflicts

change
Turk Shahi–Arab Conflicts (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Seems hoax BigKrow (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  • Keep "Seems Hoax" is the only reason given by the nominator. The article is based on RS sources, the nominator also fails to explain how this is a Hoax. If you had a doubt of this being a Hoax please refer WP:Talkfirst. Mr.Hanes   Talk 05:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Article is well sourced. And what is hoax in this article, please explain. NXcrypto Chatting 06:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Not a hoax. Article is well sourced and notable. 𝙹.𝙹.𝕋𝕒𝕝𝕜 📬📧 16:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: I am not sure what part of the article is a hoax. The only reason is "seems hoax" from the nominator. Fails to explain why it is a hoax, you should be able to explain why first before saying that it is a hoax. - Jayden Johnson
    (I accidentally logged out) 2600:8804:8A81:9100:16FB:F216:B8CB:BA02 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broaden scope and move article to Turk Shahis. I agree with other reviewers that this article clearly meets our criteria, my only recommendation is to match enWP and expand the scope of the article a little bit. The article already does a good job of discussing the Turk Shahis, renaming the article would only allow us to build the article even more and provide more context to the conflicts. @BigKrow: For future nominations to RFD, please outline why you believe the article is a hoax. This RFD was inappropriate. Griff (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your opinion but we can't rename it or Move the Article to Turk Shahis as this is one of the several Conflicts fought by them, we need a separate article on Turk Shahis. Mr.Hanes   Talk 03:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, the content of this article should form a part of an article on Turk Shahis, but the article will need to be expanded on to provide more context on the Turk Shahis. Griff (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 22:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Deepak Narwal

change
Deepak Narwal (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Asteralee has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I do not think that this article is notable enough. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 04:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  Administrator note: I struck out the above duplicate comment. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 04:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Pathways of African immigration to the United States of America

change
Pathways of African immigration to the United States of America (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: A pointless redirect that is a variation of the original title (African immigration to the United States). It also does not appear that such a term is widely used. BZPN (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  • Keep Redirects to subtopics with their own sections are standard on Wikipedia. Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for what RfD requires – none of these large number of RfDs qualify. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap. While I wouldn't create these redirects myself, they are more useful now they exist and deletion them would not serve a benefit, in my opinion. On the rare chance a user does happen to enter these in, they would get to what they are looking for. --Ferien (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - Since we don't have a full deletion policy for redirects, I will be referencing points 1 & 8 from R#DELETE (enWP). In my opinion, this redirect will make it unreasonably difficult for users to find the correct article, and it is also a very obscure synonym for this article. While I do agree with Ferien that redirects are cheap, this editor's past history with redirects on other projects brings to the belief that we should make our position clear here. Griff (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: While it may appear as though these are all very similar cases, can the closing admin please ensure each RfD on these redirects is reviewed individually, as a small handful lean keep more than delete in consensus. Thank you! --Ferien (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: The Redirect should be fixed by Closing Administrators, I think can't create myself. Raayaan9911 12:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Methods of African immigration to the United States of America

change
Methods of African immigration to the United States of America (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: A pointless redirect that is a variation of the original title (African immigration to the United States). It also does not appear that such a term is widely used. BZPN (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  • Keep Redirects to subtopics with their own sections are standard on Wikipedia. Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for what RfD requires – none of these large number of RfDs qualify. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap. While I wouldn't create these redirects myself, they are more useful now they exist and deletion them would not serve a benefit, in my opinion. On the rare chance a user does happen to enter these in, they would get to what they are looking for. --Ferien (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - Since we don't have a full deletion policy for redirects, I will be referencing points 1 & 8 from R#DELETE (enWP). In my opinion, this redirect will make it unreasonably difficult for users to find the correct article, and it is also a very obscure synonym for this article. While I do agree with Ferien that redirects are cheap, this editor's past history with redirects on other projects brings to the belief that we should make our position clear here. Griff (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mexican–American deportations (1929–1939)

change
Mexican–American deportations (1929–1939) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: A pointless redirect that is a variation of the original title (Mexican Repatriation). It also does not appear that such a term is widely used. BZPN (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 17:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mexican–American deportations

change
Mexican–American deportations (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: A pointless redirect that is a variation of the original title (Mexican Repatriation). It also does not appear that such a term is widely used. BZPN (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 17:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mexican–American deportation

change
Mexican–American deportation (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: A pointless redirect that is a variation of the original title (Mexican Repatriation). It also does not appear that such a term is widely used. BZPN (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 17:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mexican–American deportation (1929–1939)

change
Mexican–American deportation (1929–1939) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: A pointless redirect that is a variation of the original title (Mexican Repatriation). It also does not appear that such a term is widely used. BZPN (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 17:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Chicano ineligibility for food stamps in the United States of America

change
Chicano ineligibility for food stamps in the United States of America (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unnecessary redirect; that's not even related to Reconquista (Mexico) BZPN (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  • Keep Redirects to subtopics are common on Wikipedia. I've listed the discussion of this by activists in the article, with a reference. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap. While I wouldn't create these redirects myself, they are more useful now they exist and deletion them would not serve a benefit, in my opinion. On the rare chance a user does happen to enter these in, they would get to what they are looking for. --Ferien (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - Since we don't have a full deletion policy for redirects, I will be referencing points 1 & 8 from R#DELETE (enWP). In my opinion, this redirect will make it unreasonably difficult for users to find the correct article, and it is also a very obscure synonym for this article. While I do agree with Ferien that redirects are cheap, this editor's past history with redirects on other projects brings to the belief that we should make our position clear here. Griff (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete This redirect is a statement that isn't really accurate. I agree that this search term is too obscure. Depextual (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. 578 (2020)

change
Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. 578 (2020) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unnecessary redirect, this name is not widely used. BZPN (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap. While I wouldn't create these redirects myself, they are more useful now they exist and deletion them would not serve a benefit, in my opinion. On the rare chance a user does happen to enter these in, they would get to what they are looking for. --Ferien (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I do think this is a slightly different case from all the others, where the redirect title is more complex and slightly more ambiguous – this one is simply repeating the beginning of the article, it is just the title plus the reference(?) of the case, and is probably the most feasible of all of the redirects sent here. --Ferien (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - Since we don't have a full deletion policy for redirects, I will be referencing points 1 & 8 from R#DELETE (enWP). In my opinion, this redirect will make it unreasonably difficult for users to find the correct article, and it is also a very obscure synonym for this article. While I do agree with Ferien that redirects are cheap, this editor's past history with redirects on other projects brings to the belief that we should make our position clear here. Griff (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Unlike the other RfDs, I think this one is actually a plausible synonym, not to mention the technically (from a legal perspective) correct one. What I am a bit unsure about, however, is how a prospective reader would use the search bar and type "Chiafalo v. Washington...", and end up selecting this longer title over the shorter one. The search autocompletion lists shorter entries first. Chenzw  Talk  14:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: I agree with @Chenzw but I am going to vote Weak keep 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼) 14:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving an additional comment because I can foresee this RfD potentially setting up a future precedent: while I am personally not a fan of keeping every conceivable redirect (en:WP:CHEAP view), I am not opposed to keeping redirects that are at least plausible and/or technically correct. What I do not want to see happen, though, is future attempts at deliberately creating redirects en masse where the legal citation is expanded in full like we see here in the 591 U.S. 57 (2020) part. Chenzw  Talk  14:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Motivations for mass sterilization of Native American women

change
Motivations for mass sterilization of Native American women (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This redirect seems to be more of a test or the author's own vision - I haven't found such a term for Sterilization of Native American women anywhere on the Internet, because it's basically adding an adjective to the main title. This redirect is pointless and false. BZPN (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  •   Delete Concur, this seems like an unlikely phrase to be used to search. Someone using this term to search would end up with the target as the first search result anyway. Ravensfire (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects to subtopics with their own sections are very common on Wikipedia. Also, please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for what RfD requires – none of these large number of RfDs qualify. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap. While I wouldn't create these redirects myself, they are more useful now they exist and deletion them would not serve a benefit, in my opinion. On the rare chance a user does happen to enter these in, they would get to what they are looking for. --Ferien (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - Since we don't have a full deletion policy for redirects, I will be referencing points 1 & 8 from R#DELETE (enWP). In my opinion, this redirect will make it unreasonably difficult for users to find the correct article, and it is also a very obscure synonym for this article. While I do agree with Ferien that redirects are cheap, this editor's past history with redirects on other projects brings to the belief that we should make our position clear here. Griff (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Methods of coercive sterilization of Hawaiian women

change
Methods of coercive sterilization of Hawaiian women (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This redirect seems to be more of a test or the author's own vision - I haven't found such a term for Sterilization of Native American women anywhere on the Internet, because it's basically adding an adjective to the main title. This redirect is pointless and false. BZPN (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  •   Delete Nothing about this in the target, and this redirect seems to be a highly unlikely phrase to be used. If a decent section is added to the target on this, perhaps a redirect for just "Sterilization of Hawaiian women" would be warranted, which would also turn up as probably the top search result for this unwieldy phrase. Ravensfire (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects to subtopics with their own sections are commmon. Also, please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for what RfD requires – none of these large number of RfDs qualify. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap. While I wouldn't create these redirects myself, they are more useful now they exist and deletion them would not serve a benefit, in my opinion. On the rare chance a user does happen to enter these in, they would get to what they are looking for. --Ferien (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - Since we don't have a full deletion policy for redirects, I will be referencing points 1 & 8 from R#DELETE (enWP). In my opinion, this redirect will make it unreasonably difficult for users to find the correct article, and it is also a very obscure synonym for this article. While I do agree with Ferien that redirects are cheap, this editor's past history with redirects on other projects brings to the belief that we should make our position clear here. Griff (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good articulation of my thought process - if we stick with the "redirects are cheap" (which they are) so "do whatever!" we end up with redirects with text that isn't mentioned in the target (like here), or uses language that's contrary to the purpose of this Wikipedia (coercive). There needs to be some rational limits on redirects - relevant to the target, would otherwise be a viable page title, appear to be a somewhat viable search term. Ravensfire (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete Hawaiians not mentioned on the page. Depextual (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Arguments for coercive sterilization of Hawaiian women

change
Arguments for coercive sterilization of Hawaiian women (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This redirect seems to be more of a test or the author's own vision - I haven't found such a term for Sterilization of Native American women anywhere on the Internet, because it's basically adding an adjective to the main title. This redirect is pointless and false. BZPN (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  •   Delete Nothing about this in the target, and this redirect seems to be a highly unlikely phrase to be used. If a decent section is added to the target on this, perhaps a redirect for just "Sterilization of Hawaiian women" would be warranted, which would also turn up as probably the top search result for this unwieldy phrase. Ravensfire (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects to subtopics are common. Also, please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for what RfD requires – none of these large number of RfDs qualify. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap. While I wouldn't create these redirects myself, they are more useful now they exist and deletion them would not serve a benefit, in my opinion. On the rare chance a user does happen to enter these in, they would get to what they are looking for. --Ferien (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete Hawaiians not mentioned on the page. Depextual (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - Since we don't have a full deletion policy for redirects, I will be referencing points 1 & 8 from R#DELETE (enWP). In my opinion, this redirect will make it unreasonably difficult for users to find the correct article, and it is also a very obscure synonym for this article. In addition, anyone searching this full term for some reason would be brought to search results, which would provide a much more helpful result than the redirect, and as Depextual notes, the sterilisation of Hawaiian women is a more specific topic than what is in the redirected article. While I do agree with Ferien that redirects are cheap, this editor's past history with redirects on other projects brings me to the belief that we should make our position clear here. Griff (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Coercive sterilization of Hawaiian women

change
Coercive sterilization of Hawaiian women (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This redirect seems to be more of a test or the author's own vision - I haven't found such a term for Sterilization of Native American women anywhere on the Internet, because it's basically adding an adjective to the main title. This redirect is pointless and false. BZPN (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  •   Delete Nothing about this in the target, and this redirect seems to be a highly unlikely phrase to be used. If a decent section is added to the target on this, perhaps a redirect for just "Sterilization of Hawaiian women" would be warranted, which would also turn up as probably the top search result for this unwieldy phrase. Ravensfire (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects to subtopicsare common. Also, please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for what RfD requires – none of these large number of RfDs qualify. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap. While I wouldn't create these redirects myself, they are more useful now they exist and deletion them would not serve a benefit, in my opinion. On the rare chance a user does happen to enter these in, they would get to what they are looking for. --Ferien (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete Hawaiians not mentioned on the page. Depextual (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - Since we don't have a full deletion policy for redirects, I will be referencing points 1 & 8 from R#DELETE (enWP). In my opinion, this redirect will make it unreasonably difficult for users to find the correct article, and it is also a very obscure synonym for this article. In addition, anyone searching this full term for some reason would be brought to search results, which would provide a much more helpful result than the redirect, and as Depextual notes, the sterilisation of Hawaiian women is a more specific topic than what is in the redirected article. While I do agree with Ferien that redirects are cheap, this editor's past history with redirects on other projects brings me to the belief that we should make our position clear here. Griff (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mass sterilization of Hawaiian women

change
Mass sterilization of Hawaiian women (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This redirect seems to be more of a test or the author's own vision - I haven't found such a term for Sterilization of Native American women anywhere on the Internet, because it's basically adding an adjective to the main title. This redirect is pointless and false. BZPN (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  •   Delete Concur, this seems like an unlikely phrase to be used to search. The article has no mention of Hawaiian women nor does the same article on enwiki. Even if there was good information in the target, a simpler redirect is all that's needed. Ravensfire (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects to subtopics are common. Also, please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for what RfD requires – none of these large number of RfDs qualify. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap. While I wouldn't create these redirects myself, they are more useful now they exist and deletion them would not serve a benefit, in my opinion. On the rare chance a user does happen to enter these in, they would get to what they are looking for. --Ferien (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete Hawaiians not mentioned on the page. Depextual (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - Since we don't have a full deletion policy for redirects, I will be referencing points 1 & 8 from R#DELETE (enWP). In my opinion, this redirect will make it unreasonably difficult for users to find the correct article, and it is also a very obscure synonym for this article. In addition, anyone searching this full term for some reason would be brought to search results, which would provide a much more helpful result than the redirect, and as Depextual notes, the sterilisation of Hawaiian women is a more specific topic than what is in the redirected article. While I do agree with Ferien that redirects are cheap, this editor's past history with redirects on other projects brings me to the belief that we should make our position clear here. Griff (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Motivations for coercive sterilization of Native American women

change
Motivations for coercive sterilization of Native American women (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This redirect seems to be more of a test or the author's own vision - I haven't found such a term for Sterilization of Native American women anywhere on the Internet, because it's basically adding an adjective to the main title. This redirect is pointless. BZPN (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
Anyone can visit my en: Talk: to see the real reason, so why introduce cross-wiki rancor like that? Invasive Spices (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll agree to disagree on the process, but the comment about why you were blocked on en is relevant when I see the same issues here. This redirect is not something that I think belongs here. This would never be a section heading in an article here, the language is not simple. I would not expect a reader here to be using such terms for searching (and honestly I wouldn't expect it on enwiki either). Simple is good, complex is not. This is complex phrasing and thus should be deleted. Ravensfire (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap. While I wouldn't create these redirects myself, they are more useful now they exist and deletion them would not serve a benefit, in my opinion. On the rare chance a user does happen to enter these in, they would get to what they are looking for. --Ferien (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Template:R to section exists, unsurprisingly due to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R section extremely heavy usage. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - Since we don't have a full deletion policy for redirects, I will be referencing points 1 & 8 from R#DELETE (enWP). In my opinion, this redirect will make it unreasonably difficult for users to find the correct article, and it is also a very obscure synonym for this article. In addition, anyone searching this full term for some reason would be brought to search results, which would provide a much more helpful result than the redirect. While I do agree with Ferien that redirects are cheap, this editor's past history with redirects on other projects brings me to the belief that we should make our position clear here. Griff (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mass sterilization of Native American women

change
Mass sterilization of Native American women (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This redirect seems to be more of a test or the author's own vision - I haven't found such a term for Sterilization of Native American women anywhere on the Internet, because it's basically adding an adjective to the main title. This redirect is pointless. BZPN (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  •   Delete Concur, this seems like an unlikely phrase to be used to search. Someone using this term to search would end up with the target as the first search result anyway. Ravensfire (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for what RfD requires – none of these large number of RfDs qualify. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap. While I wouldn't create these redirects myself, they are more useful now they exist and deletion them would not serve a benefit, in my opinion. On the rare chance a user does happen to enter these in, they would get to what they are looking for. --Ferien (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - Since we don't have a full deletion policy for redirects, I will be referencing points 1 & 8 from R#DELETE (enWP). In my opinion, this redirect will make it unreasonably difficult for users to find the correct article, and it is also a very obscure synonym for this article. In addition, anyone searching this full term for some reason would be brought to search results, which would provide a much more helpful result than the redirect. While I do agree with Ferien that redirects are cheap, this editor's past history with redirects on other projects brings me to the belief that we should make our position clear here. Griff (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Abusive sterilization of Native American women

change
Abusive sterilization of Native American women (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This redirect seems to be more of a test or the author's own vision - I haven't found such a term for Sterilization of Native American women anywhere on the Internet, because it's basically adding an adjective to the main title. This redirect is pointless. BZPN (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  •   Delete Concur, this seems like an unlikely phrase to be used to search. Someone using this term to search would end up with the target as the first search result anyway. Ravensfire (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for what RfD requires – none of these large number of RfDs qualify. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap. While I wouldn't create these redirects myself, they are more useful now they exist and deletion them would not serve a benefit, in my opinion. On the rare chance a user does happen to enter these in, they would get to what they are looking for. --Ferien (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - Since we don't have a full deletion policy for redirects, I will be referencing points 1 & 8 from R#DELETE (enWP). In my opinion, this redirect will make it unreasonably difficult for users to find the correct article, and it is also a very obscure synonym for this article. While I do agree with Ferien that redirects are cheap, this editor's past history with redirects on other projects brings to the belief that we should make our position clear here. Griff (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Coercive sterilization of Native American women

change
Coercive sterilization of Native American women (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This redirect seems to be more of a test or the author's own vision - I haven't found such a term for Sterilization of Native American women anywhere on the Internet, because it's basically adding an adjective to the main title. This redirect is pointless. BZPN (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  • Referencing EN wiki's policy is a long-standing precedent. And it is not OUTING - the edit history is a matter of public record on the wikis. The point about your past behavior on EN (and which led to you being blocked on EN) is a completely valid point to make. And I don't see how Griffinofwales is any close to disclosing oversightable information. What are you trying to insinuate here? Chenzw  Talk  03:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - per Griffinofwales, and I just want to note that it is not correct to use WP:NOT to advance the claim that this RfD is baseless. If we do that, that makes every redirect immune from the RfD process (and thus we would reference EN's policy and the reasonableness test here, as above). Chenzw  Talk  08:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You completely missed my point, especially the second half of my statement. I am afraid we will not have a productive conversation here if that point is not acknowledged. Chenzw  Talk  03:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: While it may appear as though these are all very similar cases, can the closing admin please ensure each RfD on these redirects is reviewed individually, as a small handful lean keep more than delete in consensus. Thank you! --Ferien (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Recently closed deletion discussions

change
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Keep. Redirected to Republic of Mahabad. Anyone wanting to merge content can find it in the page history. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qahrawa

change
Battle of Qahrawa (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability? BigKrow (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  • Merge any useful content into Republic of Mahabad. This battle was actually a very important battle in the establishment of the republic, and if I could find some reliable sources (even in a different language) I could even be persuaded to keep the article. However, since I can't find any that provide in-depth coverage on the battle, merging is the best solution. Griff (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 12:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Keep. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological sites destroyed during the Gaza genocide

change
Archaeological sites destroyed during the Gaza genocide (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not found on Wikipedia BigKrow (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 18:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Keep. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kadama

change
Kadama (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No page on Wikipedia BigKrow (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
  • Keep Subject is notable because of news coverage. Not having a Wikipedia page is not a valid deletion reason. You need to provide a valid reason. Maybe no one bothered to make them a page. I do see that the [CEO has a Wikipedia page]. Here are some of the good citations and why it qualifies:
There are more news references available, if you think these are not enough. Darrenchant (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete - I agree with Darren that not having an enWP article is not a reason to delete the article, however not meeting the criteria contained within the ORG notability guideline is. After review of the provided sources (in Darren's comment and on the article), the sources are either not independent, do not provide SIGCOV of the app (as they focus on the founders), or are not reliable sources. Griff (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures, is a textbook. How could it be not independent? Also, here are 3 more good ones King5, bizjournals.com, Washington Edu. Darrenchant (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply Darren. King5 is focused on the founder (and his 30 under 30 status) rather than Kadama itself (reference INHERITORG). Bizjournals and UW's articles are examples of DEPENDENTCOVERAGE, as they are basically puff (or promotional) pieces for the company. The textbook is a good example of a source that would be appropriate, I was just hesitant to use it as the main source for the article since the website providing the source isn't reliable. I think Kadama could meet our inclusion criteria, but as I search it online, I'm just not seeing consistent reliable sources that would meet the SIRS criteria. Reference enWP for all guidelines. Griff (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The textbook can be verified here. The Geekwire article is not focused on the founders. BizJournals is a credible publication. They do not publish puff or promotional articles. This is actually a very good article for their notability. Darrenchant (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 18:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Keep. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rawandiz Revolt

change
Rawandiz Revolt (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No page on English Wikipedia BigKrow (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change
I disagree. BigKrow (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated this further as part of a similar RFD. While I stand by earlier comments that there are sources and books referencing this revolt, I now believe this article should be merged into an article on the Soran Empire or deleted entirely as the sources (and content) are more appropriate for that article. Griff (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 13:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. QD'd by Fr33kman. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corvin-Krukovsky Family (Corvin)

change
Corvin-Krukovsky Family (Corvin) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not found that is notable. BigKrow (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 19:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Chandragupta II's conquest of the Vahlika Hunas

change
Chandragupta II's conquest of the Vahlika Hunas (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: okay I searched for this battle i found nothing just about chandragupta II, NO SIEGE!!! BigKrow (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 19:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. QD'd by Fr33kman. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Life as a Teenage Robot characters

change
List of My Life as a Teenage Robot characters (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

QuantumFoam66 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Looking at the content of this article, it has a large amount of content but has no sources; it also claims to be a list article while I can see that it is not structured like one. The information on this page may have been copied from some non-Wikimedia project like Fandom or perhaps it might have been AI-generated. I looked at the other contributions from the IP address that created this article (173.207.58.96) and it turns out they have created other articles as bad as this one containing no references, categories, or links to other pages. I do believe the IP address that created this page should because they are persistently making these non-cited articles like this one. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

change

This request is due to close on 04:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


change
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=9988907"