Jump to content

Wikipedia:XfD today

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Deletion today)
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Shortcuts

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


Speedy deletion candidates

[edit]
Candidates for speedy deletion
1780 establishments in Bavaria
1780s establishments in Bavaria
1962 RNC
Banned 7
Charles Keating IV
Alex Coffey
Hassan Yusuf Shehu
Draft:JRD Tata Foundation for Business Ethics
KEJS (FM)
Draft:Kwabena Obeng Darko
Draft:Leszek Czarnecki
Lithuania men's national under-21 basketball team
Marƙaba Kabara
Draft:Seiun Sky
Template:Switch by pattern
Thank Goodness You're Here!
Draft talk:Thunivu

Articles

[edit]
< July 28 July 30 >

Purge server cache

Results of the 2008 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election

[edit]
Results of the 2008 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has incomplete results, only has one reference which is just the election commission website. The page List of members elected in the 2008 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election already lists the winners and other information has been or can be added to pages for the constituency. PenGear (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Allentown mayoral election

[edit]
1977 Allentown mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay, this will be thorough on this one, since lots of these mayoral election deletions have ended as trainwrecks for me. This article is a vialation of WP:NEVENT, as it fails to have significant lasting coverage that fails to qualify. THERE IS NO AUTOMATIC NOTABILITY FOR MAYORAL ELECTIONS, as shown here, here, here, here, and here of articles of similar size or larger to Allentown.

A quick WP:BEFORE fails to find any significant lasting coverage as well on Google or ProQuest.

Now, it looks like the article is long, so it must have good sources? Not to establish notability. Let's see if any of these sources match the description of "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." per WP:EVENT.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:1ctinus
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.mcall.com/2016/10/14/frank-fischl-decorated-air-force-pilot-and-former-allentown-mayor-dies-at-89/ ~ Yes No Local obituary, mentions the election for a single sentence ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/284052961/ ~ Yes No WP:ROUTINE mill coverage about a TV program/debate ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/280057542/ ~ ? No WP:PRIMARY ✘ No
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/08/12/Political-contribution-from-the-grave/1905366436800/ Yes Yes No No coverage at all? The citation says "Daddona's unsuccessful 1969 campaign", not 1977. Either way, its barely lasting coverage, just an offhand sentence in a UPI article. ✘ No
https://www.mcall.com/2004/12/12/whatever-became-of-former-allentown-mayor-frank-fischl/ Yes Yes No Scope of the coverage of the election in the article is "Fischl beat out incumbent Joe Daddona. Daddona later succeeded Fischl, who didn’t seek a second term.". While it is lasting, this is not significant. ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/283995190/ Yes Yes No NOT ABOUT THE ELECTION, BUT ABOUT FISCH DECLINING TO REDIRECT ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

If deletion seems too much, I propose two alternatives:

  • Merge all the Allentown mayoral election articles for future maintainability and navigability
  • (which is better in my opinion). Redirect to Frank Fischl, which most of the coverage seems to be on.

Before I end, a quick note to administrators and voters: please remember to use actual Wikipedia policy instead of using or endorsing arguments like "I like Pennsylvania history, so this must be important" or "this is useful information". These are both arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Wikipedia is not a database, or an indiscriminate collection of information. I am limiting this to one article at a time to avoid a trainwreck nomination. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masada myth

[edit]
Masada myth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This new article falls short of Wikipedia's content policies in several critical areas: WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VER. Firstly, the article relies heavily on broad claims and does not really verify its arguments with credible, independent sources. There are assertions of "fabrications and omissions" which are made without scholarly backing, making the article’s claims questionable and unneutral.

However, the main point is that the very definition of this article selectively promotes one point of view over the others regarding what exactly happened in Masada. The academic debate is mostly around the specifics of the siege's conclusion: whether a mass suicide and final battle happened as Josephus says, or if something else happened, since there are neither confirming nor refuting archaeological evidence for what happened to the rebels (the siege itself is firmly evidenced). If we fix this POV issue, this article will become an overview of the debates surrounding reconstruction of the events on Masada, which does not need their own article. Other issues presented as part of the myth (myths are generally not neccesarily entirely fictional), like whether the Jews in Masada can be considered freedom fighters or not, remains mostly subjective.

Given that Masada is well-documented and discussed in better-defined and more comprehensive articles like Masada and siege of Masada, the academic debate surrounding its end and its symbolism in modern culture should be presented there. This would ensure that the discussion of the Masada myth is presented within the broader context of scholarly debate. HaOfa (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's first paragraph is odd. They describe assertions of "fabrications and omissions" which are made without scholarly backing, yet the article’s very first footnote contains a quotation from Nachman Ben-Yehuda, professor emeritus and former dean of the department of sociology and anthropology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem from 1996: "On the professional level, we now know that the Masada myth is a particular selective historically invented sequence (narrative) based, partially, on Josephus Flavius's account, minus some very important details and supplemented by items ranging from a rather liberal interpretation of his writings to sheer fabrication".
The decision not to read the article carefully enough before opening this discussion may have resulted in the misunderstanding shown in the second paragraph of the nomination. There is no scholarly debate on this topic. The questions mentioned by the nominator have nothing to do with this topic. This topic is about the version of the siege story created by early Zionists for nationalism purposes which markedly differs from the only historical version of the story in existence, which is Josephus’s version. The differences between the two versions is summarized at Masada myth#Table of elements. The sources show that this national myth topic is much more notable than the actual siege itself. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, article is well-sourced. the very definition of this article selectively promotes one point of view - it discusses the myth, and because this myth exists and is discussed in multiple scholarly sources, the topic passes notability guidelines. It can be see as a Legacy section for the main siege of Masada article, but because of its length it's better to have a separate one. Artem.G (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, I agree the content should be much more balanced and that discussions of Masada in Israeli culture should be described as part of the article on Masada where it has more relevant context and all the relevant views.
OdNahlawi (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Info on the myth should be included under the main topic, either "Masada" or "Siege of Masada," alongside the main scholarly opinions and with stronger sourcing (if exists), as some of the claims made here are controversial and lack balance. Masada#Legacy could be a good option. PeleYoetz (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is faulty to say the least, there is no "academic debate" over the siege's conclusion and the matter is referenced as a national myth promoted by the Zionist movement in the UNESCO world heritage nomination for Masada. Clearly meets GNG and the material is more than sufficient to justify an independent article.Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for highlighting this. For others’ ease of reference, relevant excerpts are shown below. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The content of this article is completely out of context and therefore leads to misunderstanding. If the content is to remain, it belongs in the main article about Masada or the Siege of Masada, as has been suggested above by the nominator.
That being said, I am not sure the content should remain altogether. The article is heavily one-sided, it uses questionable phrasing and sources, and quotes selectively from the sources it cites. For example, the source quoted most in the article is Ben-Yehuda's book, which is criticized for being superficial, having a main theory which relies on a misunderstanding of historiographical issues, and being inconsistent in its application of the constructionist method which it officially adopts, but only uses when comfortable, among many other criticisms.(see https://www.jstor.org/stable/43044142) The book is also not self-aware, and is representative mainly of the subjective-constructionist approach, but does not represent the objective approach adequately, and therefore is given undue weight in the article, which relies on this approach exclusively. (ibid.)
As an example for selective quoting of the source, the article ignores the sections of the book which discuss the decline of the "Masada Myth" (Ben Yehuda P. 253 and onward, Magness P. 199).
The article relies heavily on the identification of the inhabitants of Masada as Sicarii, as mentioned by Josephus, and while the passage quoted from the book by Magness is rather blunt -"How did the site of a reported mass suicide of a band of Jewish rebels who terrorized other Jews become a symbol of the modern State of Israel? The creation of the Masada myth—in which these Jewish terrorists are transformed into freedom fighters and the mass suicide becomes a heroic last stand-has been explored by a number of scholars." (Magness P. 197) It is clear that her biting rhetoric is meant to magnify the question she presents. Her actual position, together with other opinions, is mentioned in a previous chapter: "The Jews at Masada likely included unaffiliated individuals and families as well as members of groups such as the Qumran Sect/Essenes",(Magness P. 164) and: "The nature and even the very existence of the Zealots and sicarii are also debated by scholars. Steve Mason proposes that instead of being a distinct faction, the term sicarii was used by Josephus as a “scare-word” to evoke a particular kind of violence and terrorism. Hanan Eshel speculated that because Josephus was a Zealot leader at the beginning of the revolt, when writing War years later he artificially distinguished between the “moderate” Zealots and the “extremist” sicarii, pinning on the latter the responsibility for the disastrous outcome of the revolt and thereby distancing himself. Here I use the terms rebels and refugees to encompass the variety of backgrounds and affiliations represented among the Jews at Masada."(Magness P.165) And so, this would be another example of selective quotation. But regarding the point of discussion, it is not clear whether the Sicarii inhabited Masada at all. The possibility that the inhabitants of Masada were in fact not Sicarii, together with the fact that both Ben-Yehuda and Magness state explicitly that although archaeology cannot confirm the narrative given by Josephus, it also cannot refute it (Ben-Yehuda P.57, Magness P. 195-196), make the idea of the Masada Myth "whitewashing" history or supplementing it "with fabrications and omissions" lose much of its weight, seeing as much is still left for interpretation. The article is both problematic and out of context, therefore it should be deleted or merged into existing articles. Uppagus (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MASADA: PROPOSED WORLD HERlTAGE SlTE by the State of Israel, 2000

  • p.4: Josephus Flavius’s account of the revolt of the Jews, who realized that their end was near and preferred to commit suicide and die as free people as opposed to the option of living in slavery and degradation in Rome, became in the 20th century the Myth of Masada. The Myth was one of the corner stones of the Zionist Movement, whose desire was to renew the Jewish life in Zion, which is the Land of Israel. The pinnacle of the identification with the Myth, as an example of valor and sacrifice, was during the Second World War.
  • p.41: Masada in the Zionist Ethos: The story of Masada - the suicide of the Jewish Zealots who preferred to die as free people and not live as slaves in Rome - which is called the myth of Masada - affected the Jewish pioneers in the years before the founding of the state of Israel, in 1948. The call of the Jewish refugee in the poem written by Lamdan in the early 1920s “Open your gates, Masada, and I, the refugee will enter”, became the cry of the Jewish pioneers for freedom. For them, only the land of Israel is the real refuge, which was forged out of agony. Lamdan coined the famous phrase “Masada won’t fall again”. The most significant example expressing the identification with the myth of Masada was during World-War 2, when Romell’s troops threatened from Egypt in the south and the pro Nazi Vichy regime threatened from Lebanon in the north. The Jews in Israel felt sieged like the Zealots in Masada: struggling for liberation and ready to sacrifice their lives for it.
  • p.44: It’s true that the development of Masada site derives partly from the myth and the movie…
  • Keep The OP seems to be confusing NPOV with notability. Even if there were NPOV concerns, this is not a reason to delete an article. The thirteen sources the article has clearly pass GNG. As for the nominator's claims of NPOV and there being an "academic debate" over the subject, the RS's presented in the article are not in debate, and the nominator has not presented any RS's that are in debate. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, also noting that Josephus history cannot be taken at face value (he was very much involved with the history he wrote about, and had his POV). Huldra (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • *Delete, this is better as part of the Masada article, and would need some NPOV work even there. While a national and cultural myth has grown around Masada, this article is distinctly biased against the Masada defenders, and reads like an attack page. If it is not deleted, it needs to be made more neutral. Jerdle (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Huldra Why does an editor have to be an EC to vote here? This is an article that is in no way related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Eladkarmel (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Eladkarmel: as a rather central myth in modern Israel, I would unquestionably place it as part of the conflict. Huldra (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The topic at hand is how an event from ancient history is viewed in modern Israeli culture. This vote seems as valid as any other... HaOfa (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The EC is broad. It includes anything from food (Hummus, Za'atar, Tabbouleh, or Falafel) to academics (Ian Lustick, Benny Morris), to anything else even touching on the issue. This article is clearly within its limits, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it interesting that a new user with 67 edits manages to find and participate in an RM about Gaza genocide, the RSN noticeboard concerning the counting of the dead in Gaza and now an AfD for something tied to Zionism (an Arbpia covered article) so "broadly construed" might well apply here. Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Quite. Better not spend too much time thinking about that, though. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way is this related to the conflict? Just because an article deals with modern Israel does not mean it pertains to the conflict. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happy, per my comment above, to have the closer determine what weight to assign to this !vote. Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Please focus on the notability of the subject. Content can be fixed editorially.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Coffey

    [edit]
    Alex Coffey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. All sources in article are primary or written by the subject, and WP:BEFORE search doesn't return any better coverage for me. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Luke Hellier

    [edit]
    Luke Hellier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Generally, just being a mayor doesn’t inherently makes Hellier notable, and no evidence of passing WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Suicide of Aubreigh Wyatt

    [edit]
    Suicide of Aubreigh Wyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Young Ms Wyatt's suicide is a tragedy, but outside of sensational coverage, it is not notable. The event has no long-term impact. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tammy Tran

    [edit]
    Tammy Tran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Content is primarily promotional. Fails WP:GNG & WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Geoff | Who, me? 17:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, can you please guide me what changes can i do so the article of deleting could be remove from my article Naqqash6 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Naqqash6, did you check the links under "New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per current sourcing. The Atlantic helps towards WP:N (there's a lot of "she says", but IMO it still counts), maybe the NYT paragraph helps a little, but that seems to be it for WP:N. Also, in a WP-article, it's not "Tammy" in running text, it's "Tran" (like in The Atlantic). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anis Kidwai

    [edit]
    Anis Kidwai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Notability issues Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Shipra Guha-Mukherjee

    [edit]
    Shipra Guha-Mukherjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Notability and significance issues Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reshma Pathan

    [edit]
    Reshma Pathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Notability issues Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vasko Ruseimy

    [edit]
    Vasko Ruseimy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not meet WP:NBIO. Sources are his statements, brief mentions or press releases. S0091 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Shahmina

    [edit]
    Shahmina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is an unsourced one-line article. When it was first created back in 2010, it was also unsourced but much longer and blatantly promotional. In the first instance, it should have been deleted per WP:G11. Now, if it were eligible, it should be deleted as an WP:A7, but because it is not, I am nominating it for deletion. Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nori Bunasawa

    [edit]
    Nori Bunasawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article seems to have started out as draft created by 110347nbtough in November 2020, who subsequently seemed to claim they were Bunasawa himself over on Wikimedia Commons here and here. The draft was then approved by DN27ND about a month later, even though the DN27ND account was only four days old and seems to have no experience as an WP:AFC reviewer. Moreover, DN27ND is an WP:SPA whose primary focus on English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Japanese Wikipedia has been creating/editing content about Bunasawa; in other words, it seems that the account was specifically and only created for that purpose.

    I wasn't sure about the subject's Wikipedia notablity per WP:BIO and asked about the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts#Nori Bunasawa. DN27ND was pinged into the discussion but never responded. It was then suggested on my user talk page that the article be nominated for deletion. I tried some more WP:BEFORE but found nothing resembling significant coverage. I also tried looking at the Japanese Wikipedia article ja:樗沢憲昭 and the Egyptian Arabic Wikiepdia article arz:نورى_بوناساوا but found nothing resembling significant coverage being cited in either of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Collapsing a large amount of bludgeoning content from an editor now pblocked from the discussion (as well as a smaller number of replies from other editors to the bludgeoning). Daniel (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no conflict of interest. I'm not getting paid by Bunasawa. In order to get leads on sources and information, we do have a working relationship (as a reporter would on their subject) where I could reach out and obtain information. I do have drafts of other judokas in the works but am working on securing their contact information in order to get additional leads to sources and information.
    There are multiple sources online in various languages (English, Japanese, Russian, etc.) which indicates notability.
    Bunasawa's involvement as a leader of judo in the USA
    https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/may/12/ichiban-sports-complex-shares-strange-s/
    https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qNUDAAAAMBAJ&q=bunasawa&pg=PA38&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=bunasawa&f=false
    Bunasawa as a co-novelist
    https://www.abebooks.com/9780964898424/Toughest-Man-Who-Lived-Nori-096489842X/plp#:~:text=A book about Conde Koma,force in the martial arts.
    Bunasawa's involvement in "Dead or Alive"
    https://www.judoinside.com/judoka/90786/Noriaki_Bunasawa/judo-career
    Bunasawa and José Padilha
    https://www.instagram.com/p/Crg9KAmBek5/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
    José Padilha as the director on the BJJ-Judo movie project
    https://www.imdb.com/news/ni62362469/
    https://about.netflix.com/en/news/josé-padilha-attached-to-write-and-direct-feature-film-dead-or-alive-with-greg-silvermans-stampede-for-netflix
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/narcos-director-jose-padilha-tackling-netflix-jiu-jitsu-movie-dead-alive-1181926/
    Nori Bunasawa's involvement in the movie industry
    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12094236/
    Russian sources on Bunasawa's movies
    https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/4294861/?utm_referrer=www.google.com
    https://en.kinorium.com/2680888/cast/
    Japanese sources on Bunasawa's accomplishment and career
    Shindo, Kenichi (October 3, 2020). "青春スクロール 市立浦和高校". Asahi Shimbun.
    Kudo, Raisuke (September 10, 1969). "日本代表決まる". The Judo Shimbun.
    https://www.judo-ch.jp/result/ajsc/men1970.shtml
    Russian news media company reporting on Bunasawa's comments and opinions
    https://sputniknews.jp/20190902/6634165.html
    Bunasawa is notable for his involvement in the sport of judo and for his involvement in the movie industry.
    There are no COI issues and I sent him a draft on the article as a courtesy, in order to have a working relationship with him for leads on additional sources and for information regarding judo sports figures of which there will be wiki articles published in the future. DN27ND (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also advised Bunasawa and his newspaper/magazine publishing team to create a wikipedia account in order for them to release some of the photos that they own to wikimedia commons. DN27ND (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I received information that Nori Bunasawa and his newspaper/magazine publishing company owns the photos that he uploaded and that were deleted off of wikimedia commons. DN27ND (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that he is in the process of consulting with his lawyers based in the USA. DN27ND (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being paid is not the only criterion for conflict of interest. See WP:EXTERNALREL. I think the fact that you have a working relationship with this person and especially that you showed the subject of the article a draft itself (presumably for feedback, considering you asked for leads on missing info) is concerning.
    The tone in the article has issues with WP:WTW; "dream team", "talented group", "further his education" are unencyclopedic and lean towards WP:PUFFERY.
    Whether or not there actually is a COI is debatable, but even the scent of one can ruin your credibility on Wikipedia. You really should be more cautious in future. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "dream team" is a common phrase that was originally used to describe the 1992 Basketball Olympic team which swept the competition, and then has been adapted by culture to apply to various sports and teams to mean a team that has won by a large margin over opponents. Given the context and the results of the 1969 World Judo Championships in Mexico city, (this only happed twice in the history of the sport) this is an appropriate phrase to use to describe the events.
    The phrase is also used in other wikipedia articles
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men's_Olympic_basketball_team
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_men's_national_basketball_team#Dream_Team_II
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_men's_Olympic_basketball_team
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup_Dream_Team
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_men's_national_sitting_volleyball_team
    and the list goes on:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Team
    Would it be puffery to describe the 1992 US Olympic dream team as "talented"? Or would it be appropriate to describe any other sports team as talented on wikipedia?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men's_Olympic_basketball_team
    "Opposing teams were nonetheless overwhelmed by the talent of the American roster, losing by an average of 43.8 points per game"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_men's_national_basketball_team#Dream_Team_II
    "The team assembled by USA Basketball for the tournament in Barcelona in 1992 was one of the most illustrious collections of talent assembled in the history of international sport"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_men's_Olympic_basketball_team
    "USA Basketball officials sought to construct the team dubbed Dream Team III (Dream Team II was the moniker of the lesser-known 1994 FIBA World Championship team) with a winning combination of veteran players from the 1992 Dream Team that won the gold medal in Barcelona and some of the league's best young talent."
    "When the first ten players of the 1996 United States Men's national basketball team roster were announced in the summer of 1995, that young talent, and first-time Olympians, included the likes of Penny Hardaway, Grant Hill, Shaquille O'Neal, and Gary Payton"
    Regarding the phrase "further his education", there are sources that Bunasawa attended these universities after receiving a bachelors degree. If that isn't further one's education, then what is?
    Are you saying that journalists never show their subjects a draft to ensure the correct sequence of events?
    Please advise. DN27ND (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not journalists. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. We're actually allowed to describe people as talented, but not in Wikipedia's voice per WP:NPOV. You have to attribute those kinds of opinions to notable people, like "journalist x described y as talented". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also "Dream Team" I can concede on, but other flowery wordings I'm relatively confident in. When you're already bordering on having a COI, you should be paranoid about writing stuff that borders on excessively flattering or flowery, but you're not doing adequate due diligence. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The selection of the word "talent" in that context was to summarize the accomplishments of those selected to be on the 1969 Japan World Judo team and in that particular year. How else would you summarize a collection of people that had multiple world titles, and had multiple Olympic gold medals? In retrospect, even most of the alternatives selected as backups went on to win world titles in subsequent championships. To choose the "talented" word, is this not appropriate considering the results that these players had?
    Considering the results of sporting competitions, is it "flowery" to describe Lebron James, Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, etc., as talented without having to say "journalist x described y as talented".?These sporting figures have won multiple world and Olympic titles in their respective sport.
    At the end of the day, we are not journalist but the human aspect still applies. Courtesy and respect towards one's subject goes a long way. Just because a writer chooses to show courtesy and respect towards the subject he is writing about, it doesn't mean there is a COI.
    If a person chooses to take more college courses after achieving a Bachelor's degree, how would you describe that if not "furthering his education" ? There is newspaper evidence that Bunasawa was taking more university level courses while simultaneously coaching the varsity judo team.
    Could you give other examples of "flowery" wording from the article? DN27ND (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also no "personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial" COI. It is common in journalism to keep good relationships (ie protection of anonymity of whistleblowers) with one's subjects/sources in order to further obtain information from them. There is precedence (especially in sports) of subjects denying access of information to journalists who may be rude, disrespectful, etc. Some of the information taken from newspaper sources, sports media sources (ie ESPN) require journalists to be able to contact sports figures for information. DN27ND (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above, we're not journalists 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not journalists. The info on wikipedia articles are not primary sources (birth certificates, actual signed contracts, actual college diplomas, identity cards, actual competition brackets etc). These are citations to newspapers and magazines, which are written by sports journalists or reporters. These are secondary and tertiary sources.
    If wikipedia contributors are able to use primary sources, it would make writing these articles easier and actually more accurate (since I could just upload the proof)
    Even though we are not journalist, having courtesy and respect towards one's subject could yield leads to information which would make summarizing events easier and more accurate. DN27ND (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since wikipedia contributors aren't allowed to upload primary sources, in essence we are using journalist's opinions (ie journalist from the NY times, OC register, People magazine, Asahi Shimbun, Wall Street Journal, etc) as sources of evidence. Do you think the vetting process to obtain a journalist / reporter pass from these companies is strenuous?
    In essence, it would be way easier, "neutral", and encyclopedic if wikipedia contributers were able to use primary sources as evidence rather than secondary, or tertiary sources written by "experts" hired by these media companies. DN27ND (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out the results of the 1969 Judo World Championships
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_World_Judo_Championships
    Is that not a podium sweep where one team had a decisive victory over the other teams? That is the time of only 2 times this has happened in the sports history. If the phrases "dream team" or "talented group" is not appropriate to describe the sporting results. Perhaps those words need to be censored from all other wikipedia articles about sports where these words have been used to describe competition results. DN27ND (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That 1969 World Judo team had multiple World and Olympic champions on them. In the sport of judo, the World Championships are regarded as a more difficult achievement than the Olympics due to their respective qualification processes. DN27ND (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been updating many articles on wikipedia regarding Korean poltics. Everyone knows about the history of the Japanese-Korean rivalry. This is not the thread to hold a grudge.
    This is the article is for the sport of judo. You are biased and you have a political agenda. DN27ND (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also many other newspaper and magazine articles that show Bunasawa's notability on the wikipedia article.
    Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register.
    "Judo". Orange Network. 385: 7. April 2023.
    New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975
    "Instructor on Show". Rogers Daily News. April 1975.
    I could scan these newspaper articles and send them to you. Or you can go into the library archives and look them up yourself. DN27ND (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice: I didn't question the person's notability. I'm questioning COI and your understanding of Wikipedia's editing style. These walls of text and excessive bolding are not necessary; I can read. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the original poster (Marchjuly) did question notability and it is part of this page's discussion
    "I wasn't sure about the subject's Wikipedia notablity per WP:BIO and asked about the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts#Nori Bunasawa. DN27ND was pinged into the discussion but never responded"
    People have occupations, other obligations, and commenting on wikipedia doesn't pay the bills. I'm not sure if Marchjuly was expecting an immediate response or what? DN27ND (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're doubling down on the walls of text and bolding. I can read. I'm still confident in what I said, will not engage anymore. Good luck. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the "working relationship" described by DN27ND consitutes a conflict (at least in regard to Wikipedia editing) per WP:COI is porbably something that needs to be further discussed at WP:COIN. I will start a discusison about it sometime within the next few days. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't scan any newspaper articles and then upload them to either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons because doing so is likely going to be considered a copyright violation. Please also don't reproduce verbatim any of these sources are any Wikipedia page, except perhaps as short and properly attributed quotes in accordance with MOS:QUOTE because that too will almost certainly be considered a copyright violation. If you can find these sources online somewhere (perhaps a site like Newspapers.com), you can perhaps posts links them as long as there are no WP:COPYLINK issues. You can also summarize these sources in your own words at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nori Bunasawa (the link is WP:RED because the page doesn't exist yet). I will ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request to see whether anyone might be able to find the Orange County Register, Indiana Evening Gazette, Orange Network and Rogers Daily News articles and provide either a link or an assessment of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sources that are online, I've already linked them to the page.
    '''Orange County Register, Indiana Evening Gazette, Orange Network and Rogers Daily News'''
    These sources are not online and some of the Japanese sources are not online either. I received them as newspaper clippings. The dates and issues are included. You could try to call the local libraries in those counties and can talk to the librarian about sending you those papers.
    Orange County Register has a webpage. Perhaps they might have online achieves. I have photographs of the newspaper clippings.
    The Indiana Evening Gazette has online achieves. I have not looked at it because I have access to the scanned newspaper clippings.
    The Orange Network is associated with the Orange County Japanese American Association. You can give them a call or search their website to see if they keep their old issues on pdf.
    Rogers Daily News is the local paper from Rogers, Ark. that was published from 1927-1981. You can try to call the local library in that city, perhaps they have archives
    I have them as clippings, scans, and photos taken by a camera phone.
    There are actually much more newspaper articles that were written about Bunasawa in the newspapers, such as a time one of his teen students used judo in self defense against an assault, and many much more. Just because some of the sources are from 25 to 35 years ago, and before the time of the internet, doesn't make Bunasawa a less "notable" sport and martial arts figure.
    The information is all there if you want to do the research and look hard enough. Also finding people (through connections) who have saved these newspaper clippings, especially for people who existed before the internet does wonders when writing up a biography.
    Have fun on your search DN27ND (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also a few other english language papers in California stating that Bunasawa was a pre-medical student while coaching Judo. I haven't included all the sources and kept it general via "furthering his education" as some papers cited stated that he was a uni student in the USA.
    If its THAT important to you, you can call Bunsawa's assistants to see if you can obtain his university diploma at Waseda University, then cross reference the dates of the newspaper sources that stated that he was a student in the USA, then voilà, you have inferred that he "furthered his education"
    You can look in the biographical section of his book as well
    Bunasawa, Nori; Murray, John (2007). The Toughest Man Who Ever Lived. Nevada: Innovations, Inc. and Judo Journal. p. 299. ISBN 978-0-9648984-1-7. DN27ND (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • DN27ND, to be blunt, no one is going to read through all of this confusing content you posted, it's overwhelming. You need to be concise. There are a lot of AFDs to look through and this is just one. Editors are much likely to rely on the source analysis table below, which concisely presents information in a way everyone can understand. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No problem
      Just added a new source that reinstates all the info already cited in the article
      Fears, Randy (October 1975). "U.S. Judo team". Rogers Daily News DN27ND (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll enjoy following the source analysis table DN27ND (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The subject of the articles is notable as a US coach at the Olympic, World, and collegiate levels. He is also involved in the movie industry and has multiple credits. His The Toughest Man Who Ever Lived. Is in the process of being adapted into a motion picture.
    Citations on his coaching career
    Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register.
    "Judo". Orange Network. 385: 7. April 2023.
    New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975
    "Instructor on Show". Rogers Daily News. April 1975.
    Citations & evidence on his involvement in the motion picture industry
    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12094236/
    Bunasawa's involvement in "Dead or Alive"
    https://www.judoinside.com/judoka/90786/Noriaki_Bunasawa/judo-career
    José Padilha as the director on the BJJ-Judo movie project
    https://www.imdb.com/news/ni62362469/
    https://about.netflix.com/en/news/josé-padilha-attached-to-write-and-direct-feature-film-dead-or-alive-with-greg-silvermans-stampede-for-netflix
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/narcos-director-jose-padilha-tackling-netflix-jiu-jitsu-movie-dead-alive-1181926/
    DN27ND (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added the following source assessment table for many of the additional sources cited above by DN27ND. It doesn't cover all of the sources DN27ND mentioned, but I'll keep searching online for links for those not in the table. I used Google translate for the one Russian source since I don't understand Russian, but am able to read the Japanese sources unassisted. The assessments are mine and I tried to give detailed explanations as to the reasons why I made them. The table's last column "Count source toward GNG?" is an assessment done by the table itself. An explanation of it's computed can be found at Template:Source assess#"Overall" assessment.
    Source assessment table: prepared by User:Marchjuly
    Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/may/12/ichiban-sports-complex-shares-strange-s/ Yes Independently published newspaper article Yes 2016 article in Arkansas Democrat Gazette No Bunasawa in mentioned by name twice, but the main focus of the article is Willard Robertson and the Ichiban Sports Complex. Bunasawa is mentioned as being won of several "experts" Robertson brought in to work at the complex. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV but might be OK to use as a RS for certain article content. ✘ No
    https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qNUDAAAAMBAJ&q=bunasawa&pg=PA38&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=bunasawa&f=false Yes Independently published magazine article Yes Four-page article titled "Title techniques" in the July 1978 issue of Black Belt (magazine) ? Three of the four pages are photos of Bunsawa demonstrating some technique, but the first page is part interview and part biographical material. Not sure this qualifies as sigcov per se, but it seems enough of a RS to support some article content. The quoted parts of the article though probably need to be treated as WP:ABOUTSELF. ? Unknown
    https://www.abebooks.com/9780964898424/Toughest-Man-Who-Lived-Nori-096489842X/plp#:~:text=A book about Conde Koma,force in the martial arts ? AbeBooks page about the book Toughest Man Who Ever Lived. The paragraph on the book appears to be WP:UGC content ? Could possibly be used to support Bunasawa co-writing the book No Not close to being sigcov for either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR ✘ No
    https://www.judoinside.com/judoka/90786/Noriaki_Bunasawa/judo-career ? Has a fansite feel to it. ? Niche website which looks like UGC content, but might be conisdered a RS for Judo. No Brief profile blurb that might be OK as a RS for certain article content but isn't close to being sigcov. ✘ No
    https://www.instagram.com/p/Crg9KAmBek5/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== No Instagram account that appears to be connected to Bunasawa. ? UGC and WP:SPS type of source that only could be used per WP:ABOUTSELF No Not close to being sigcov ✘ No
    https://www.imdb.com/news/ni62362469/ Yes IMDb blurb about this 2019 The Hollywood Reporter article ? Original article is probably a good source for content about the movie, but there's nothing in the article about Bunasawa; so, trying to use this to support content about Bunasawa's involvement with the film seems to be WP:SYN. No Not close to being signcov ✘ No
    https://about.netflix.com/en/news/josé-padilha-attached-to-write-and-direct-feature-film-dead-or-alive-with-greg-silvermans-stampede-for-netflix ? Netflix PR blurb about film ? Like the above source, might be for content about the film as WP:PRIMARY source, but makes no mention of Bunasawa. No Not close to being sigcov ✘ No
    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12094236/ No Bunasawa's IMDb page No IMDb pages are generally not considered RS per WP:IMDB No Not close ot being sigcov ✘ No
    https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/4294861/ ? Russian language movie website ? Looks to be similar to IMDb, and bascially just a cast/crew list for the 1990 film Martial Marshal (seems to also be called Judo Justice). Bunasawa isn't mentioned at all No Not close to being sigcov ✘ No
    https://en.kinorium.com/2680888/cast/ ? Another movie database type site ? Appear to be an IMDb type site. Bunasawa in listed by name in the "Cast" section as playing "Gonji Tamashita" but nothing more. ? Not close to being sigcov ? Unknown
    https://4kou.jp/news/434/ (link is to high school's alumni association's website which scanned and reposted the article. An April 2021 archived version of the article from the Asahi Shimbun website can be found here.) Yes September 2020 article/feature in the Saitama edition of the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun Yes The Asahi Shimbun is certainly a RS, but this seems to have appeared only in a local edition of the paper for Saitama Prefecture. It's also primarily about the one of the area's local high school's and the school's alumni. There are five half-pages and Bunasawa is mentioned (there's a photo of him as well) on the fifth half-page along with others (including his older brother) who were involved in the school's judo club. This could be a RS to support article content about Bunasawa having a brother, going to this particular high school, or some other associated article content. ? There's more converage about Bunasawa in this particular article than there's is in perhaps many of the other sources mentioned above, but it doesn't seem to be sigcov. ? Unknown
    　https://www.judo-ch.jp/result/ajsc/men1970.shtml ? Database-like site of judo competition results ? Appears to be a UGC type of site, but might be considered reliable for articles about judo competitions。Bunsawa is mentioned by name once for finishing runner up in the light-weight class of a 1969 judo tournament in Fukuoka, Japan. No Not close to being sigcov ✘ No
    https://sputniknews.jp/20190902/6634165.html ? August 2019 piece by Sputnik (news agency) No Site isn't considered reliable per WP:SPUTNIK but not clear whether that applies to judo. The Wikipedia article about the site states it's frequently described as a "propaganda outlet" that's currently banned in the EU. This might have more to do with other things than judo though. The article is only a few paragraphs long and quotes Bunasawa a couple of times (as an "expert" perhaps) on how non-Japanese judokas can prepare to beat their Japanese counterparts at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. No Not close to being sigcov ✘ No
    https://www.ocjaa.org/orange-network Yes Piece in the April 2023 issue of a magazine/newsletter put out by the Orange County Japanese American Association. ? This would appear to be UGC content with very little if any kind of rigorous editorial control. I don't think the OCJAA would knowingly post anything false, but they might not have the capability to the type of strenuous fact checking expected of a RS. It's certainly doesn't seem to be a major news publication; it doesn't even seem to be close to the level of the Rafu Shimpo. It's published in Japanese and its target audience is most likely Japanese-Americans, Japanese nationals or other Japanese speakers living/working in the area. The April 2023 issue in which the the article "Judo" is supposed to appear isn't available any longer on the OCJAA website, but the cover can be seen here. I tried to see if I could find an archived version of of the issue from an archived version of the main page like this one from June 2023 or this one from April 2024 and work backwards, but had no luck. ? Hard to assess whether the article is sigcov, but from looking at some recent issues still available online like july 2024, June 2024, May 2024 and April 2024, the "magazine" appears to be mainly advertisements and event listing with a few stories/interviews thrown in. There's a good chance the "Judo" article was an part interview and part general interest piece that had some biographical information about Bunasawa but nothing resembling the sigcov to help establish Wikipedia notability. ? Unknown
    This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

        -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Lean delete per table above, unless it is updated with other sources. The COI is a contributing factor. DN27ND, please do not try to convince me otherwise of COI, you had several essays worth of space to do so and you have not yet. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More bludgeoning (again, with a smaller number of brief contributions by others to said bludgeoning). Daniel (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are you and what are your qualifications? The wikipedia article created on Bunasawa is very well sourced. If there is doubt, the onus is on you to do your research. The Bunasawa is way more sourced than many articles on wikipedia. Regarding the table, there are no requirements for contributors to make one. You and people who doubt the authenticity or notability should make one. This is a blatant attempt of censorship. DN27ND (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't an attempt at censorship, it's an attempt at determining whether or not the article belongs on Wikipedia by judging it against Wikipedia policy. Or do you believe that there's a reason why some kind of non policy-related conspiracy might lead to the article being deleted? Axad12 (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In essence, Bunasawa is a US coach involved in both domestic and international competitions and he's involved in the movie business. There is a combination of both sources from minor websites, the bio section of the novel he co-authored, and to legitimate local newspapers. If there are disagreements regarding the style or to a source given, you are free to edit the Bunasawa article, it's public.
    To delete it completely is censorship. DN27ND (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel a section is not properly sourced, then add a [citation needed] tag. If you feel that there are COI, then add the COI notification label. Like I said, to delete the article completely without checking all the sources to see if there is truth in what is written, is censorship. DN27ND (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The summary of what I'm saying is, do the fact-checking first, then decide whether or not to delete. DN27ND (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the main papers which state that Bunasawa has coached at the Olympic & World level are these ones
    Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register.
    "Judo". Orange Network. 385: 7. April 2023.
    New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975
    "Instructor on Show". Rogers Daily News. April 1975.
    Fears, Randy (October 1975). "U.S. Judo team". Rogers Daily News.
    I have the scanned newspaper clippings on my computer, and could post them here DN27ND (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DN27ND (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DN27ND (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many more articles I could post. I wouldn't have gotten access to leads to this information and these clippings if I did not have contact with Bunasawa and his team. You can suspect COI, but that is speculation and open for debate. DN27ND (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion about this has been started at WP:COIN#User:DN27ND. It's probably better to further discuss this there than here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also there was a typo in Rogers Daily News by Randy Fears. The World Championships in Vienna were held in 1975 rather than 1976. DN27ND (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could get clippings of (in a month or so)
    "New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975.
    and I could post it to show Bunasawa was indeed a collegiate coach as well.
    But what's to stop future editors from accusations without doing their research?
    If 100 future editors all want these clippings, am I to post it 100 times in the future?
    The article is extensively sourced, and the onus is on the accuser to do their research. DN27ND (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You were advised above not to upload scans or photos of newspaper article because or the copyright issues related to doing so. Scanning or taking a photo of a newspaper article doesn't make it your "own work" as explained in c:COM:Own work and c:COM:2D copying, and you can't upload such things to Commons as your "own work"; moreover, even if you properly attribute the original work and are claiming the scan/photo is a c:COM:Derivative work in some way, you still can't upload such things to Commons unless can clearly show the original publications the articles appeared in are no longer under copyright protection or have been release under an acceptable license by their copyright holders. You can summarize these sources in your own words on either the article's talk page or this AfD's talk page if you want, but you shouldn't reproduce them verbatim. I've tagged the files for speedy deletion on Commons and hidden them here until they are reviewed by a Commons administrator. If you'd like to provide evidence that these newspaper articles are your "own work" or otherwise aren't protected by copyright, please do so at c:COM:ANU#User:DN27ND; please don't, however, unhide the files until their licensing can be sorted out, and please don't upload anymore. If it the files are kept by Commons, I have no problem unhiding them myself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure delete it. Did you update your table using those sources? DN27ND (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those articles clearly state that Bunasawa was the US Judo World and Olympic coach at one point in his career DN27ND (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that the sources exist and are not fabricated. The Bunasawa article is extensively sourced. I'm not sure if they are online because these are sources from the 1970s and 1980s.
    There are records from newspapers indicating that he was a Judo coach for the US team and for collegiate teams in the 1970s. They aren't online but I have the clippings. DN27ND (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DN27ND, you obviously didn't take my hint that you had said ENOUGH. No one is going to read through all of these comments you have posted and there might well be a backlash to your bludgeoning of this discussion. If you don't stop right here, you might very well get a partial block from editing this page. You are not helping your case, you are hurting it. Editors know where you stand, please room for other editors to participate. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete on the basis that this discussion [1] suggests that the subject doesn't meet WP:MANOTE. Also, the article was originally written by a user who has claimed on Commons to be the subject. User DN27ND is clearly closely associated with the subject, if they are not actually the subject, and at the very least is editing directly on behalf of the subject. His claims to be a journalist are clearly questionable, as journalists do not post the results of their work on Wikipedia. COI users, however, do. Axad12 (talk) 14.39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Delete I appreciate the analysis done by Marchjuly. I had started to put together my own list, but he published first. I generally agree with his analysis. I didn't see anything that convinces me that there are multiple cases of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Passing mentions, being named a judo instructor, martial arts rank, demonstrating techniques, and listings of results have never been considered sufficient to provide the coverage necessary to show WP notability. There is no evidence that he meets WP:SPORTBASIC which talks about having "success in a major international competition at the highest level." He didn't qualify for the Japanese team even though they were awarded two spots in each division. Being one of two team alternates in his division isn't enough, nor are high school or collegiate championships. I also don't see him meeting notability requirements as an author or actor. I would say he's a talented judoka, but that alone is not grounds for WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet more bludgeoning along with a healthy dose of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok... could you tell me how these wiki profiles are allowed to exist?
      Tatsukuma Ushijima
      Yosh Uchida
      Yoshimi Osawa
      and etc. These guys never competed at an international level but have had involvement in the sport in multiple ways, either through promotions, winning national titles, and coaching.
      I've included citations in the article and Marchjuly's chart showing evidence of Bunasawa as the US Olympic and World team coach. The bits about what he Bunasawa has won in high school, and the collegiate level, were included to show his development as a sportsman, and how he acquired those skills, his exposure to World and Olympic level players, as part of his development towards becoming a Judo coach.
      Take a look at Ryoko Tani's biography under "selection controversy"
      "Tani lost the 2007 All-Japan Weight Class Judo Championship, which doubles as the qualifier for Olympics and the World Championships on those years when the events take place, but was selected as Japan's representative anyway by the All Japan Judo Federation (AJJF)."
      Bunasawa was not selected in either of the 2 spots for the 1969 Mexico World Championships, but if you check out Kono's results (who was selected with Minatoya) he was eliminated at that same national championships in 1969 in the first round by Matsuda (and there is citation and evidence of this). The AJJF's selection of Kono rather than Bunasawa, Matsuda, or even Yamazaki (who was the Asian champion) was controversal considering Kono's competition resume and results.
      The judo profiles on wikipedia Japan often lists a player's past competitions and details of their results. Yes you are right, Bunasawa never competed at an international level, but he is an international level coach (this is documented). DN27ND (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You've been warned to stop these walls of text and bolding. If I was you I'd give it a break.
      Also, arguing that other stuff exists which may be as bad as (or worse than) this article isn't a legitimate argument for this article not to be deleted, it's only an argument that those articles may need to be be deleted too.
      Could I ask you a question though? Can you clarify the circumstances which led to you opening an account on Wikipedia and then, as one of your very first edits, approving an article which you presumably were aware had been written by the subject of the article, with whom you had presumably already had contact. Did it not strike you that there may have been some conflict of interest there? Axad12 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wrote the article and sent it to Bunasawa's team. They might have thought I wanted them to post it? But that wasn't my intention of sending them the draft. I was hoping they look through the dates and make sure everything was in chronological order. I do research the sport and history of Judo extensively and was planning to create other Judo biographies of figures that do not currently have a wikipedia but I think are notable in the sport. That is my intention of creating a wikipedia account. I have another biography in the works, which will probably be released at the end of 2024 or early 2025.
      No it did not strike me as a COI. I wrote the article draft and sent it to the Bunasawa team. They provided me leads on info and additional newspaper clippings. If I didnt reach out to their team, I woudnt have gotten all those newspaper clippings. DN27ND (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In which case you were approving an article which you actually wrote yourself, but which someone else had posted on Wikipedia after you sent it to them? Axad12 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes I wrote that. I send the draft to the Bunasawa team with the intention that they verify the dates and chronology of the article. I am not Nori Bunasawa. I have news that he is currently in the USA and I'm in another country. DN27ND (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is context to this. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, If you were a top national player in Japan, that was equivalent to being a World level player. The reason being is because the sheer number of competitors in Japan, and the developmental system of Judo in Japan (the birthplace of Judo). Being a top player in Japan at that time meant being top 3 in the world if you were selected by AJJF to compete and represent internationally.
      This is a reason that he was appointed as the US Judo coach in 1972 Olympic in Munich and 1975 World Championships in Vienna. Which is to elevate the level of those teams.
      I don't think its a stretch to say that the USA is not a strong judo nation. They have a few World champions and Olympic medalists, but not that much when compared to Japan, Korea, Brazil, France, etc.
      The inclusion of his competitions at a high school and collegiate level was giving background to his future pursuits.
      If you really knew the world of judo then you would know that there are different levels. Japanese high school students champions can often beat USA Judo Olympians. And most standout former Japanese Judo collegiate players would certainly beat many ordinary USA judo olympians. This is the purpose of the mentioning of his All Japan Silver medal accomplishment. When you talk about All Japan Medalists in those days, they would usually dominate the opposition if they were sent to compete by the All Japan Judo Federation (AJJF). DN27ND (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Check out these other martial arts profiles
      Tim Cartmell
      I mean, do you know what the senior 2 division is? The IBJJF, like the IJF, creates many divisions where older athletes could compete. These competitions do not result in points toward qualification for World or the Olympics games. Its not the most competitive divisions by any stretch of the imagination. Other than that, it looks like Tim Cartmell was prolific writer.
      Check out
      Dan Inosanto
      Did he fight internationally? Was he an international competitor? DN27ND (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, this is beyond the scope of the article and special interest, but if you do your research, the All Japan National Judo Championships is a much much more difficult competition to qualify for and to win than the US Open of Judo, of which you don't have to qualify for. You can just sign up and compete at the US Open of Judo (no joke). DN27ND (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Experienced judo competitors are aware of this. DN27ND (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For many international competitions at less developed judo nations (ie US Judo Open, Australian Judo Open, etc). There is no qualification processes. You can simply sign up and compete.
      At many IBJJF events, you can simply sign up and compete (especially at senior 2, 3, etc. aka the old men divisions) there are no qualification process where you have to win a prior tournament to enter the present tournament. DN27ND (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Papaursa, you were editing Tim Cartmell's wikipedia article. Do you really think the IBJJF Pan Championship as a brown belt (Senior 2) and black belt (Senior 2) divisions are legitimate competitive divisions? The IBJJF classifies those divisions are for 56 to 60 years old players. That is the grandfather division. The brackets of these divisions have small numbers of participants. Those divisions were created for older hobbyist jiujitsu players who are well past their physical prime, to compete in so that the IBJJF could collect tournament fees. Most of these older jiujitsu players use the senior 2 division (which means past one's physical prime division) as an opportunity to travel to south America and enjoy the local festivities. Its also very fun for those athletes in the senior 2 division to have their grandkids come out to cheer them on as well.
      If you really think the past one's physical prime division (aka senior 2 division) is a competitive international division which makes a person wikipedia notable, then I have some snake oil to sell you. DN27ND (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @104.232.119.107
      Let me translate "snake oil" for you: 뱀기름
      It's definitely puffery DN27ND (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • DN27ND, I suggest you look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. The notability of other articles has no bearing on the WP notability of this article. If you feel those articles about about non-notable subjects, you are welcome to put them up for deletion. If the U.S. head coach at the 1972 Olympics isn't notable, why would the technical coach be notable? I would also caution you about WP:BLUDGEON. I mention these other guidelines because the fact you haven't contributed to any other articles means you might not be aware of other relevant policies and guidelines. You should be aware that open events mean they are open to all (hence the name). They are often different from national championships, especially in sports that can only accommodate a limited number of competitors. For example, this year's U.S. Open in chess has over 300 competitors, but the U.S. championship invites the highest ranked 10 Americans (according to world rankings). Papaursa (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No prizes for guessing why this is being collapsed at this point. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not aware of the sign up procedures of the US open of chess or the US national chess championships. In judo, the open tournaments hosted in nations of lessor developed judo programs have lower turnouts, qualification processes, and to be frank, a lower talent pool. Just because an athlete competes internationally, doesn't mean they are notable in judo (which was one of the criteria mentioned above for a requirement of notability.
      Why wouldn't an Olympic coach be notable? Are collegiate coaches notable?
      Check out
      Dan Hurley
      He's a notable collegiate basketball coach, and his article lists that he coached at a high school level.
      Is coaching at a high school level notable? Or is this info included to illustrate the progression of his career?
      I'm not making an argument that the subject in the other articles aren't notable. What I'm saying is that they are notable. Movie stars, coaches, pioneers of the sport, they are notable in their own way. That's your opinion that they aren't notable.
      I may think that a certain chess player is not notable. But I know nothing of chess, and I would have an uneducated opinion. In that case, I wouldn't vote because I wouldn't be able to tell whether that chess player is notable or not, I would defer to the chess fans, followers and experts.
      In Bunasawa's case, not only is he a notable judo coach by coaching 3 levels (Olympic, World, Collegiate), but also an author that is having his book adapted by a major production company. "Dead or Alive" is connected both Bunasawa and Jose Padilla. DN27ND (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why would I trust a judo expert to vote whether a chess expert is notable or not and vice versa? Perhaps if it were a vote amongst members of the USA judo community, I would view that as more legitimate than a vote of an uninformed mob DN27ND (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So you view the AfD process as akin to an uninformed mob?
      The problem is your lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies like conflict of interest, reliable sources, notability, etc. etc. Those policies exist so that things can be dealt with objectively, rather than just using your opinions on those topics, which seem to be very much at odds with policy if your comments here are anything to go by. Axad12 (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm informed about COI, reliable sources, and notability. I can see why readers suspect COI, but it is what it is. If I did not have contact with the subject and his team, I wouldn't have gain access to information and the newspaper clippings and there would be no article. So put a COI disclaimer on the article.
      I'm aware what reliable sources are. The article contains a mix of both reliable sources and sources that are potentially less reliable. For evidence of the subject's role as a US judo coach at the Olympic, World, and collegiate level, those are very reliable sources. For evidence of his involvement in the movie industry and upcoming project, those are semi-reliable and inferences were made (ie José Padilha is involved in the Mitsuyo Maeda movie "Dead or Alive", Bunasawa is involved in the Mitsuyo Maeda movie "Dead or Alive", Bunasawa co-authored a book on Mitsuyo Maeda therefore, his book is being adapted to a movie by a major production company (Stampede productions), which was also stated on Judoinside.com). I could ask Bunasawa and his team to take a picture of his contract and post it on wikimedia commons and there is a good chance they could do that. The contract would be considered a primary source and I regard that has having greater integrity than secondary sources. But I'm not sure if this is allowed.
      Whether or not Judoinside.com is a reliable source is debatable. It's a website that is supposed to have accurate judo competition records and biographies. Can it make mistakes? Absolutely. "Reliable sources" like the New York Times also make mistakes on reports. I would say judoinside.com could perhaps be classified as semi-reliable. The point is, through my contact with Bunasawa, I was informed that he signed a contract with the production company. When I tried to search this online, Judoinside.com was the only source of information which verified this.
      In terms of notability, Judo has grown into a large global Olympic sport since the 1960s. Judo became an Olympic sport in 1964, and around the time the subject of this article entered college as a freshman. This individual was operating within the judo world since the beginning of the institution of weight classes to development of international competitions. He is part of the history of the sport.
      The other information such as him founding a martial art, his involvement with his newspaper company comes from his book and his newspapers. In terms of notability of the book and the newspaper, you would have to assess it by sales, circulation and whether it is used as a citation on other papers. I heard the book did very good sales numbers on the google bookstore and on Amazon.
      In terms of his fighting records, those are from newspaper clippings from Japanese sports newspapers such as Nippon Judo Shimbun, and The Judo Shimbun. The inclusion of his national japan fighting record is to give some context to his coaching involvement in the USA. That competition is well respected in the Judo world in the around the time of the 1960s. So to judge notability, knowledge of historical context of the sport is required.
      So yes, if you don't have knowledge of the historical context of the sport, it is akin to an uninformed mob voting on a subject of which they have no information about.
      When writing this article, I was thinking about how the English reader could understand the article without me actually writing and explaining the historical situation of the sport in a biographical article. I still haven't figured it out, but I have included some sources such as Leitner, Katrin (2011). "The Japanese Corporate Sports System: a Unique style of Sports Promotion". Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies. 2: 27–54. doi:10.2478/vjeas-2011-0008 – via Researchgate which includes the history for interested readers. DN27ND (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      On the sport of judo and notability in judo. Let's get real and we'll use judo in the USA as an example. There are a lot of international competitors that the US puts out that I would call no-hopers. The majority of US judo athletes get eliminated in the first round at major international tournaments. If they get a lucky bracket, maybe they will get eliminated in the 2nd round. If you are in the sport long enough, at some of the less competitive tournaments (like the Pan-Americans, most of US athletes might win Bronze or Silver). Some of these athletes market themselves, try to get endorsements to cover their travel and competition expenses, but really use it as a vacation. To travel the world on their own dime or their sponsor's dime, but in actually, they are the no-hopers (they wont medal in the Olympics or World championships). There are exceptions to the rule, (Jimmy Pedro, Mike Swain, Kayla Harrison, Kevin Asano, etc) but the exceptions are rare.
      A player who medals in the All Japan Championships in the 1960s and the 1970s, if they get selected by the AJJF to compete in the Olympics or the Worlds, it is almost a certainty that they will get a onto the podium to get a medal (there are exceptions to the rule, but it is a huge chance they will medal). Since this is the reality of Judo, then you will understand why Bunasawa is a notable US coach and why I included the details of his 1969 All Japan National Judo tournament in his bio. And trust me, Bunasawa is a lot more notable than the US judo athletes that have been on the international circuit post-2016 Rio Olympics. There's a lot of no-hopers on the US judo team post-2016 Rio Olympics that are a lot less notable than Bunasawa.
      If you are informed about the sport of judo in the USA, you would know this. DN27ND (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Read WP:BLUDGEON. And then post the links to the articles you think work towards WP:GNG. Anything else is just wasting your own time and other people's. Axad12 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also since this is the format, for non-judo people to vote on notability. Perhaps research on judo as a sport in the late 1960s. The only international events at that time for the sport of were either the World Championships or the Olympic games. Meaning there were literally no other international events in 1969. If the AJJF did not select you, other international competitions were not available. Today in modern times, there is a saturation of international events in judo. But that doesnt mean an international judo player is notable.
      In the 1960s, if you at the top of Japan Judo. You were very notable in the judo world. DN27ND (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Papaursa, I suggest you look up the senior 2 division of the IBJJF before editing Tim Cartmell's wikipedia article. It's a division for 56-60 year olds. Grandkids love coming out to cheer for their grandpas in those divisions. Are you saying competitors in this BJJ division (which is not an Olympic sport) are more notable than an Olympic level coach? Please clarify DN27ND (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Question I've stopped trying to read through the avalanche of text by DN27ND. Am I wrong or are both of the keep votes from him? Papaursa (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, one is from Kingsif. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Am I wrong to keep votes from you? You who believes IBJJF senior 2 divisions count as notable because they are international competitions DN27ND (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed two entries from the source assessment table that were added by added by DN27ND, on the basis that the source assessment table above is clearly marked "prepared by User:Marchjuly" and so it is misleading to add source analysis that is not actually prepared by Marchjuly. DN27ND is free to re-add this analysis separately if it is clearly indicated with who it's coming from. DanCherek (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There were users who wanted me to add to the table. I shouldnt have to do Marchjuly's homework, but ok I'll entertain him. I posted 2 of the relevant photographs of newspaper clippings rather than add those sources to his table list before its deletion, he choose to hide them before deletion. This is censorship of sourced information and of sources. DN27ND (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it would be useful to have some input from Marchjuly and Papaursa on whether the two sources in the table below genuinely count towards satisfying WP:GNG. My understanding of previous comments in this thread is that references to someone having been a coach do not confer notability.
      Personally I'm very reluctant to take the word of an editor who has admitted to having approved a draft that they had themselves authored, in clear contravention of policy, and who seems to be very unfamiliar with broader policy here. Not to mention, of course, the fact that they have a conflict of interest but have yet to declare it on their user page. Axad12 (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with this. I think it's possible the subject of the article is notable, but the draft creation and approval process is so suspect that I don't think we should keep the article up. It sets a bad precedent. If someone really wants this article back, then they can recreate in future, without a COI and without this extreme belligerence. The conduct from DN27ND in this thread has been unacceptable. Throwing around accusations of censorship, walls of text, poor understanding of Wikipedia policy and refusal to learn the policy, refusal to adjust the POV language. It just keeps going.
      I already voted above, but we should delete the article. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Collapsing per the inappropriate commentary and line of questioning. Daniel (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My conduct is unacceptable to you? What are your qualifications?
      Perhaps you should clean up the article? I contributed to the article using language that is in common usage in North America. The selection of the wording is appropriate to give the information in a relatively terse manner. DN27ND (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just wondering, is North American english your first language? You dont have to answer if you don't want to DN27ND (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue raised directly above related to whether some of the language used was in accordance with WP:NPOV (as per discussions further up this thread), not whether it was good English. You really are doing yourself no favours by continually arguing, especially when so much of what you are saying is contrary to policy.
      You've been asked now twice to knock off the WP:BLUDGEON. This discussion is about reaching a consensus on the right course of action, not for you to make the overwhelming majority of contributions saying things that no one else agrees with. Axad12 (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As I posted above and in my edit summary, I "hid" the images per WP:TPG#Removing prohibited material because they were copyvios uploaded to Wikipedia Commons and were subsequently deleted as such by a Commons' administrator. DN27ND was advised not to do this, but went ahead and did so anyways. As I also posted above, I would've happily unhid the files if Commons would've kept them. DN27ND was also advised that they could post at c:COM:ANU#User:DN27ND and explain why the two uploads weren't copyvios. DN27ND can still request the undeletion of the files at c:COM:REFUND if they feel the files were wrongly deleted. If DN27ND thinks I censored them or otherwise did something else inappropriate by doing this, they're free to seek administrator assistance at WP:ANI; if hiding the files was wrong, an administrator will let me know and even possibly sanction me for it. A Wikipedia administrator can't restore the files, though, since they were uploaded to Commons (please don't misunderstand this as meaning it's OK to reupload them to locally to Wikipedia though) and need to restroed by a Commons administrator.

    As for the source assessment table, DN27ND or anyone else re-assess the same sources I did or assess other yet-to-be assessed sources (with or without using a table), but it would be better to do so as their own separate post (maybe a brief assessment or table here on this AFD page and more further analysis on the AfD's talk page if needed my be a good idea). Others, however, really shouldn't be modifying my post to add their assessments to my table per WP:TPO because doing so makes it seems as if it's my assessment and not theirs; this is why DanCherek, who's a Wikipedia administrator, reverted DN27ND's edit to the table I created. If DN27ND feels DanCherek censored them by doing this, they're free to discuss things with Dan at User talk:DanCherek or seek other administrator assistance at WP:ANI. It's not a question of doing someone else's homework for them, but rather a question of misrepresenting what someone else has posted by modifying it in some way (i.e. putting your words into their mouth) without a really good Wikipedia policy based reason for doing so. If DN27ND and others mistakenly thought the table I created was for them to build on, then my apologies for not making it clear that it wasn't. Now, if anyone disagrees with my source analysis, they're of course free to post why; once again, though, they should do so in their own post and not insert their comments into the middle of one of mine. FWIW, I've added a signature to the post DN27ND made to create their source assessment table since it was missing one. I did this per WP:TPG#Attributing unsigned comments and didn't modify the post in any other way. If DN27ND wants to add some kind of introductory statement to the post, they can. They should also be able to expand the table with additional assessments if they want, but might want to follow WP:REDACT if they do, particularly if others have already commented on the assessments given in the table and posted below the table.

    Finally, I've posted enough in this discussion already; others are more than capable of reading all that's been posted above (or what's yet to come) and making their own assessments regarding Bunasawa's Wikipedia notablity. DN27ND doesn't really need to convince me of this, but the WP:ONUS is on them to establish a WP:CONSENUS among others that Bunasawa is indeed Wikipedia notable. That's what the Wikipedia administrator who ultimately reviews the discussion will be looking for and assessing. I've no problem leaving things to that administrator and WP:CONSENUS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I meant to add this to my last post but forgot. A possible alternative to deletion might be to WP:DRAFTIFY so that it can continue to be worked on. I do think, however, that there should be a condition attached to this if that's what the consensus ends up being: the draft should be submitted for WP:AFC review and not moved back to the mainspace by either the article's creator, any other (new) account with an WP:APPARENTCOI, but might be able to skip AfC if assessed and moved by an account which is WP:AUTOPATROLLED or an established record of problem-free article creation. That's not a guarantee that the article won't or can't end up at AfD again, but it might address any COI concerns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For why I advocate for deletion over draftify: I'm a bit uncomfortable with the likely COI's impact on the article's content. I think deleting would be cleaner.
    If we do draftify, I'd prefer if the reviewer be informed about the conditions under which the article was created, and that the POV language gets toned down before approval. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, you really don't know what you are talking about Sir. If you want to change the wording of "he was chosen as a part of a talented group (which included future Olympic champions in Toyokazu Nomura, Isamu Sonoda, and the national judo 'dream team' that eventually swept the competition at the 1969 World Judo Championships)" then by all means do it.
    You can change "talented group" to "a group which included multiple World Champions, Olympic champions, and future world and olympic champions"
    The point I was trying to make was in choosing the wording of "talented group" and "dream team", is that 1969 World team wasn't a normal team. If you have 2 world or Olympic champions on a team in a single year, that's already a rare event. The total gold medal count for both Worlds and Olympics of all individuals on that 1969 Japan team (and this is just gold) is around 13 gold medals!. I'll repeat that, If you add up all the Olympic and World golds of individuals on that 1969 Japan team, its around 13 gold medals. I could change the word "talented group" to a group that eventually had a total of 13 world and Olympic gold medals if you want me to. DN27ND (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does this matter in a bio of a US coach? If you were part of the US Judo sporting committee, who would you rather choose as your judo coach? Adonis Diaz, Angelica Delgado, or someone that has been on a selected to be part of a team of a collective 13 World & Olympic judo gold medals?
    Its not puffery, the wording was chosen to illustrate that point. DN27ND (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could see why you would interpret it as flowery or puffery. But this is not the case if you understand the context. DN27ND (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like comparing the bench player of the USA men's basketball team to the National basketball team in Fiji. Even 2nd or 3rd string players of the USA national basketball team could wipe out the 1st-string starters of the Fiji national basketball team
    In this comparison, Japanese judo players who reach the All Japan National level are the equivalent (and even surpasses) 1st string starters in many many other countries where the judo program is less developed DN27ND (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For context, the developed and competitive judo nations currently include:
    Japan, Korea, Brazil, Georgia, Mongolia, Russia, more eastern European nations, etc.
    The US isn't one of the more competitive judo nations. DN27ND (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And for more context, in modern days, even 3rd string Japanese national judo players, or Korean players, or Brazilian players could take out the players that represent the US in the Olympics.
    I'm not bias, check the competition results. DN27ND (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I take out "dream team" and "talented group" and replace it with "the group that eventually won a total of more than 13 golds in the worlds and Olympics", would you stop complaining about language? DN27ND (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And also I'll be real with you. I'm American. I'm not partial to the Japanese judo team. I'm a fan of the sport of Judo. If the Russian team won all the golds in a sport I'm a fan of, I would use the same language, because this is sports history. If the Chinese or Iranian team were breaking records in sports history, I would still use the same language to describe a rare event. My contribution is not about nationalism. NBA player Bill Russell won an unprecedented 11 NBA championships. I don't think this will ever be replicated by another NBA all star. This is a record in sports history and I use words appropriate to the description.
    You are contributing to a lot of wikipedia pages that are related to Korean culture and Korean history. There are some historical articles that you have edited that have been related to the Japanese-Korean war conflict. I think you are biased against my wording in regards to the Japanese team. If the Korean team had 13 total gold medals in a single team for a particular year, I would use the same language. Its not puffery or flowery, it's words that describe the magnitude of that accomplishment in sports history. DN27ND (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very glad to have this user, who is part of the peanut gallery, to weigh in on this complex issue. Look up the term "peanut gallery", its definitely puffery. Let me translate that for you: 땅콩 갤러리 DN27ND (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you really trying to bring my race into this? Are you sure this is the path you want to go down in a publicly visible forum? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or I could post the sources, you can assess them and clean up the article. If its moved to the draftspace, people are going to lag on investigating the sources. Like I offered, I can post some of the sources, you look over them and clean up the article to your liking. DN27ND (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your table consists of mostly sources that are available online and that's fine. It's what is readily available that's within a few clicks a mouse. The article created on Bunasawa includes many sources from the 1960s to 1980s. These sources are more difficult to obtain (it would take time to track them down, but they do exist). Perhaps track these sources down first so that the administrators can make an informed decision of notability and whether to keep the article or delete it? Right now they don't have access to all of the info. I'm volunteering to post the newspaper clippings, but due to copywrite issues, I cannot post them. I think look for and present all the info, so administrators then make an informed decision. DN27ND (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to find sources at WP:RX#Nori Bunasawa sources, but haven't had many responses yet. Ultimately, though, the onus falls on you as explained in WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES to provide information about such sources. They can be WP:OFFLINE, but again the onus falls upon you to convince others that they are what they say they are. You don't need to convince me if you or someone else can establish a consensus that they are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sending individual emails of the sources. This would require great time commitment. I could post the sources on some agreed upon website, then everyone can have a link to go and view them. DN27ND (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of sources on various wikipedia articles. And many of them are not online by from various books or textbooks. Are the contributors required to post all of the sources they use to some website or to email them to wikipedia admin?
    I could post these sources as a courtesy, but If your accusing the article of fabricating sources, then provide evidence. DN27ND (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia policy states that the onus is on you to prove that the sources exist, not on others to prove that they don't.
    When people give you links to clarify Wikipedia policies, as Marchjuly did above, it is in the hope that you will acquaint yourself with the policies concerned and stop pursuing lines of argument that carry no water.
    Given that pretty much everything you've said in this discussion so far has been contrary to policy, it will be interesting to see the four sources you've indicated below to see if your estimation of "Reliable Source?", "Significant Coverage?" and "Counts towards GWG?" matches up with Wikipedia policy. Axad12 (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I have access to the newspaper clippings. What public website do you suggest I post them to? I want everyone to be able to view them to assess for themselves, not just a select few via email. DN27ND (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DN27ND: This is really my last post here (at least for the time being). I would be careful about adding any convenience links to any Wikipedia page if you reasonably suspect the website you're linking to be hosting potentially copyrighted content without the consent of the original copyright holder of said content. Such a thing would be prohibited per WP:COPYLINK. I know you disregarded my advice above about uploading scans/photos of said articles, but I really think it would be wise for you to seek input at WP:ELN, WP:RSN or even WP:AN first before doing anything like that. It would, in principle, be much better to find links to official websites where such articles might be found, but perhaps an archival site like newspapers.com is also OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I stated, these sources are from newspapers in the 1960s to 1980s. I don't know if they are online. I have some of the clippings. The others sources on the wikipedia article, I viewed them and referenced them before including it on the article and would take time for me to be able to request them from individuals. If you have suggestions on how I can post the ones I have saved, for the public to view, then I'm open to suggestions. DN27ND (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Marchjuly is an extremely biased person. When I uploaded these sources (as a screenshot)
    Fears, Randy (October 1975). "U.S. Judo team". Rogers Daily News.
    Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register
    for him to update his table, instead of using them to update his table, then hiding them, he choose to hide them without updating his table. The sources were right there for you to evaluate, instead you hid them from public view without updating your table. Copyright issues aside, if they were going to be deleted anyways, why not assess them before the deletion?
    Instead of quickly adding those sources to his table, he quickly made claims of COI on other threads. Perhaps Marchjuly has an agenda DN27ND (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After repeated warnings about bludgeoning, the user made 24 replies, interrupted by one reply from Axad12, in a row. A number of the replies alledge conspiracies and are accusations about having hidden agendas. A number of the replies are about my race: [2][3][4]. At what point does this stop being acceptable? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An absolutely incredibly amount of bludgeoning which caused significant disruption to this deletion discussion. I have taken liberty to collapse a large amount of it. Daniel (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This user seems very defensive especially when DN27ND offered to help translate english phrases which might be difficult to understand into his native language (Korean). He also has a history of contributing to ethnic specific content on wikipedia, such as
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantō_Massacre
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_First_Movement
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1st_Independence_Movement_Road_in_Daegu
    Its very possible that he holds anti-Japan and anti-Japanese sentiments and that is affecting his ability to contribute in this diacussion about this US Olympic coach who appears to have Japanese ancestry. 120.18.136.197 (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He also has recently had made critical comments on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_at_the_Summer_Olympics
    Which states that the US is the most successful nation in Olympic basketball and where it's a sport where the Americans dominate.
    It seems he has a record of sports history denialism, and becomes sensitive in topics when the team of his ethnic group doesn't win. 120.18.136.197 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source assessment table: prepared by User:DN27ND
    Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    Fears, Randy (October 1975). "U.S. Judo team". Rogers Daily News. Yes Independently published newspaper article . Yes Article in the October 1975 newspaper put out by the Roger Daily News Yes Clearly states that Bunasawa (runner up in the All-Japan Championships in 1969) and Zeelenburg (seargent in the Air Force) were coaches on the USA World Team that competed in Vienna. The author had a typo in which he states that the Vienna Judo World Championships were in 1976, but in actuality they were in 1975 ✔ Yes
    Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register Yes Independently published newspaper article . Yes Article in the March 1988 newspaper put out by the Orange County Register Yes Clearly states that Bunasawa was a US Olympic coach in 1972 ✔ Yes
    "New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975. Yes Independently published newspaper article . Yes Article in the February 1975 newspaper put out by the Indiana Evening Gazette Yes Clearly states that Bunasawa was coaching the IUP (Indiana University of Pennsylvania) judo team . ✔ Yes
    "Instructor on Show". Rogers Daily News. April 1975. Yes Independently published newspaper article . Yes Article in the April

    1975 newspaper put out by the Rogers Daily News of Arkansas

    		Yes States that Bunasawa was one of the coaches for the US World judo team at Vienna. Also that he had an exhibition at the Ichiban that was accompanied by Bob Hope. Also states that he was coaching the IUP (Indiana University of Pennsylvania) judo team. ✔ Yes
    This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

    --— Preceding unsigned comment added by DN27ND (talk • contribs) 03:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Section break 1

    [edit]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: I am hesitant to relist this, but I do not think consensus has been reached yet (though we could be close). Could new comments please focus on the two source assessments provided?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The former of the two source assessment tables is based on online sources which can be checked. It is by an experienced contributor and indicates that GNG hasn't been met. That was also the opinion of three other contributors to this discussion.
    The latter of the two source assessment tables is based on sources that have only been seen by a contributor with an admitted COI. From their contributions above their understanding of Wikipedia policies is clearly faulty and I don't think their assessment of GNG can be given any credence.
    Now that the latter user has been blocked from contributing to this discussion I don't see how the rest of us are likely to be able to see the sources that they refer to. While that is unfortunate, the chances of those sources having satisfied GNG must surely be assessed as exceptionally low.
    Apart from the COI contributor, the only other contributor to vote KEEP did so on the basis that "from a glancing view I would also say [the article] is not short on sources", but no one disputes the quantity of the sources, the issue is the quality. Axad12 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pukaar – Dil Se Dil Tak

    [edit]
    Pukaar – Dil Se Dil Tak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I am neutral in this filing but feel a consensus is needed here than deleting the page and redirecting, given that this is an ongoing tv show which satisfies WP:TV. Also I don't find any issues with the current sources of this article, only thing is that more WP:RS sources should be added. Editingmylove (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is opposition to Deletion although editors have not offered bolded Keep votes as they should. To the nominator, don't bring an article to AFD unless you are seeking a Deletion. Because that is often the outcome here.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Liz, hello; you mean they have not offered bolded Keep, perhaps? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are correct, I have changed my relisting statement. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    GoldMyne TV

    [edit]
    GoldMyne TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non notable online TV that received only passing mentions in all sources referenced. The claim of winning award does not improve its notably because the award categories are clustered with other supposed winners. Other available sources not cited in the article only give passing mentions in reference to interviews conducted by the subject. But those do not count for notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Another of my favorite constant topics which come up here often; Yet Another Non-Notable Nigerian YouTube Music Show®️. Nate • (chatter) 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep: The Tv has been awarded 3 times by a notable award ceremony Legendarycharles (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also do not understand what the nominated meant by The claim of winning award does not improve its notably because the award categories are clustered with other supposed winners. because winning awards for three years is an evidence of notability. Best, Reading Beans 09:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: We may be nearing a consensus that these awards establish notability, but it would be useful if a few more voices could weigh in.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Playboy Interviews

    [edit]
    List of Playboy Interviews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This list is very incomplete, and only includes interview subjects for some years in the twentieth century, and none in the twenty-first century. The only sources are the Playboy magazine archives in which the interview appeared, so that there is no independent sourcing to establish list notability.

    The article has been expanded and is in the process of being completed. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Page is under construction and other editors are welcome to help complete the list. The main Playboy article frames the value of the interview to the success of the magazine. The Playboy interview is known as one of the most thorough features delving into celebrity, politics, sports, and current affairs. Over the next few days, the list will be completed and additional sources will be added for notable interviews which have been quoted in other media. Let's give this some time to be built before deletion. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is an insignificant list that doesn't merit an article but is probably a violation of WP:PROMO. desmay (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Disagree with "insignificant" -- the influence of the "Playboy interview" is documented by many sources (some are cited in the list article). In addition to the comprehensive content of the interviews, the breadth of subjects (world leaders, entertainers, businessmen, athletes) is often cited as a benchmark for periodical journalism, and the list provides an overview without undue burden on the main Playboy article. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Unnecessary database. Some of these interviews didn't even happen and were mere copy-paste job. Azuredivay (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a wild and unsupported claim. Not only did these interviews happen, but the proof exists in both printed and digital sources, and the interviews are referenced by major sources such as Los Angeles Times and Associated Press. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Another unnecessary list that serves nobody but the most ardent fans. Lists like this needs to be purged off the already bloated Wikipedia site to keep it from becoming the poor Fandom imitation it already is. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • General comment: Since the essay about arguments to avoid was already cited, I will mention 2 other sections: Wikipedia:UNNECESSARY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Most opinions are more or less respectable but guidelines should prevail and WP:NLIST is the applicable guideline.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Please focus on whether the article meets WP:NLIST.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: It seems clear to me that the subject has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources which is all that WP:NLIST requires. Refering to the nomination: one might at first glance get the impression that it's all primary sourcing, but once you actually look at it, that isn't true at all. I think this issue could be sovled by either using WP:REFGROUP or this being one of those few edge cases where ext links are prefered in the article body. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Association of the Representatives of Bunyoro-Kitara

    [edit]
    Association of the Representatives of Bunyoro-Kitara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Pure puffery for an organization that seems to largely only exist to grant honours to itself and others. Pure fantasy, and non-notable to boot.

    I had prev. PROD-ed the following web of connected articles, but I'm also bundling them in this AfD because I nominated so many of them. They are all non-notable and pure advert for this fantasist "kingdom". They are:

    Royal Order of the Omujwaara Kondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Royal Order of the Engabu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Medal of Honor of ARKBK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Royal Order of the Engabu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Hall of Fame of the Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Most Honourable Order of Omukama Chwa II Kabalega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In order to bundle the AfDs, you can replace the PRoD tags with {{subst:afd1|Association of the Representatives of Bunyoro-Kitara}} which will direct towards this discussion. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Just did that now. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lionel Elika Fatupaito

    [edit]
    Lionel Elika Fatupaito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Boxing coach who tragically passed away at the Olympics. Article created after death and I cannot find any useful sources on him apart from news stories about his death. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bounce Back Technologies

    [edit]
    Bounce Back Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unremarkable IT consultancy, fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage from reliable sources found in a WP:BEFORE search. Referenced only by a press release posted to two websites. Borderline speedy WP:A7. Wikishovel (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jacob Björnström

    [edit]
    Jacob Björnström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    sportsperson stub. fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Datacopia

    [edit]
    Datacopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I'm unable to find any independent coverage to indicate that either WP:CORP or WP:NSOFTWARE can be satisfied. SmartSE (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Petra Taušová

    [edit]
    Petra Taušová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Redirect to List of Czech Republic women's international footballers as ATD because I could not find any in-depth coverage of her to meet WP:GNG. The only secondary sources I found were Deník and iDNES (2004, 2011) – none of which cover Taušová in-depth. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Palawan National School

    [edit]
    Palawan National School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Marked as needing sources since 2021. Almost completely unsourced, and the one source provided is WP:PRIMARY to document the mission of the school. Summarizes the routine activities of the school. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Beverley town fair

    [edit]
    Beverley town fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article appears to be about a livestock market that has changed date and location a few times. I was able to find a reference to medieval Saturday markets, but that 1. doesn't support the implied claim of continuity 2. still wouldn't be a claim of notability since most medium sized towns have markets of one form or another.

    Looking at a current list of What's on in Beverley, there's nothing with this exact name. It's clearly the case that there are and were several markets, fairs, festivals and other community events in Beverley - searching online brings up results for the Festival of Christmas, Beverley Puppet Fest before any mention of a livestock fair - none individually notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

    I would redirect to Beverley#Culture and amenities. As the article is currently entirely unsourced, I don't believe there's anything that needs merging or preserving. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Doctor Who villains

    [edit]
    List of Doctor Who villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Wikipedia is not a directory. Purposeless list of often one-story characters from Doctor Who, with next to no attempt at secondary sourcing or justification of the notability of the group. U-Mos (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete/Redirect per nom. WP:BEFORE can't WP:VERIFY most of the contents here. There are some sources for individual notable characters, but these are already covered better at their character articles. Sometimes a single character list is fine for navigation and context (which is the case for List of Doctor Who characters), per WP:ATD. But the premise for this list is flawed, and contains far too much unverifiable content for an additional list. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I do see the issues with list, but as the topic clearly seems notable based on the secondary sources a WP:BEFORE search brings up, those issues all can be solved through normal editing are therefore not grounds for deletion: As for the purpose, this list can gather links to the Doctor Who villains notable in their own right for navigation, and collect a balanced amount of relevant information on characters who are not notable in their own right, in accordance with WP:CSC and the result of the earlier discussions (although these are quite old). Lacking references can be added from the existing secondary sources (and probably trimming some entries). As for justification and Wikipedia is not a directory, inclusion criteria can and should be phrased. And while tags are admittedly often not very effective, one month is a bit short for see if someone else would like to tackle the problem before bringing things to a deletion discussion. And AfD is not cleanup. And as always, if you see an issue, always consider to Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. All that said, I have no objection against a merge to List of Doctor Who characters, if a majority thinks this is the better way of presenting things for editorial reasons. A renaming away from List of Doctor Who supporting characters might then be in order, though. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll confess I didn't look at List of Doctor Who supporting characters before nominating - one thing at a time - but now I have, that too is hard to justify. What doesn't duplicate List of Doctor Who cast members and/or Companion (Doctor Who) is in-universe trivia. We can of course talk about adding in secondary material, but when there's nothing worth keeping at the present moment aren't we in WP:STARTOVER territory? And why is it worth preserving this structure when an alternative exists concurrently, and is far better maintained? U-Mos (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete/Redirect per nom, whatever works best. I've meaning to take action on this list for some time, and was planning to start a merge discussion once I finished my work at List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Most of the characters in here are one-offs easily redirectable to their target article, as I don't believe the concept of "Villains" is really independently notable from the main character list. The main character list is, for all intents and purposes, complete shit, and was on my to-do list for a rewrite. I do plan to work on the list eventually and improve it, but I believe the recurring villains can be safely merged to the main list while one offs can be redirected to their parent article. I'd be happy to handle individual character redirects should this article be merged, redirected, or what have you. Should the supporting characters list be decided as the target, I'd be fine with shifting my priorities to rewriting the character list to be actually useful if editors feel that would more greatly beneficial than doing the aliens list, as I already have a draft started in my userspace for a rewrite, because per nom, that list is very much in Wikipedia:STARTOVER territory. In any case, I see no reason this article should exist, and if sources spring up to determine separate notability, the Villains list would require a complete rewrite akin to the aliens list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Suhka

    [edit]
    Suhka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Former village in Estonia. No backlinks. Estopedist1 (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Villawood railway station

    [edit]
    Villawood railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    8 out of 9 of the references (one of the items listed as a reference out of 10 is not a reference, but a note) are primary sources. The remaining source does not provide WP:SIGCOV. In a WP:BEFORE I found a lot of hits with passing mentions but nothing with SIGCOV. TarnishedPathtalk 07:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ricky Kling

    [edit]
    Ricky Kling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, almost all primary sources provided. The one independent source is a 1 line mention of this person. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Push Interactions

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Push Interactions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails the notability guideline for companies. Previous AfD was reference bombed by the founder, who did not disclose his conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 07:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexis Tomassian

    [edit]
    Alexis Tomassian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    nonnotable voice actor - Altenmann >talk 03:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Philippines women's national under-18 softball team

    [edit]
    Philippines women's national under-18 softball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NTEAM. Let'srun (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per nom Traumnovelle (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Botswana women's national under-18 softball team

    [edit]
    Botswana women's national under-18 softball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from independent sources to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NTEAM. Let'srun (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per nom Traumnovelle (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AUBEA

    [edit]
    AUBEA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Widescreen Mode

    [edit]
    Widescreen Mode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable band. --Viennese Waltz 11:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Additional discussion regarding how coverage in specific sources contribute towards notability would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I'm not sure what the above voters are referring to on the Finnish article. There are 5 sources, all of which don't count towards notability. I've included one additional source (blabbermouth.net) I managed to find below:
    Source assessment table:
    Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    https://web.archive.org/web/20071102134341/http://pgmfinland.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/widescreen-mode-debyyttialbumi-marraskuussa/ Yes No WordPress blog Yes ✘ No
    https://web.archive.org/web/20150927182748/http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/artistit/widescreen mode/until the end Yes ? Probably No Chart entry ✘ No
    https://web.archive.org/web/20101124070031/http://latauslista.fi/lista/2007/38 Yes ? Probably No Chart entry ✘ No
    https://web.archive.org/web/20150923181043/http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/artistit/widescreen mode/serotonin Yes ? Probably No Chart entry ✘ No
    https://www.facebook.com/widescreenmode/posts/881844021838326?comment_id=978049678884426&offset=0&total_comments=1&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"} No Official Facebook page No Facebook post ? Inaccessible and not archived ✘ No
    https://blabbermouth.net/news/finland-s-widescreen-mode-to-release-until-the-end-in-november Yes Yes Listed on WP:A/S ~ Focused on the band's album, not the band itself ~ Partial
    This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
    Even if we count blabbermouth.net as significant coverage, that is only one source that counts towards GNG. Yes, they could meet WP:NBAND because they charted on Finland's national chart, but there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to write an article. At the moment, most of the article is unsourced original research. Charting does not mean a band is inherently notable or has to be kept; it just means there is usually enough coverage to write an article. C F A 💬 02:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per this. Ping me if something changes but these sources do not appear to contribute towards enough GNG for an article. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Files

    [edit]

    File:SomeoneLikeYouVinyl2.jpg

    [edit]
    File:SomeoneLikeYouVinyl2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ss112 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    This file was discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 68#File:SomeoneLikeYouVinyl2.jpg back in July–October 2015, and I closed the discussion as "no-consensus". I think though this probably should be discussed some more because it seems like this cover art would be at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use here on English Wikipedia given c:COM:TOO United States even if it's considered protected in the UK and can't be moved to Commons per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom. Pinging George Ho, Black Kite and Masem as a courtesy because they participated in the NFCR discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:SharkNinja logo.png

    [edit]
    File:SharkNinja logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Meriutanla (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

    Superseded by c:File:SharkNinja logo.svg Ahri Boy (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now already available on Commons. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Categories

    [edit]

    NEW NOMINATIONS

    [edit]

    Category:Neologisms by year

    [edit]
    Nominator's rationale: Kinda obsolete, "forgotten" category with a handful of entries. (I tried to find Category:1992 neologisms there and surprized to find none.) Its entries should be included into category:Neologisms by decade. - Altenmann >talk 17:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    History of Great Britain by period

    [edit]
    Nominator's rationale: delete, presumably the consequence of the deletion of Category:History of Great Britain in this earlier discussion is that its subcategories should also be deleted. I will follow up with decades and years later.
    @Omnis Scientia, Ham II, Johnbod, Nederlandse Leeuw, and PearlyGigs: pinging participants to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with Category:History of Great Britain was the scope (the period 1707–1800, which made it indistinguishable from the scope of Category:Kingdom of Great Britain); in my opinion it should be recreated, with the scope being the history of the island. Ham II (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure. I don't think re-creating the category will solve the underlying problem. The comparison with Category:History of Ireland is tempting, but I think the island of Ireland can much more easily be taken as a scope, as both the Republic and Northern Ireland are relatively recent phenomena that lead to few ambiguities for categorisation.
    Perhaps we should first delete the 19th, 20th and 21st-century categories and go from there? NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree we should immediately delete the 19th, 20th and 21st century ones which have no articles and only the requisite English, Scottish, and Welsh sub-categories. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be rather artificial if a category tree for the island ended in the 18th century. Could there be a "United Kingdom > Great Britain > England, Scotland and Wales" (plus "Ireland (1801–1923)" and "Northern Ireland", as appropriate) structure for the 19th century onwards? Ham II (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars

    [edit]
    Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (first war) Category:War of Saint Sabas‎ (1 C, 10 P)
    (second war) Category:War of Curzola‎ (1 C, 3 P)
    (fourth war) (Category:War of Chioggia‎ (1 C, 3 P)
    If we upmerge as proposed, then we'll have these battles grouped both in Category:Venetian–Genoese wars and in these 3 subcategories. Per WP:DIFFUSE, that's not very practical. Would it be worth upmerging those subcategories as well to avoid duplication? Aside from the battles and the main articles of the 1st, 2nd and 4th war, the only other contents are "People of the Xth war" subcategories, which we've also already covered in Category:People of the Venetian–Genoese wars. In short, there's a lot of duplication going on here. I'm not sure which solution I would find most elegant, but I'm considering this alt proposal:
    Might this work better than the proposal of nom? NLeeuw (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Argentina–Brazil football rivalry at international tournaments

    [edit]
    Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization considering how few articles are in both subcategories. The articles in these two categories can remain in the main category. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 11:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:20th-century Kenyan male singers

    [edit]
    Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary diffusion of just 13 pages. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Nonpersons in the Eastern Bloc

    [edit]
    Nominator's rationale: Orifinal research. The statute of the category says "In the Eastern Bloc, the political systems made directed efforts to expunge these people from history (akin to the Orwellian term "unperson"). However the items in the category are an eclectic collection, some of which, such as Eduard Eelma say not a word why he is here. Others, such as Leon Trotsky are direct contradiction: Trotsky was a scarecrow for a long time, far from being "expunged from history". Not to say that the term "nonperson" is applied only to Isaac Babel - Altenmann >talk 01:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirects

    [edit]

    The Hollies' Greatest Hits (1968 West German album)

    [edit]

    I can't find anything in Enwiki about a 1968 album, here, or at The Hollies discography (which in any case would be a better target). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retarget per Thryduulf - looks like that's the intended article BugGhost🪲👻 09:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Hollies' Greatest is a British album released by Parlophone. Per the edit history, the West German album was released by Hansa Records. The track listings are also different, which all but confirms these are different pressings. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find any non–user generated sources, but I'm fairly certain that the West German album and Hollies' Greatest are in fact separate (they seem to have separate covers for one), so that is not a good retargeting option. Retargeting to the discography would be a good option if it was on there, but it's not, and I know too little about the area to properly search for sources to add it to the discography. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: One more try...
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Paper Bowser

    [edit]

    no game under that title yet (give them time), wouldn't the list of paper mario characters be a better target? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    oh wait
    there's no section specifically for bowser there, and his article doesn't mention him in paper mario beyond "he was there". forget retargeting, i vote to delete as unhelpful cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Keeping under the idea that they might make a game with that title is pointless WP:CRYSTAL-gazing, and unfounded to boot. As it stands now, we have no information at all regarding Bowser's inclusion in the Paper Mario series, nor any other place where something might be known as 'Paper Bowser'. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: For opinion on the retarget suggestion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften

    [edit]

    These terms do not appear in the target article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It seems to be a sub-publisher of Springer Science Business Media, that publishes German language sociology works according to this dewiki article. Ca talk to me! 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those titles still do not appear anywhere in the article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Waiting for someone to add mention to the target article.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 09:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Seems we still may need a mention added to form consensus...
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Mouse

    [edit]

    I searched it in Google, and most may refer to Speedy Gonzales. Should we retarget to Speedy Gonzales or make a disambiguation? 88.235.215.238 (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Disambiguation or deletion?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • The search results are not helpful in this case because they do not include some likely targets, so I still think disambiguation is significantly better for readers than deletion - especially as those unhelpful search results can be up to several clicks/taps away. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Formicapunk

    [edit]

    These terms do not appear in the target article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. These terms referred to a section that was removed in April and had been tagged as unreferenced for nearly two years. - Eureka Lott 16:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Cassette futurism returns many results on Google, for example [7], and [8]. And besides, it looks like the target text has been restored, complete with references. The nowardays widely accepted term for this period of retro-futurism is most commonly referred to as Cassette Futurism, but the term Formicapunk has also been used (but it is not as widely used as Cassette Futurism). Formicapunk was used in the webcomic Bouletcorp by John Boulet. The original link is http://web.archive.org/web/20230623104540/https://bouletcorp.com/2011/07/07/formicapunk/ (this is an Internet archive version as the current URL doesn't work), but even so, google still brings up links to other pages that use that term. So I suspect that there are still some people out there who are aware of the term Formicapunk but not the term Cassette Fururism. But even so, I'd definitely keep the redirect for Cassette futurism, but I'm not so sure if Bouletcorp's Formicapunk cartoon is notable enough even though the term Formicapunk has taken a life of it's own. Ae-a (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete both Per WP:NEO. Seems to be an invention of TVTropes editors, and Wikipedia is not TVTropes. 80s-punk is undoubtedly a thing, but it's cited to Wikis and unreliable sources in an attempt to make the section appear merited. Until someone can come up with an actual source, it shouldn't be there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Empty-warn

    [edit]

    Confusing. Much like {{db-empty}}, one would expect it to refer to A3 or C1 but not A1 which explicitly does not apply to empty articles. Nickps (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete I agree its ambiguous due and I'd argue C1 is more likely as a category would be more likely to be considered to be empty because although its now possible to create an empty page (it never used to be) I wouldn't expect many articles to be created that are completely empty and blanking is often done when G7 ends up being the criteria used to delete. I'd also note that Template:Empty redirects to Template:Db-empty so I'd consider deleting them both. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think {{empty}} is just fine as is. {{db-empty}} wraps both {{db-a3}} and {{db-c1}} and chooses which to serve depending on the namespace so there is no ambiguity there. Nickps (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Reading your comment again, I hadn't thought of the G7 point. I guess there is an argument to be made for deletion but considering that {{db-empty}} is probably associated with A3 and C1, I'd be very hesitant to delete. Nickps (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Template shortcuts are quite often ambiguous. Created in 2006, then redirected here in 2012. It is included as a link in {{User:Fuhghettaboutit/Toolbox}} (which is transcluded to many user pages). No need to take any action. Shortcuts have to be learned before use anyhow, and this only affects our editors (not our readers). Prefer a retarget over deletion (if it comes to that). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not convenced by this argument. It's alao confusing for editors to have db-empty refer to C1 and A3 but db-empty-notice refer to A1. Every other notice template is named after the CSD template it is used with but this one alone breaks the pattern. That still makes shortcuts more difficult to learn for our editors for no benefit since most of them would know that db-a1-notice is the notice to use along with db-a1. Nickps (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've since made {{subst:db-empty-notice}} behave identically to {{db-empty}}, that is, it returns {{subst:db-catempty-notice}} if a category is passed to it and {{subst:db-nocontent-notice}} in all other cases. So, assuming the db-empty-notice RfD closes as "disambiguate" between these two, we should retarget there Nickps (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All-Star Batman and Robin

    [edit]

    all-star batman and robin is a different goddamn comic from all star batman & robin, the goddamn boy wonder, but its only meaningful goddamn mention is in the goddamn list of batman comics, and the goddamn results seem to give goddamn priority to all star batman & robin, the goddamn boy wonder. should they be goddamn retargeted to the goddamn list of batman comics, or are they goddamn fine as is? cogsan (goddamn talk page) (goddamn contribs) 13:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    on that goddamn note, should i bring up all star batman and all-star batman (the only goddamn difference is a goddamn hyphen), as they have different goddamn targets, or does the goddamn exclusion of robin narrow them out of this goddamn topic? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 00:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Too many goddamn questions!
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Big G

    [edit]

    Turn into dab I find it hard to believe that Big Gemini is the primary meaning of Big G. In my experience it's most often used to refer to the gravitational constant. But there's so many things that are 'Big G' out there that I wouldn't consider any of them primary. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DAB with G (might be referring to the capital letter), Gravitational constant, Big Gemini, The Big G, Gracemere (which goes to Gracemere, Queensland#Attractions), The Big G (aka Jason Giambi), and 2014 Commonwealth Games#The Big G, and maybe General Mills. There's several "Big G" pre-existing hat notes in those article that link to each other - there's enough topics to warrant a disambig. BugGhost🦗👻 16:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Metal Mario

    [edit]

    No mention of "Metal Mario" on the target page. Mia Mahey (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Biden crisis

    [edit]

    I feel like there are a lot of sorts of things one might expect to see when they search this term (for example, Mexico–United_States_border_crisis#Biden_administration or 2023 United States banking crisis, or any other "crisis" during the administration might be sought), and I don't suspect that any particular one is the WP:PTOPIC. I think that this should either be disambiguated or deleted, as I don't think the current redirect can be justified absent a primary topic. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Minister for Cities

    [edit]

    Not sure if this is the best target as Minister for Cities (Australia) exists - also not sure if that is the best title for that article either. I'm not familiar with the recent political cabinet reshuffling so there might be content forking between the current target and Minister for Cities (Australia). Fork99 (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect to Minister for Cities (Australia) since that article is no longer a redirect in and of itself. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I created the redirect (Minister for Cities), I wasn't aware that the Minister for Cities (Australia) page existed already. In that case, I am happy for the redirect to be deleted straight up or redirect to Minister for Cities (Australia). Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sportacus 9

    [edit]

    there are theories that robbie rotten was the previous sportacus and wore the number 9, though they have little to no evidence that could be used here. retarget to his article, keep as is, or delete as fancruft? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep redirect to sportacus. Robbie rotten and number 9 (sportacus 9) are not the same person. Robbie and number 9 where butting heads (see https://web.archive.org/web/20040108161211/http://www.lazytown.com/pages/about/concept/theoriginsstory.html ). Robbie later became Robbie rotten (see https://web.archive.org/web/20031225235205/http://www.lazytown.com/pages/about/concept/robbierotten.html). Number 9 (sportacus 9) has much more similarities with sportacus 10 (the current sportacus) than Robbie, so that redirect makes sense for now. Snævar (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • The name has been changed from "Sportacus" to "Sportacus 10" in the first sentence of article but there is no explanation and the article title has not been changed. If there is no explanation of "9" or "10" in the article, the redirect is not useful and should be deleted. Peter James (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CheckUser

    [edit]

    CNR. Should we retarget to Wiki#Security? Ahri Boy (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Wiki#Security has no info on checkusers or equivalent functions. Checkusers are not something which beginner editors, who might not realize the existence of the Wikipedia namespace, would search up. Ca talk to me! 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Keep Actually, I am convinced by the below arguments. CheckUser is Wikipedia specific(no room for confusion), and new users may come across the term checkuser in the examples provided below. Ca talk to me! 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per WP:NAVELGAZING - no reliable sources (that I could find) discuss the topic, therefore there is no article to be made. Our myriad of jargony internal policy documents don't serve much of a purpose for readers looking for an encyclopedia article on this topic, which we do not have. Project pages are not articles, do not have the same standards, and are written for a completely different audience. If we really want to have cross-namespace redirects from reader-space into project-space, we should do it with a soft redirect, one that will advise the reader that we do not have an encyclopedia article on the topic they're looking for, but they can click through if they really want to see how the sausage is made; just dumping them into project space unawares is frankly kind of cruel. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh (weak keep). I see both sides of the argument. I agree with Ivanvector that there is likely no chance that CheckUser (be it the MediaWiki extension, the WMF implementation thereof, or anything else similar) is going to be a notable topic on its own. But I'm confused why that means that we need to delete it. We have multiple other CNRs from Main->Project, such as Administrators noticeboard (and variations), Autoconfirmed, Disambiguation page, Good article, and many more (can sift through Category:Redirects to project space to find more). Unless there's previously been a discussion that has resulted in a consensus that main->project redirects are not permitted... then what's the harm? If the topic isn't notable, there's a non-zero chance someone who, say, is checkuser blocked will simply search the term "Checkuser" on Wikipedia, and I don't think it serves them to not redirect them to our project space page explaining it. If the topic was potentially notable on its own, then making an article would be preferable - but I don't buy the argument that a blank/deleted page is better than a redirect if someone searches for it on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Berchanhimez: redirects from the mainspace to project space are discouraged (see WP:CNR for the background) and frequently deleted. Exceptions do exist, most commonly (but not exclusively) where it is desirable that the target page is easy to find by very new users who haven't learned about namespaces yet (administrators noticeboard and Wikipedia help are examples). The second most common is for internal aspects that people outside the project will have heard of (or assume exist) and want to look up but which don't have an encyclopaedic target (e.g. good articles). Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I find it unreasonable to think that those two are things a new user would be likely to search for, and not CheckUser, when CheckUser is used as a rationale for a block or referenced on those noticeboards sometimes. I am not saying they shouldn't be discouraged, but this is one that actually makes sense, in my view. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: There's nothing inherently wrong with CNRs. Our goal is to help the reader get to where they want to go. Anyone typing "CheckUser" into the search bar evidently wants to get to the project page. Deleting it is just removing a helpful, unambiguous redirect for no reason. C F A 💬 16:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete redirect to non-reader content. A reader would not be affected by a checkuser outcome, unless they edit. -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is a useful CNR shortcut created by a well-established editor many years ago (2017) based on another CNR shortcut (Checkuser). That one was created by another well-established editor many years before that (2006). 1) Both are firmly "grandfathered in" CNRs, and 2) per WP:R#KEEP, R3, R4 and R5. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    metal age

    [edit]

    different targets, and there's an article for the metal ages... which is itself divided into 3 ages, the last of which seems to be referred to as "the" metal age, even though they're grouped together because they're different metals. i'll vote for retargeting both of those to metal ages, unless someone actually knows their stuff cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disambiguate at Metal Age, then retarget The Metal Age there. I guess I know some stuff, and it looks like "Metal Age" or "The Metal Age" (both singular) could refer to:
    I don't see a primary topic amongst them and I'm also not sure about Metal Ages as standalone article, there's not much to say about them collectively other than that they all involved metal. @Iskandar323: What do you think? – Joe (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping Joe. I think they should both redirect to Metal Ages (though this should possibly move to the singular, both as best practice stylistically and apparently as the most common form in scholarship (Ngrams)). While the page as is stubby, it's for lack of attention, not for lack of material. The scholarly literature using the conceptual period grouping is considerable. The Metal Age in Southeast Asia might have a slightly different progression, but it is conceptually the same thing. Hesiod's idea within an idea mercifully has a quite different form. The Thief II title name is not something I think we need to be concerned with, any more than we need to disambiguate "resurrection" to account for the fourth installment of the Aliens franchise when directing to that topic. If a disambiguation page feels warranted, I would suggest linking to it with a hatnote from the Metal Ages page. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too sure about combining the Metal Age of Southeast Asia and the "metal ages" of the rest of the world. In most of the Old World the Copper, Bronze, and Iron Ages are firmly distinct periods (the latter two being two of the original three ages) and referring to them together as either "the metal age" or "the metal ages" is honestly something I'd never come across until today (though Google Scholar tells me it happens). By contrast archaeologists of Southeast Asia consistently use it as a distinct, top-level period with the subdivisions early, developed, and proto-historic rather than copper, bronze, and iron. So we could write Metal Age Southeast Asia but not Metal Age Europe or Metal Age Southwest Asia because nobody really talks about that (instead we have Bronze Age Europe, Iron Age Europe). – Joe (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps. But it's somewhat academic at this point when a Metal Age of Southeast Asia page doesn't exist yet. I think the reason why the Metal Ages are emerging more and more as a reference point is because the three-age system is a bit dated and broken and underappreciates the major technology step of metallurgy. The stone age is also, in of itself, massive – comprising the paleolithic, mesolithic and neolithic, so it's generally pretty useless and unhelpful to group that with the bronze and iron ages, which are very distinct from the former. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: For a stronger consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nuzlocke

    [edit]

    "Nuzlocke" is not mentioned in the target article. Nuzlocke section was removed from the article in January 2023 and seems no one objected: [21]. In 2015, Nuzlocke article was redirected to Pokémon after an AfD. Mika1h (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    i think a mention in gameplay of pokémon would work, but hopefully with better sources than the ones removed in that diff. put my vote on hold until i remember to look for that cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 15:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say re-add the information, although finding new sources would be a good improvement. On the contrary to user:Juxlos's judgement that the Nuzlocke Challenge is "nothing special" because "there are multiple fan-made modes": most of them are based on or inspired by the Nuzlocke, and AFAIK the ones that aren't come from the speedrunning community. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must note here that my removal of Nuzlocke is a WP:DUE thing, not a WP:GNG. I have no objections to its notability, though I objected to its inclusion in the main article the same way I would object to including Pokémon Sage or Pokémon Fossil Museum in the main article. Juxlos (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Restore the previously deleted information from the current target article to this page, creating a new article here. I can see the WP:DUE weight issue with nuzlocke being in the main article, but it looks like it should pass WP:GNG, so give it its own article right here. Fieari (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    E610

    [edit]

    While E610 is mentioned at the target (it was the serial number of the gas tank that leaked and caused the disaster), this string also shows up in several other articles, such as LG Optimus L5, Orange SPV and South African Class 5E1, Series 2. Neither an internet search nor Google Scholar suggest a primary target, so deletion to allow for internal search results seems most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Footer Olympic Champions C-1 Slalom

    [edit]

    It is unclear why this should redirect to Template:Footer Olympic Champions Men C-1 Slalom and not to Template:Footer Olympic Champions Women C-1 Slalom which is available since 2020. Ymblanter (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep - This appears to be the original title of the template it points to. I presume the women's event was started in 2020 or not covered until then. Template shortcuts are very often ambiguous. As they are for editors (not readers), this does little harm. Weak because I am sympathetic to the nominators point. If this were in the mainspace a disambiguation would very much be due; however, such an action is not appropriate for a template redirect and I do not support deletion (because ambiguity is not grounds to delete a shortcut). There is also no benefit of obscuring the page history through deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tax cuts for the rich

    [edit]

    Should probably be deleted as non-neutral and poorly matched. While "tax cuts for the rich" are sometimes promoted as a method of trickle-down economics, they really aren't the same concept. Redirecting to tax cut does not make a lot of sense either. Jruderman (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - it's neutral (and even if it wasn't, redirects don't have to be neutral) and summarises the article's lead well: Trickle-down economics refers to economic policies that disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum, comprising wealthy individuals and Major examples of what critics have called "trickle-down economics" in the U.S. include the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Major UK examples include Liz Truss's mini-budget tax cuts of 2022. The article describes the topic as primarily tax cuts for rich people - it's a good redirect. BugGhost🦗👻 10:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Templates and Modules

    [edit]

    Template:Iw2

    [edit]

    Duplicates {{interlanguage link}}, unmaintained and more or less unused (no article-space uses, only 7 transclusions). Primefac (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. {{Iw2}} does not duplicate {{interlanguage link}}. Compare
    {{ill|Hanning Schröder|de}} Hanning Schröder
    with
    {{iw2|Hanning Schröder|Hans Schröder|de}} ‹See Tfd›Hans Schröder[the article is translated]
    — Yuri V. (t•c) 17:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Yuri V., what is the intention of your example above? We should not be linking to disambiguation pages in articles. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{iw2}} does not duplicate {{interlanguage link}}
    1. Indeed, compare {{ill|Hanning Schröder|de}} and [[Hanning Schröder]], they identical, Hanning Schröder = Hanning Schröder. On the contrary, {{iw2|Hanning Schröder||de}} ‹See Tfd›Hanning Schröder[the article is translated] we see, that article was translated, and remove iw2 to [[ ]].
    2. The template {{iw2}}, as [[article|any necessary text]], allows to write any necessary text, e.g. {{iw2|Fedir Vovk (disambig)|any text|uk|Федір Вовк}} ‹See Tfd›any textuk, so, after translation, appropriate bot removes iw2 and obtains [[Fedir Vovk (disambig)|any text]] any text.
    — Yuri V. (t•c) 20:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    And which bot does this? Primefac (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BunykBot, see example 1, example 2, example 3, ... — Yuri V. (t•c) 02:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Does that bot run on en.wiki? Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Fourteenth Doctor stories

    [edit]

    Propose merging Template:Fourteenth Doctor stories with Template:Tenth Doctor stories.
    The template is unnecessary given that the three episodes plus specials page all link to each other through inline links and with {{Doctor Who episodes|N13b}}. Though with the inclusion of The Power of the Doctor a merger was proposed with Template:Tenth Doctor stories. As the two incarantions are pretty linked and both played by David Tennant. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep: They are still two distinct incarnations. The point about inline links is arguably a non-issue (seeing as navboxes are, y'know, there for ease of navigation so people don't need to dig around the article for said inline links). Granted, the similarity between this and {{Doctor Who episodes|N13b}} is more of a concern. However, I'd argue that keeping these templates separate would be better for futureproofing (in case any more notable 14th doctor content gets made), better for organization (as the content for each incarnation is categorized away from the other incarnation's content), and a bit more user-friendly (as the 14's content won't get buried under the mountain of 10's content, and it avoids the potential ugliness of splitting one navbox between two incarnations which itself is likely to be a bit of an organizational headache). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 10:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I second the above. While there isn't much content in the Fourteenth Doctor's box so thus far (the 3 episodes are listed in other navigational boxes so I get the concern), but more content might come along in the future. Bigwhofan (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Update an article for Desination Skarro was made. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Taiwan political party templates

    [edit]

    This family of templates contains just wikilinks, maybe with an icon (mostly used for decoration in violation of MOS:ICON). Over the last few years we've been moving away from the "one template for every version of X" system (be it for political parties, national sports, etc) in order to allow for easier updating and centralised coding. This is also a good example of "text stored in a template". Primefac (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I looked at most of these templates and several transclusion cases. I'm not seeing a violation of MOS:ICON, but I agree that this is a lot of templates for what could be easily accomplished with a single template taking a single parameter (and maybe an optional boolean controlling icon display). I'm thinking combine and replace, although I'm not presently volunteering to do the work, since I've been pretty busy and will almost certainly forget. Folly Mox (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I agree that simple links should not be hosted in a template. There is just no reason for that. If such a thing is actually valid, then there probably should be a template for every single concept. In reality, writing New Power Party or {{New Power Party}} is no different and if {{NPP}} is valid as a redirect, then it would have been valid as redirect, which NPP is not. This just seems to bypass the basic system of how links work here. Other than that, we already have a module that acts as database for political party names and colors. So that should already take care of this. Regarding the icons, I also agree, but for some reason during the merge a few years back, we left the group of templates with icons out of it. So if this passes, we should take care of the other templates in Category:Political party name templates (which also includes US templates like Template:GOP, which is exactly the same). Gonnym (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Deomyinae

    [edit]

    This template is unnecessary as we can always navigate the taxonomy via the taxonomic infoboxes. And now we have to maintain the taxonomy in 3 different places: the infoboxes, the genus articles (which list the species), and navigation templates like this. Why do we need such redundant systems that just create more work? Nosferattus (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. This is a standard navbox that is used in many articles. Clearly useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete is my preference, as I share concerns about keeping redundant information up-to-date across multiple pages. However, I don't understand why this template was singled out over everything else in Category:Mammal species templates and it's subcategories. Many (but not all) mammal species have navboxes. Very few other organisms have navboxes like mammals do. If I was going to single out one mammal species navbox for deletion it would be {{Murinae (Others)}}. The subfamily Murinae is split across 10 navboxes, why not just make one (massive) navbox for the subfamily? And putting two genera in the "Others" navbox is completely unintuitive for readers when the other navboxes are arranged by parts of the alphabet. Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think broadly the idea of navboxes which link the tree of life are reasonable. So from that direction I think this is a keep. However, I think this navbox does too much. It links pages which are clearly not WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (the parent taxa), and links multiple of the child taxa and their children, which I am not generally a fan of (see also User:Izno/Navbox constellations which pretty-naturally apply here). Izno (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      On the other hand, these topics are usually well-linked on the articles themselves to the child and parent topics. So yeah, I don't totally see the point in navboxes for tree of life stuff. Izno (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete, there is extra overhead of maintaining subfamily navboxes and I don't think there is significant added benefit (due to the navigational redundancy). Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header

    [edit]

    Propose merging All of the above together.
    These category templates basically set three parameters:

    • |Occupation=
    • |JobPortal=
    • |ParentOccupation=

    Where the last two are the same value between the templates.

    |Occupation= can be easily retrieved by using {{last word|{{PAGENAME}}}}, thus eliminating the need for endlessly creating these template for every single item, and using code to handle things more efficiently. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lean oppose for now. Hey there (as the template creators); I don't think that "|Occupation= can be easily retrieved by using {{last word|{{PAGENAME<nowiki>}}}" this actually applies. There are several nationalities that follow the structure of FOOians from COUNTRY, such as the Russian Empire and Georgia, and Northern Ireland. So it would not always grab the template. I do think that this could be generalized to a broader range of musical instruments, but not how you have described it. Part of the advantage of making the template specific to a given occupation is to keep flexibility if the parents change or another parent category is added. Each of the nominated templates have different parent categories.

    At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. But merging them, as you have suggested, would eliminate that possibility down the line. I could see creating another layer on top that called a specific subtemplate based on the presence of a specific occupation, similar ot how Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header current works using |"{{#if:{{in string|source={{PAGENAME}}|target=FOO INSTRUMENT|plain=true|nomatch=}}". But I really would be reluctant to overgeneralize it. Mason (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Overgeneralizing this system is much more better than having hundreds of similar templates like this. The maintenance burden in continuing with your current system is just insane. Regarding countries that won't work in the proposal, if you show a current category that it fails with it, I'm sure we can get it to work. Also, if the templates aren't complete then please stop creating more uncomplete templates and finish the ones that you've created. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain why it is "insane" to have templates that are specific to a given occupation. Right now there are 5 in your nomination, not hundreds. These templates are designed to be flexible so that changes in the category nesting can be easily applied, and ease the present burden on handling parent and child categories for a given occupation. I see this is much less burdensome than having to go through each nationality. As I already said, "At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. ". What I mean what there is no need right now, because the parent categories don't exist at the intersection of century and nationality. I've added in an example for accordionists [27]. I thought it wasn't a good use for resources to go through multiple if checks for categories that don't presently exist. It isn't that the templates are incomplete, its that there is the potential that these categories might eventually differ. Mason (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I think that a couple of questions and a suggestion on my talk page would have been more constructive than using ableist language to better understand the the purpose of the templates. Mason (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Module:Location map/data/Manila

    [edit]

    Propose merging Module:Location map/data/Manila with Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila.
    The module uses a low resolution map based on probably outdated OpenStreetMap data. The module can be redirected to Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila (preferred) or Module:Location map/data/Metro Manila. Sanglahi86 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just finished revising all articles that transcluded the Module:Location map/data/Manila to use the Philippines City of Manila and/or Metro Manila pushpin maps. There are currently no remaining articles. Thus, I propose Module:Location map/data/Manila be redirected to Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Verification requested

    [edit]

    It looks like this template is completely redundant nowadays. It seems that it was created to handle cross-wiki rename requests or something back in Ye Olde Days before Single-User Login was invented (checking if a user who wanted username X was the same as the user with username X on the other language wiki). However, with SUL now being a thing, this template seemingly hasn't been used since 2010 (no transclusions since december 2010), so it should be safe to subst out all 5 remaining uses of this and then delete this template (along with its redirect, {{ver}}) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 10:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Module:Citation

    [edit]

    The 2018 TfD says that "a soft redirect in a module is not possible". That's not true anymore. require('Module:Module wikitext')._addText('{{soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}}') would do exactly that. I'm not saying the closer made a mistake; Module:Module wikitext was created two years after the TfD, but that doesn't mean we can't reevaluate the close since things have changed now. Nickps (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @Trappist the monk since their comment on RfD brought the module to my attention. Nickps (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, that require() doesn't work. I don't know why and I'm not going to take the time to figure it out. Currently, if Module:Citation is invoked you get:
    {{#invoke:Citation|citation}}
    Lua error in Module:Citation at line 1: This module is retained for historical and structural reasons; consider using Module:Citation/CS1..
    I think that error message appropriate. Readers should never see it but editors will if they are doing something that they ought not do (and are paying attention ...).
    If we want to 'soft redirect' Module:Citation can't we just add {{soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}} to someplace in Module:Citation/doc and be done?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That require doesn't work because it just redirects the page. If you add a second line that says return require [[Module:Citation/CS1]] under it, then the module will be functional too. Nickps (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited Module:Sandbox/Nickps to demonstrate. {{#invoke:Sandbox/Nickps|citation}} gives Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which doesn't look too promising at first but it's the same error as {{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation}}: Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which means the redirect is working. Nickps (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I just pushed the change to Module:Citation directly as a proof of concept. It can always be reverted later. Nickps (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is it that I am not understanding? You get the Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150 error message because of line 2 at Module:Citation (permalink). It is not obvious that line 1 (permalink) is doing anything that we want. If, as WP:SOFTREDIR says, Soft redirects differ in that they leave the reader on the redirect page that isn't happening because line 2 is pretty much the equivalent of a hard redirect. So tell me, what it is that you are attempting to accomplish with your edit? That edit puts the soft redirect outside of the module documentation. Wouldn't it be better to add {{soft redirect}} to the ~/doc page?
    Part of my misunderstanding was that I expected an invoke of Module:Citation to do nothing but put up a soft redirect annotation and halt as WP:SOFTREDIR sort of suggests that it should. The soft redirect annotation is for direct wikilinks ([[Module:Citation]] → Module:Citation). That being the case, I see no benefit to be gained by using the module to create the soft redirect annotation when the same can be accomplished by including {{soft redirect}} in the ~/doc page.
    Just what am I missing?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm confused. If you open Module:Citation you're left at the redirect page. So by the definition you provide, that's a soft redirect. I don't see how a redirect being soft or hard has anything to do with what it does when transcluded. Now, we could move the soft redirect template to the documentation page, although that would require changing the second line (then only line) to return require('Module:Citation/CS1') to avoid creating a hard redirect. Or, we could avoid this entire conversation and go with Pppery's suggestion of making a hard redirect. Nickps (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it must be a redirect, let it be a hard redirect or (my preference) leave it as it was and delete {{Citation/lua}} as unused/unnecessary. And then let us be done with this.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on a hard redirect being better than a soft one. Nickps (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a link to the previous TfD. Nickps (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Css

    [edit]

    Template with no transclusions that has been marked as deprecated since 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Presidency of Jimmy Carter

    [edit]

    Duplication of Template:Jimmy Carter. All links here are featured on Carter's main navbox. I can understand the the navbox being larger. But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency. I would recommend trimming the main navbox because these U.S. presidents navboxes have gotten larger including every law they have signed during their terms. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. Discussion of the template and other presidency vs. president biography templates is currently ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @WikiCleanerMan and Randy Kryn: As I've noted in the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page, I believe there are serious content policy issues with the how the biography templates of U.S. presidents were before the creation of the separate navigation templates for their presidencies, specifically the WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX policies. Contrary to the comments made by User:Randy Kryn, I am not including every bill signed into law by a president during a presidential administration and only the ones that have Wikipedia articles. If a law, executive order, regulation, or other public policy has a Wikipedia article that meets the requirements of the general notability policy (WP:N) and is related to a particular presidential administration, then that should be major enough for inclusion in a navigation template about the presidential administration because the WP:NAVBOX and WP:UNDUE policies explicitly require editors to not make judgments that certain topics related to a broader topic have greater importance than others when including them in a navigation template. In the absence of subject-specific notability guidelines, and if a law, executive order, regulation, or public policy does not meet the requirements of WP:N, it is not supposed to have a Wikipedia article in the first place.
      Likewise, speeches and foreign policy summits that do not meet the requirements of WP:EVENT are not supposed to have Wikipedia articles either since they are events under the terms of that guideline. Before I created the separate template, there were only a selection of topics related to a presidential administration in the biography templates with a greater focus of on foreign policy, state of the union addresses and other speeches, presidential inaugurations and transitions, and judicial appointments rather than domestic and economic policies. Criteria 4 of the WP:NAVBOX policy for good navigation templates requires that there that is a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template exist, and not every President of United States (POTUS) has a separate articles article about their presidency (i.e. William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield). WP:NAVBOX also suggests that navigation templates are better for small and well-defined groups of articles, which is why the I'd argue that only a link to the presidency article should be included in a biography template for a POTUS should be included, and all other articles related to a presidency should be split into a separate template about the presidency. This would preclude duplication, and there wasn't any duplication until User:Randy Kryn reverted the templates to how they were before the Template:Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox was created. WP:NAVBOX also does not ban templates with large numbers of links. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, this is an unneeded duplicate navbox of entries already present on the main Jimmy Carter nabox, and other duplicate navboxes have been created and entries removed (but reverted) from the individual navboxes. And yes, scores if not hundreds of tangential additions where the president is not mentioned in the article could be trimmed from presidential navboxes, which should not include every law that the president signed but only those which they initiated and/or worked to pass and were then semi-identified with them (LBJ's Voting Rights Act, FDR's New Deal legislation, etc.). This does not need additional discussion elsewhere, an obvious duplication of existing material. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • This can be solved easily..., just add an expandable section for 'Presidency' on the very few oversized navboxes in the style of {{John Paul II}} (but without multiple expanded sections, just one would do). This would solve everyone's concern, and would keep the rest of the links about the subject - Wikipedia's map of the topic - in the same navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Any ideas?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Senegalese Tirailleurs

    [edit]

    Contains only one link outside of the title navbox. All are red links to this Wikipedia. With the rest being external links to the French Wikipedia. No navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose deletion I will be using the template to create new articles about these neglected colonial units. JMJ (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should create articles before the navbox. Navboxes are meant to link articles that exist not to be created down the line. If you want to work on this, then this should be userfyed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would I "userfy" it? JMJ (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could copy it to your WP:SANDBOX --woodensuperman 15:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per nom. At the very least it needs trimming so that the WP:EXISTING articles aren't lost amongst a sea of redlinks and external links to the French Wikipedia (P.S. No external links in navboxes). --woodensuperman 15:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Rft

    [edit]

    I was going to originally suggest merging these two templates together, but after looking at the almost-zero transclusion count I realise that neither of them are really necessary; if a discussion gets moved to another location, we can easily use {{moved}} or type out "discussion moved to <link>", and if someone changes something (e.g. a signature) they can just... say so? It's not a bad idea but in practice it doesn't seem to have much use. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Miscellany

    [edit]

    Deletion review

    [edit]

    Category:DVD interactive technology

    [edit]
    Category:DVD interactive technology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

    The category was deleted at CfD recently. It seems the users voting delete were under the belief that the category was meant for games released on the DVD format which includes thousands of games and is indeed "not a defining characteristic". But the category was actually for DVD games, interactive movie games that are playable on a DVD player. Only a fairly small number games could be included in the category (there were maybe less than 50 articles in the category when it was deleted). This category is similar to other video game platform categories like Category:Xbox 360 games, in this case the platform is a DVD player. Pinging Zxcvbnm (talk · contribs), Marcocapelle (talk · contribs), QuantumFoam66 (talk · contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mika1h (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Overturn to Keep. Indeed, the concept is not merely about "games distributed on DVD", it's about games that basically exploit how menus of DVD movies function to turn them into an interactive experience.
    Mobygames recognises the platform: https://www.mobygames.com/platform/dvd-player/
    These are the 50 pages removed from the category as far as I can tell: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JJMC89_bot_III&target=JJMC89 bot III&offset=20240727163759&limit=50 --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (as contributor to the discussion) I think it would be helpful to relist the discussion at CfD and continue the discussion there. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn to Keep. Even the nom wasn't advocating for deletion, only for a move. I agree with the appellant that both Delete !voters misunderstood the nature of the category, and with two other participants calling for Keep/Move, there was no consensus to delete anyway. Owen× ☎ 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be sent back to cfd to restart the discussion about the move, not just restored and abandoned here. —Cryptic 18:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1233938454"