Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all ( sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all closing speedy
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all ( sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide Administrator guidelines
v t e

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.

Recent AfDs:     Today    Yesterday      July 12 (Fri)      July 11 (Thu)      July 10 (Wed)     More... Media    Organisations    Biography    Society    Web    Games    Science    Arts    Places    Indiscern.   Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Bhimadeva

Bhimadeva (  | 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)

MOS:DABMENTION requires "If the topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page". "Bhimadeva" is mentioned only in Bhima of Mahikavati, probably not a good target for a redirect. I suggest this page is deleted in order to enable uninhibited use of Search. A PROD was reverted by @ Utcursch: with edit summary ( https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=bhimadeva+caulukya) without editing any targeted article. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 18:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 18:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Army Public School, Jodhpur

Army Public School, Jodhpur (  | 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 a relatively small secondary school with, as far as I can find, no obvious claim to notability. Others may be able to provide evidence of notability (and create links from other pages to deorphan this page). Newhaven lad ( talk) 17:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Education, Schools, and Rajasthan. Shellwood ( talk) 17:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Didn't find any WP:SIGCOV. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The Scholars (band)

The Scholars (band) (  | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Punknews staff review of their only album. AllMusic has a rating for this album, but no review. toweli ( talk) 17:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli ( talk) 17:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Fashion of Radhika Merchant

Fashion of Radhika Merchant (  | 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 newspaper. WP:NOTNEWS Youknow? ( talk) 16:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Youknow? ( talk) 16:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Celebrity gossip coverage isn't what we're looking for notability-wise. For this to be kept, you need an extensive amount of sourcing to get it over the hump; this is too brief Oaktree b ( talk) 17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Michele Boldrin

Michele Boldrin (  | 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)

Most of the references are either his own website or YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc., so I have serious doubts about notability. He did get some coverage due to his opposition to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, but this looks pretty much like WP:INHERIT. HPfan4 ( talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Economics, and Italy. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: This is a PR item, but it suggests notability as a professorship at a major university [1], not sure if it passes PROF. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Universal Pictures films (1980–1989)

List of Universal Pictures films (1980–1989) (  | 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 meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 16:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jayati Devi

Jayati Devi (  | 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)

No indication that this person is notable per the current sourcing (which is not significant coverage), nor by her association with her husband, nor as a model/artist/musician. The article is part of a walled garden about the Munshi/Munsi extended family. A BEFORE search revealed nothing about this Jayati Devi (only about others). Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone ( talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Women, India, and West Bengal. Netherzone ( talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Generation Z slang

List of Generation Z slang (  | 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 seems like the most direct violation of WP:DICTIONARY possible; an indiscriminate collection of words used by (predominantly American) teenagers, with little prose and often sourced exclusively to barebones Dictionary.com entries.

There are no lists of slang used by other generations on WP, and nearly all of the terms included here were/are used for a vanishingly short period of time before disappearing into obscurity. Such is the nature of language, particularly among young people, but that doesn't mean we need to be documenting every weeks-long language trend among a relatively small demographic group. AviationFreak 💬 15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. AviationFreak 💬 15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Bougie, brainrot and AF are terms I've heard used and use, I'm nowhere near GenZ. This suggests notability... Seem well-sourced, not a slam dunk, but it's ok. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  There are plenty of words that I've heard, including many outside of the "Standard English" dictionary, that don't have an entry anywhere on Wikipedia (nor do I think they should). Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be in the business of cataloging words outside of legitimate glossaries that aid in a reader understanding articles on a particular topic. AviationFreak 💬 17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Auckland in the 2009 Air New Zealand Cup

Auckland in the 2009 Air New Zealand Cup (  | 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)

No evidence of the notability of the subject. No indication of any interest in keeping it up to date (no updates in the last 15 years). – Pee Jay 15:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages: reply

Manawatu in the 2009 Air New Zealand Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article consists only of a squad list

Wellington in the 2009 Air New Zealand Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has not been updated since 2009

Canterbury in the 2008 Air New Zealand Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is completely unreferenced

Manawatu in the 2008 Air New Zealand Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is completely unreferenced

North Otago in the 2008 Heartland Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is completely unreferenced

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and New Zealand. Shellwood ( talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hoze Houndz

Hoze Houndz (  | 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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. First AfD ended in no consensus DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Family_Channel#Animated_series_7 - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - as I pointed out last time, there are in-depth articles about the show, in national media coverage from the turn of the century. National Post ... actually the earlier more complete version of the article on the front page of the Montreal Gazette would be the better reference. Nfitz ( talk) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  First article (National Post) is a hype piece centered on the 2 broadcasters that guest starred in an episode. It is not a review or indepth coverage of the show itself. Second article is just the same article, but more complete (as you stated). I don't think either support notability for the show. The article might be useful in the pages for the 2 broadcasters, but I feel it does nothing for an article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

And the article also contains four other footnotes, from the Waterloo Record and the Ottawa Citizen and Maclean's, which you seem to be either overlooking or deliberately pretending they aren't there. Bearcat ( talk) 16:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Article contains six footnotes, which is more than enough to establish passage of WP:GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 16:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep Six sources, same as last AfD. Not a slam dunk, but they at least confirm GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sitaare Zameen Par (film)

Sitaare Zameen Par (film) (  | 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)

Nominated per WP:TOOSOON. Adnan ( ᵀᵃˡᵏ) 14:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Adnan ( ᵀᵃˡᵏ) 14:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The AFD request is opened with bad faith intent. You can see this deletion request and ANI discussion. Thanks for your consideration C1K98V ^{( 💬 ✒️ 📂)} 14:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

2015–16 Harburger TB season

2015–16 Harburger TB season (  | 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)

Clear failure of WP:NSEASONS. Wikipedia is not a database of amateur sports. Geschichte ( talk) 14:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Germany. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no indication of how this would meet WP:GNG and, since it's not a top-level professional season, it doesn't get a 'free pass' that might have been given if it met WP:NSEASONS. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Classic World Racing

Classic World Racing (  | 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)

Together with Crendon Replicas, Blitzworld Buggies, Buckland Cars (and maybe others), articles created by @ Mustang208:. None have significant coverage anywhere except for trade/specially articles. I don't think any pass WP:N. I picked this one as a start for the discussion. Ldm1954 ( talk) 13:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 ( talk) 13:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi

I haven't created these articles per se, but have copied them over from German Wikipedia.

I noticed the List of Car Manufacturers of the United Kingdom had a notice asking for more correctly sourced examples, so added to the list by copying over the German pages for smaller British car manufacturers, as I believed (perhaps naively) that since they were already on German wiki, they would be suitable pages.

Overall, since I haven't spent a great deal of time on these, I'm happy to go along with whatever consensus is reached.

Thanks. Mustang208 ( talk) 15:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hanson Brothers

Hanson Brothers (  | 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:GNG. The article is largely unsourced original research and fancruft. A search of sourcing reveals an absence of articles on this particular plot element in the film "Slap Shot." Every single article mentions the fictional "Hanson Brothers" in the larger context of the film, and I haven't seen a single source on the "brothers" themselves. A previous AfD in 2016 resulted in a "keep," but at the time there was no evidence provided of such independent sourcing. Therefore deletion or merge to the Slap Shot article is warranted. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 13:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Neil Merryweather

Neil Merryweather (  | 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)

Follow-up from this AfD. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, and lack of sources for existing content in article Mdann52 ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Shellwood ( talk) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Has an entry in a major music encyclopedia, which is copiously referenced in the article already. If it's covered by other encyclopedias, it should be covered in this one. Chubbles ( talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Lynn Carey

Lynn Carey (  | 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)

Follow-up from this AfD. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, and struggling to find any sources to support existing information in article. Mdann52 ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and California. Shellwood ( talk) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: This is all I could find [2], brief mention. Just not enough coverage. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

St Oswalds Retail Park

St Oswalds Retail Park (  | 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:GNG and WP:NBUILD. all sourcing appears to be routine coverage. Mdann52 ( talk) 13:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Neal Asbury

Neal Asbury (  | 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)

After almost 14 years, the articles claims of notability are not backed up by the reliable and verifiable sources that would be required, nor was I able to find anything meaningful in a Google search that could be added. The article is an orphan and there appear to be no meaningful connections to any other article that would help flesh out a claim of notability. Alansohn ( talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, and New Jersey. Alansohn ( talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: The South Florida Business Journal is fine, not impressed with the other source in the article. Otherwise, I can only find mentions of his company, hiring employees or the like. Not enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Myanmar Air Force Shaanxi Y-8 crash

2024 Myanmar Air Force Shaanxi Y-8 crash (  | 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)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. From what I've been able to find, the majority of sources are primary with a lack of/no reliable secondary sources. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage coverage. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 12:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Myanmar, and Mizoram. Shellwood ( talk) 12:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Widescreen Mode

Widescreen Mode (  | 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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Finland. Shellwood ( talk) 11:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Houmen railway station

Houmen railway station (  | 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)

It exists but doesn't appear to be notable. Boleyn ( talk) 11:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood ( talk) 11:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Rudi Mahmutaj

Rudi Mahmutaj (  | 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)

Mahmutaj never played in a professional league and the coverage to date isn't enough for WP:SIGCOV, in my view. Panorama 1 is just an announcement of being released, Panorama 2 is just a direct quote from Mahmutaj with no third party analysis and Sport Ekspres represents the best source on him but it still only confirms that he scored 19 goals for Luftëtari and played at under-17 level for Albania, which I would say falls just short of the depth required. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment – I was wondering... Since interview sources fail WP:GNG, do ones with third-party analysis count to demonstrate the person's notability? If so, what are some examples from websites? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This interview is an example of one that would count as having at least some third party analysis (of the tennis player Carlos Alcaraz). Clariniie I am aware that that's a different sport, though. Good interview sources for football look like The Guardian (Leah Williamson interview) and BBC (Aitana Bonmatí interview). Notice how the articles are written outside of a normal Q&A format and how most of them start with some background info on the interviewee first, which automatically pushes it to SIGCOV. The articles do more than just merely regurgitate the interview. If someone can find similar calibre sourcing for Mahmutaj, I will happily withdraw my support for deletion. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ervis Koçi (footballer, born 1998)

Ervis Koçi (footballer, born 1998) (  | 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)

No top tier appearances, no meaningful prose and no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. The only source that I can find is Panorama, a mere squad listing. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete, played some football games on a tier that was not fully professional, and no relevant sources. To the closer: remember to move Ervis Koçi (footballer, born 1984) to the non-disambiguated title afterwards. Geschichte ( talk) 13:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete – Poorly-formatted article without significant coverage and major updates :( I also agree with Geschichte for the article rename once this nomination has been closed. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: not even a claim of notability. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Šárka Sudová

Šárka Sudová (  | 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)

With only database references listed, this article fails WP:GNG. The closest significant coverage in reliable sources I found is iDNES. Unlike her sister Nikola, she has not received any medal record. Notability is not inherited from relatives; as ATD, should we consider redirect this article to her sister or Czech Republic at the 2010 Winter Olympics? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Czech Republic. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. She is definitely notable enough. Article expanded. FromCzech ( talk) 12:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Updated article after edits from FromCzech passes the notability guideline. C 679 13:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Granuel Lika

Granuel Lika (  | 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)

Lika played only 97 mins in the Superliga and there is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. My own searches yielded only Panorama, a passing mention, and Durrës Lajm, a squad listing. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Egli Trimi

Egli Trimi (  | 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)

His professional career was extremely brief by the looks of it. My own searches didn't yield any non-database coverage, therefore WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC don't seem to be met. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete, not even a credible claim to notability at this point. Geschichte ( talk) 13:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Pioneer Pekao Investments

Pioneer Pekao Investments (  | 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:NCORP Imcdc Contact 09:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Poland. Imcdc Contact 09:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jana Labáthová

Jana Labáthová (  | 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)

There are some mentions on online newspapers of her being paired with Nada Daabousová in the synchronized swimming competition at the 2016 Summer Olympics, but I could not find any in-depth coverage of Labáthová herself that would pass WP:GNG. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is an unsourced stub, which may help copy over English article otherwise. No news about Labáthová have been reported since then either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• A few things I located: [3] [4] [5]. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 18:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Source #1 mentions Labáthová in the first five paragraphs, Source #2 does not address her in-depth, and Source #3 mentions her in one paragraph repeated from the title. None of these provide significant coverage that is required for notability; Labáthová still needs to meet SIGCOV and GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

TalentEgg

TalentEgg (  | 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)

Nominated for speedy deletion in September 2021. Article unchanged since then but does not meet WP:NORG. Orange sticker ( talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Internet, and Canada. Orange sticker ( talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Orsett Heath Academy

Orsett Heath Academy (  | 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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school, which opened in 2020,and cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources which is not run of the mill. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for the school to be notable. Tacyarg ( talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg ( talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Maybe merge to Orsett Heath or Grays, Essex (as its not actually in Orsett Heath). Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try to focus on one Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality

Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality (  | 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)

Self published book by an author who has paid many editors for his and its inclusion in Wikipedia. Fails WP:NBOOK, this is WP:ADMASQ and part of a walled garden of self promotion. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. 🇺🇦  Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦  Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete : no coverage and fails WP:42. Not to mention what is mentioned in the nom which may require WP:SALT .. FuzzyMagma ( talk) 11:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Refer to: Don't cite WP42 at AfD and Checkout 1, 2, 3 and 4 among others

  217.165.5.17 ( talk) 04:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 217.165.5.17 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Keep. To start with, this is a self-promotional article about a self-promotional self-published book and should be rewritten to address this tone. But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and this book passes criterion 4 of WP:NBOOK, which states "The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[7]." According to reliable sources (the Monitor, a legitimate and reliable Ugandan news outlet, plus PML Daily), Uganda's government agency overseeing curriculum adopted the book as part of its secondary school curriculum and thus made it a "subject of instruction." And according to NBOOK, satisfying one of these criteria overcomes concerns about self-publication. (While criterion 4 is dispositive, I also think we need to be careful about overturning a prior "Keep" AfD decision without a clear statement from the nominator about why that discussion was flawed.) Dclemens1971 ( talk) 03:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep without abandoning WP:BEFORE, this book has significant press coverage, an award, and is on a national curriculum, where there is promotion, I recommend cleanup. Regarding Paid Edits, there are necessary Disclosures on the talk page already.

• Comment This article was already nominated for deletion before in 2020 and the result was Keep. The very nominator here was part of the discussion contributors. I have also established that it is the very nominator who actually started the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. and he has a rare special biased/negative interest against the project, the author as he keeps reffereing to that everytime he wants something bad to be done to the (or revert/delete) authors wikipedia works. He appears to smartly resist any updates to the author and his global contributions, potentially aiming to frustrate other contributors, by labeling every editor of this author as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) disregarding the fact that all contributions are collaborative efforts.

The nominator acts as if he owns Wikipedia content through determining what should be written and not written about him or according to his wish, he's hence abusing and misusing; in guise, several Wiki policies and contradicting the principles outlined in Wikipedia's Ownership of content policy (WP:OWN). I am therefore convinced and I believe beyond reasonable doubt that this nomination was selfishly made in bad faith against the Wikipedia foundation Mission, Purpose and Terms of Use including Wikipedia:Assume good faith and deliberately violating Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:V) policies 217.165.5.17 ( talk) 00:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 217.165.5.17 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Keep in accordance with the available reliable sources ( WP:RS) and the criteria outlined in Book Sources ( WP:BOOKCRIT#1), as the references meet the required standards for accuracy, credibility, and editorial quality. 2A00:F28:486:3B8:2863:3750:DBB2:7C3F ( talk) 02:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 2A00:F28:486:3B8:2863:3750:DBB2:7C3F ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Keep The Article Already passed an AFD with a "Keep" Result implying community consensus for its notability. Since then, no paid editors have contributed; all edits have been from independent editors part of whom contributed to the Article's first ADF consensus. The Edit history show the article having been improved by experienced and non conflicted editors ensuring compliance with Wikioedia's standards. The WP:ADMASQ claim is unfounded based on the current content.The nominator's motivations should not influence the deletion discussion. 5.31.71.51 ( talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 5.31.71.51 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Comment. I stand by my keep !vote above on policy grounds but I think the flurry of IP SPAs who showed up need to be disregarded. Would love to see more perspectives from some uninvolved regulars at AfD. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. I'm unsure if Uganda has the same paid for media coverage problems as India and Nigeria, so evaluating the sources is kind of difficult here as I am not familiar with many of the publications. IMO, the schooling thing mentioned above helps it be pushed over to keep, and most of the sources look okay for notability - though some appear unduly promotional and perhaps tied to the author. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Basing on the fact that was adopted by the Ugandan Ministry of Education through its NCDC and recommended for use in Secondary and higher institutions of Learning, It got an award though this is only talked about in Uganda, I find many substantial postive reviews on Amazon and I find many references linking to several libraries for schools and Universities in Uganda. 102.85.51.233 ( talk) 20:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — 102.85.51.233 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, first, Amazon reviews are not important, secondly, I'd like to hear from some of our AFD regulars instead of new IP editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Hamis Kiggundu: Coverage I can find is only about the individual, nothing about his book. I'd redirect or merge a few lines into his article there. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Muzzammil Aslam

Muzzammil Aslam (  | 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 creator of this BLP SheriffIsInTown claims that this BLP falls under NPOL, but NPOL is not applicable here. Any advisor to Chief Minister of a province, must meet the GNG, which they do not. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Youknow? ( talk) 08:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Youknowwhoistheman There is extensive coverage in the Urdu language media and press about this individual and his work, as seen in the search results on Google here. Given this, would you reconsider changing your vote? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I respect your argument. But I don't think that being an advisor to any Chief Minister, he is passing WP:NPOL. And if we talk about WP:GNG, then he is not able to pass even that subject. First, neither WP:SIGCOV is there, from WP:RS is available. Hope you have understood. Best of luck for the future! Youknow? ( talk) 05:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  SheriffIsInTown, If you believe the subject has extensive coverage, could you provide the WP:THREE best sources that meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV. Simply saying WP:GOOGLEHITS won't suffice — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 18:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Saqib @ Youknowwhoistheman With hundreds of sources available, selecting just three is challenging. Most reliable sources cover his statements or financial initiatives, now they wouldn’t report on a non-notable nobody. His notability is evident from the coverage his statements receive. His position contributes to his notability, and this isn’t his first role; he was previously an advisor to Prime Minister Imran Khan. Despite the difficulty in choosing from many sources, a We News piece in Urdu language focuses exclusively on him, and numerous reliable sources with alternative spellings of his name report on his statements and work. This Express Tribune is all about him as well. Then, there are many which cover his appointment to the cabinet, one of them being this Dawn piece. There are plenty more under alternative spelling of his name here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  SheriffIsInTown, You mentioned there are hundreds of sources available, but since you've provided 03 coverages, I would like to assess them individually. Firstly, I don't even consider We News a RS. I'm unsure if it has been discussed at WP:RSN, but given its scarce use on WP, I'm not inclined to spend time debating its reliability there. WP:COMMONSENSE suggests it isn't a RS, especially for BLPs. The coverage in the Express Tribune doesn't directly and thoroughly discuss the subject, though this coverage can be used for WP:V, not to establish GNG. The same can be said for the Dawn coverage; it's WP:TRIVIALMENTION and lacks sig./in-depth coverage of the subject. While I don't dispute that there may be some press coverage, but we need solid coverage that delves into detail as required by the GNG for it to contribute to meeting WP:N. We do not establish the WP:N of BLPs based on WP:TRIVIALMENTION or WP:ROTM coverage. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 05:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Saqib Why wouldn't you consider We News reliable? Limited usage doesn't necessarily indicate that the source is unreliable. What do you think about this and this? These three combined should be enough to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  SheriffIsInTown, I'm not saying We News isn't a RS because it's seldom used here. Please re-read my comment. We News isn't reliable for many reasons, one of which is that the author who wrote about Muzzammil Aslam tends to produce sensational/tabloid-style stories. Additionally, all the sources you've provided (incl. this and this) are just announcements about his appointment as an Advisor in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government, making this a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Please allow me to ping @ S0091: to get their take on the provided coverage/sources. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 08:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Please note that pinging specific editors to get their views in a deletion discussion may be construed as canvassing. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 14:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  1) this specific editor does not always share the same views as mine. 2) I'm not seeking their vote; I just want their feedback on the provided coverage. 3) WP:CANVASS doesn't explicitly prohibit pinging others. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Advisor's portfolio is considered equal to a minister making them functional part of the cabinet. In this case, they are a member of the provincial cabinet. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • SheriffIsInTown, Firstly, this notification does not state they have the same status or powers as a minister. Notifications typically mention such if an advisor is getting the same power/status as a minister. And even if they did, I don't think it falls under NPOL. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    Given that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province does not have a finance minister, Aslam's role becomes particularly significant. He is currently the sole individual in the cabinet overseeing financial matters, which underscores his importance and justifies the need for an article about him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I agree that NPOL does not cover advisors to ministers. There is no consensus that it does and no good reason has been provided to extend NPOL's reach that far. I won't !vote because I can't effectively search for coverage in Urdu. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Voorts Please take any references I've given in Urdu, copy the text, and use Google Translator to translate it from Urdu to English. Even if NPOL doesn't apply to him, I believe he still has enough coverage to meet GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  We News appears to be reliable and is SIGCOV. Tribune and Dawn are trivial mentions. Not enough to meet GNG. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Voorts How about this one and this one? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Voorts I've briefly explained above why I don't think We News is a RS. SheriffIsInTown Just getting some press coverage doesn't make someone notable or meet the GNG. Fwiw, Waqar Zaka has considerably more press coverage, yet his BLP was deleted because it failed to meet the rigorous GNG requirement. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 08:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Not being used often on Wikipedia does not make a source unreliable. We News appears to have an editorial board and some reporting standards. I'm not seeing any huge red flags on their website. Also, the fact that another article was deleted is neither here nor there because we evaluate each article on its own merits. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 14:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Voorts I hope you didn't overlook my previous comment where I shared two additional English language sources ( TNN and Mettis Global) that provide detailed coverage of Aslam. These might help you reconsider and change your comment to a keep vote. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Mettis is a trivial mention announcing his being hired. TNN is also routine coverage about him being hired. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 15:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Voorts I never claimed that the infrequent use of a source makes it unreliable. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 15:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I misread your point above. Apologies. But the fact that it isn't used much doesn't mean we can just hand-wave away its reliability in this discussion. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Voorts, Noted. And that's precisely why I pinged @ S0091, for a third opinion on this source. Also I mentioned Waqar Zaka because he also served as an expert in the same government, albeit in a different role. And he has received significantly more press coverage than Muzzammil Aslam. This was merely an example and not meant to establish a precedent. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 15:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Saqib @ Voorts The TNN story covers him as a person, stating he is a renowned economist, mentions his date of birth, two decades of experience, and leadership positions in several private institutions. It also covers his joining PTI, his previous role, and his educational qualifications in detail. Mettis Global discusses his appointment and mentions others who have been appointed as advisors, but the rest of the piece is about him, indicating his greater notability. The rest of the piece, like the We News and TNN stories, talks about his role as a spokesperson, his 15 years of business experience, and detailed coverage of his educational qualifications. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Bus (group)

Bus (group) (  | 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. Article was moved from draft space and I originally returned it. After examining the article I noticed that it claim the band started 6 December 2023. However, the the only reference was published 2 February 2021. This was at least 17 months before auditions started. In addition the reference seemed to be about three young women and not twelve young men. The article provides no references for a band that has only released two singles and was created by a non-notable reality show, 789 SURVIVAL. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Thailand. Shellwood ( talk) 22:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The citation currently in the article was clearly incorrectly inserted, probably the result of an inappropriate copy/paste job. But may I remind the nominator that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. A Google News search for BUS 789 Survival turns up plenty of Thai-language coverage. (I'm not !voting keep just yet due to quality concerns raised by the aforementioned copy/pasting). -- Paul_012 ( talk) 02:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes but as said the band does not appear to be notable. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Their music have already been released. The band was split into 2 different subunits: BUS5 and BUS7. It should be easier to find sources from these 2 names. -- Lerdsuwa ( talk) 02:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Draftify. Should not linger in mainspace with WP:V problems that are basic in nature: Who are Bus? Are they one or two groups? Who are in those two groups? Geschichte ( talk) 21:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Laboratory Response Network

Laboratory Response Network (  | 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)

No WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:RS. Redirect to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of which it is a part. Longhornsg ( talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Behavioural science, and United States of America. Longhornsg ( talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • "No reliable sources"? There is one reliable source. None of the included material would be found in the CDC article. My vote: Retain. Valerius Tygart ( talk) 17:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    Per WP:GNG, the topic should receive SIGCOV in multiple RS, which having only one source does not satisfy. In addition, the coverage is simply WP:DICT, not WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps a merge. Longhornsg ( talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• 'Redirect as above as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Keep, Redirect or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment Weak keep Upon a preliminary look, it doesn't seem very informative, well sourced, or well written. Now to check if other sourcing exists... Okay, we could use the official site to at least clear up what the LRN is. Google Scholar shows that a number of research teams have written evaluations of the LRN: Public Health Reports, American Society for Microbiology, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness... USA Today printed two opinion pieces from the same author on the subject [6]. Okay, I'm feeling weak keep. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep For reasons given above. Valerius Tygart ( talk) 13:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of fictional British and Irish universities

List of fictional British and Irish universities (  | 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 subject does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of fictional locations. Another list that is WP:OR in both content and in the synthesis of "fictional X that are also Y and Z." Jontesta ( talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta ( talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. I think this is an obvious delete, and there is no List of fictional universities and colleges to merge to. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and United Kingdom. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - There are no sources included in the article that cover the topic of fictional British/Irish universities as a group or set - the closest this article has are a series of joke articles from the same website. The only entry here that actually has its own article is the Unseen University, which isn't actually even in Britain or Ireland. Fails WP:LISTN, appears to be peppered throughout with WP:OR, and probably runs afoul of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma ( talk) 06:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Locations in His Dark Materials

Locations in His Dark Materials (  | 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 have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of fictional concepts from a book series. Much of this is WP:OR in both content and in the choices of what to cover. Jontesta ( talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta ( talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment I got pinged as the article creator. It seems that a long time ago I merged a couple of articles because they were not individually notable. Perhaps some of the items here have enough 3rd party coverage to merit existence, but I'll stay out of discussion. -- Tone 14:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Copper Wimmin

Copper Wimmin (  | 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 vocal group. Did not find any reliable sources about the group online. GamerPro64 05:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United States of America. GamerPro64 05:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Teen Titans Go! characters

List of Teen Titans Go! characters (  | 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)

WP:OR without independent sources. Much of this is a retread of List of Teen Titans (TV series) characters and we do not need two non-notable lists. Jontesta ( talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta ( talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Third Watch characters

List of Third Watch characters (  | 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)

Unsourced WP:OR with no indication of notability. Not enough coverage by reliable sources according to WP:BEFORE. Jontesta ( talk) 04:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta ( talk) 04:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

World Elephant

World Elephant (  | 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)

Entire article violates WP:OR. The sources that are actually reliable are treating the subject as merely one of them many concepts of Hindu cosmology. All other sources are either primary or they are based on outdated sources, and they don't help the subject in passing WP:GNG. Ratnahastin ( talk) 05:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Hinduism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep the Ashta-diggajas is a significant concept in Hindu cosmology, as the elephants that support the world. Secondary references are available in the article and cover the subject. WP:BEFORE should be applied instead of Bold blanking and AfD. -- Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Hindu cosmology. The article appears to be repeating itself a number of times. CharlesWain ( talk) 10:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge The concept certainly seems to have real-world importance and sources exist, although I am not completely sure on the extent. A pure redirect to Hindu cosmology is of little help to the reader, as the concept does not yet appear at that page. Daranios ( talk) 15:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate the new sources added. I didn't review the sources but all sections of the article are cited so I'm not sure if the assertions of OR are justified. Let's focus on whether the sourcing is sufficient and of good quality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The article already has sufficient sourcing. Repetition doesn't matter - this discussion is about the notability of the subject, not the current state of the article. The nominator also hasn't explained why "outdated sources" would an issue in an article about a mythological concept from ages ago.

Cortador ( talk) 11:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep or redirect, possibly to World Turtle#India. The article does need substantial improvement, but not total deletion. Walsh90210 ( talk) 19:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Hindu cosmology and World Turtle#India. None of the references treat the subject to be notable on its own. Raymond3023 ( talk) 04:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Prime ministerial confirmation of Ferdinand Marcos

Prime ministerial confirmation of Ferdinand Marcos (  | 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:GNG, doesn't have any reference source. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 04:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 7. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Sheesh, just redirect this junk to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister and do the same with the rest of the mass-produced inauguration substubs. They do not need separate pages just because they happened, this can be covered perfectly well in the respective articles of the presidents. Reywas92 ^Talk 14:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hindi Hai Hum

Hindi Hai Hum (  | 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:GNG, doesn't have any reference source. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 04:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 7. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Real_(TV_channel)#Drama: where it's listed, and add a source ( https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/2009/Feb/26/real-tv-channel-to-go-on-air-from-march-2-28746.html or a more detailed one, like https://nettv4u.com/about/hindi/tv-serials/hindi-hai-hum) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Per nom and no sources with indepth coverage. I would not even consider to redirect the page to Real_(TV_channel)#Drama because this page too fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP with no significant coverage that was up for only one year from 2009 to 2010. RangersRus ( talk) 12:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect as above: redirects are cheap, and this one is justified by a source. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The Life and Religion of Mohammed

The Life and Religion of Mohammed (  | 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:NOTBOOK. I can find no sources on the book or the author of the book, other than catalogue or sales listings. Article has been tagged for notability since 2012. Johnj1995 ( talk) 04:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Princesa Lea

Princesa Lea (  | 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:NACTOR due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Canada, and Mexico. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with some significant roles in notable films (also see Sp WP). And WP:GNG, https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/espectaculos/2021/10/18/princesa-lea-que-fue-de-la-famosa-vedette-canadiense-del-cine-de-ficheras-345367.html https://www.debate.com.mx/show/Conoce-a-las-tres-actrices-del-Cine-de-Oro-que-eran-la-Karely-Ruiz-de-su-epoca-20230117-0311.html https://www.gq.com.mx/entretenimiento/articulo/vedettes-iconicas-cine-mexicano ; https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/arteseideas/Vedettes-femeninas-y-empoderadas-20161206-0102.html among other things. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Slightly Notable, article needs more citations and improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feellingfly ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more, hopefully experienced, editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Fusion Asset Management

Fusion Asset Management (  | 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:NCORP. The sources used are either written by the firm's founder or are interviews with him that rule out independence. I so far cannot see any proper independence sources that provide significant coverage on the firm itself. Imcdc Contact 03:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 03:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sreenidhi Institute of Management and Science

Sreenidhi Institute of Management and Science (  | 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 cannot find any independent, substantive coverage about this institute. Their FB-page was discontinued in 2014. Fails WP:NORG Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 03:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 03:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P.

A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P. (  | 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:NCORP. Cannot find any independent sources that provide WP:SIGCOV on it. Imcdc Contact 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and New York. Imcdc Contact 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete - Zero evidence of notability. I speedied an article about the founder (or "founder"), Asuna Gilfoyle, in May. Gilfoyle was a character in Silicon Valley -- I think A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P. is a joke. JSFarman ( talk) 04:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I found A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P.'s Securities and Exchange Commission registration: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/firm/summary/329643. I would disagree that it's a joke based on the registration. CacheOverride ( talk) 10:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sanvikaa

Sanvikaa (  | 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)

WP:TOOSOON. She might meet the WP:NACTOR criteria in the future as her career advances and she gains more references. Charlie ( talk) 02:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete as written. This article has no footnotes, and the only reference is IMDB, which is not reliable. There is a draft, Draft:Sanvikaa, which has footnotes. I have not reviewed the draft in detail, and so do not have an opinion on whether the addition of the sources would satisfy general notability, but addition of information from the draft to the article would be useful. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Marlon Campbell

Marlon Campbell (  | 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:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

STP Kabaty

STP Kabaty (  | 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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. The SNG for p[laces explicitly says that they are not presumed notable and must meet GNG. Has not even one reference anywhere near GNG. North8000 ( talk) 01:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment : The polish wiki has significantly more info.... much of it unsourced. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacja_Techniczno-Postojowa_Kabaty

I assume there might be information in polish to help prove notability, but as I can't speak polish, and polish wiki has no useful citations to help, I'd vote delete unless folks can find them. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to M1 (Warsaw)#Depots unless sufficient sourcing can be found. Plausible search term, but the sourcing isn't yet there. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 06:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Haqeeqi Azadi Movement

Haqeeqi Azadi Movement (  | 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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. There are no references much less GNG references on the subject of the article. The references are all on Pakistan politics in general, not on the subject of the article. North8000 ( talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

MFK Award for Favourite Male Playback Singer

MFK Award for Favourite Male Playback Singer (  | 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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. An award for playback singers issued by a TV channel. North8000 ( talk) 01:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Awards, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Virgin Trains (open access operator)

Virgin Trains (open access operator) (  | 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)

Page already exists here /info/en/?search=Virgin_Trains MrBauer24 ( talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose, Virgin Trains is about a train operator that ceased in 2019, this is about a separate prospective operator with a different ownership structure. Virgin Trains was a franchised operator, if it comes to fruition, this will be an open access operator.In the same way that we have Flybe (1979-2020) and Flybe (2022–2023), same brand, but otherwise completely different. 00:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenfruy ( talk • contribs)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep, As said by Grenfuy, it is a different corporation.

🍗TheNugg eteer🍗

00:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.

  🍗TheNugg eteer🍗

  00:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge as it does not appear the future incarnation is yet notable. Can be covered within the extant article until such time as notability changes and it can be spun out. Star Mississippi 01:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Virgin Trains per Star. If they win the bid we can consider a split then Jumpytoo Talk 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Grenfruy, or merge to a new overview article about the various uses of the Virgin brand in relation to UK railways. I Oppose merging to an existing article because none of those listed Virgin Trains (disambiguation) are suitable merge targets (based on those articles and the dab page). Thryduulf ( talk) 01:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: For the same reasons as stated by Grenfuy as it is a different corporation. Rillington ( talk) 05:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Given the new government's stated policy to renationalise the railways, is this proposal even valid any more? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Unless and until we know a lot more detail about the new plans it's impossible to say whether open access operators will be a feature of a nationalised railway (there are hundreds (at least) of possible structures it could take), but that's only tangentially relevant crystal ball-gazing. This is notable as a proposal (probably individually, definitely as part of a broader article) whether they end up ever running trains or not. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Chris Okagbue

Chris Okagbue (  | 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 don’t see how this subject passes WP:GNG. The only thing here was that he won the Gulder ultimate search. The rest are just biography with no source. No evidence he won those awards.Since 2023 the issue tag was placed no fixed has been made. Even when I had to google. The news source fails independent as they are likely stating his quote. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Funnybros

Funnybros (  | 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)

Saw this page and wanted to over look it not until almost all the source, possibly all fails to meet Wikipedia independent, reliable and secondary. No point calling him a musician when all the source are from promotion link and also fails in music notability. Since 2023 issue was tagged but no changes. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Coverage is looking sparse. These two sources might count towards GNG, although they do look low-quality: [7] [8]. I am unable to consistently access guardian.ng. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 03:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I don’t see how those sources you provided meets GNG neither low quality. Meanwhile, i have never heard the word “Low quality” while determining either an article meets GNG or not. If it passes it passes. If doesn’t pass, it doesn’t. You can visit the article page. Check the tag to understand what reliable, independent source it’s all about. The two source you provided failed to be independent because it doesn’t speak from a disinterest of the article subject. Gabriel (talk to me ) 04:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  By "low-quality" I meant that the tone is tabloid-style and the articles don't contain a lot of independent analysis. The sources use non-neutral language, but I don't see indications that they have a vested interest in the subject. If the articles were sponsored, for example, they would be completely non-independent, but there is no indication of that (unless there's something I'm missing about the sources). Per WP:IIS, "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea." Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 05:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The sources could also be non-independent if the coverage is almost entirely based on the subject's own words, which is possible but not obvious. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 08:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I understand u. But before i nominated the page. The sources are not just making sense to me. The few newspaper that was cited was just all about Meet Funnybros. The rest are from Nigerian blogs and music link containing Apple Music and the rest. Personal life he bought a Benz the two source cited are from blogs that are not reliable besides buying a Benz has nothing to do with notability. Gabriel (talk to me ) 11:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp

File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bremps ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Unfortunately I don't think that this file can be justified as fair use. The photo is not strictly necessary to understand the subject of the article, and the photo itself is never discussed in the article. If the article were about the photograph itself it would be justifiable, but this is not the case. Di (they-them) ( talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep the image very clearly articulates information clear than any word can. It also adequately summarizes the events of the shooting, with the bloody trump being whisked away. The subject of the image, the assassination attempt against trump, is the entire subject of the article. Scu ba ( talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

KEEP the photo. This photo sums up the spirit of the article and Mr. Trumps spirit after he was almost assassinated. 2620:149:1CA1:200:197A:D379:B2E8:CE6D ( talk) 16:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• {{ Non-free historic image}} usually requires sourced commentary on the image itself, not what it illustrates. WP:UUI#7. — Cryptic 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Showing Evan Vucci's copyrighted image in a cropped and low-resolution format does not satisfy WP:NFCC#2 because the original image's market role is replaced by any unlicensed edit that still retains the photographer's unique capture of Trump's bloodied face in front of the US flag. BluePenguin18 🐧 (  💬 ) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

AP is government funded, he is apart of AP Gonzafer001 ( talk) 06:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

AP is not a government organization. They are a not-for-profit organization. That means that the public domain exemption does not apply. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, a historical image. This is similar to Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Raising the Flag at Ground Zero. LuxembourgLover ( talk) 00:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ LuxembourgLover: There's a fundamental difference in the situations. Those "raising the flag" pages are about the photographs in question, so the photographs are necessary to better understand the article. There is no page about "Evan Vucci's photograph of Donald Trump". Di (they-them) ( talk) 00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

We have articles for Barack Obama "Hope" poster, I think this picture could get it's own article. its one of the clearest pictures of an assassination attempt aftermath. LuxembourgLover ( talk) 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is a wholly fanciful argument that does not jibe with WP:NFCC. It is beyond laughable to think you can declare something "historical" mere hours after the fact. Zaathras ( talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Neither of these examples are compelling. The former is in the public domain and the latter is only used in articles discussing the photo itself, rather than the articles on the September 11 attacks or New York City's recovery. BluePenguin18 🐧 (  💬 ) 00:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It's definitely a historical image. This was the first assassination attempt on an American president in over 40 years. You might not consider it history because it happened a couple of hours ago, but everything was "mere hours" ago at some point. USA1855 ( talk) 01:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

the first assassination attempt on an American president in over 40 years. There have been over 20 in 40 years. Hyperbole is not a reason to keep a non-free image. Zaathras ( talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

His argument is indeed flawed in its wording, but, @ Zaathras , I do want to hear when (at least) two people were killed and when something actually hit a President. Please do cite when something other than a plot happened. Not an actual attempt. Something actually serious, like this. BarntToust ( talk) 01:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

How would that contribute to discussing if the image is fair use or not. (If you want the list, read List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots.) -- Super Goku V ( talk) 07:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree completely. It is ludicrous to think that this iconic and historical image should be deleted. Wikipedia would become a laughingstock. This image is shared millions of times all over the world. There is no way to stop. Brianahier ( talk) 11:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah I think opposition comes more from historical biases rather then anything else.

The presidencies are defining history, and campaigns are the things that decide presidencies. For example something as seemingly insignificant as Dean scream has its own dedicated Wikipedia article. Why? Because it tanked him in the polls and deprived him of shot at presidency possibly changing course of history, and without a doubt changing power balance in DNC.

This photo will be signifier of a moment in which potential next president escaped with his life. It is historic, and even more if Trump wins presidency. People want it deleted, not because it is not, but because of personal antipathy. It makes him look really good with fist in the air, triumphantly standing after surviving assassination attempt by inches. Moderators want it deleted to not promote positive image of Trump in eyes of potential readers, not because lack of educational value. 2A02:A319:20A9:6E00:4D35:1D80:CF18:22E6 ( talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per LuxembourgLover ( Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Well-justified in its description (no low-resolution free-use images of this event exist) and the image captures the unparalleled significance of the moment very fittingly for the article. The image from the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald comes to mind as a good analogy -- alternatives may exist, but the historic angle and context of that one image is undeniable. HandIsNotNookls ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• HandIsNotNookls: (That image is actually in the public domain for failure to renew, but I agree with your general point.) TE(æ)A,ea. ( talk) 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This image is more historically important than many of the other images I see listed with "Non-free historic image". In addition, the spontaneous reaction was not staged, so the photographer has very little copyright interest in the photograph. TE(æ)A,ea. ( talk) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  First, the existence of other copyright violations is not an argument for further wrongdoing. It is an impetus to propose deletion of those rule-breakers. Second, photographers are not denied a copyright interest in their creations simply because the results were spontaneous. BluePenguin18 🐧 (  💬 ) 00:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • BluePenguin18 🐧: No, I think those are justified; it is just that this is more justified than those cases. I presume you haven't read the law? Photography, at its course, is mechanical, not creative; so, for a photograph to be copyrighted, some creative work—known as "authorship"—must occur before the photograph is taken. The main appeal of this photograph—most of what strikes the viewer as copyrightable—owes its origin not to the photographer's choices of angle, camera settings, &c., but to the staging of the rally podium and Trump's action in raising his fist. TE(æ)A,ea. ( talk) 01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    Speaking as a law student, this is incorrect. This image qualifies for copyright protection because it is fixed to the medium of a photograph, authored by the human Evan Vucci, is in a copyrightable subject matter of a pictoral work, and showcases originality in its presentation ( US Copyright Office). Accepting that the image is under copyright, US law makes no free use exception on the basis that the work's main appeal was not purposeful by its creator. BluePenguin18 🐧 (  💬 ) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    • BluePenguin18 🐧: You have misunderstood my statement. You have also not explained the basis of your belief that the work has copyrightable subject matter, or the extent of that protection. That is what my response was addressing. As to that hyper-link, I have already read it, and have read more particularly court cases which address the topic. My comment on "appeal" was directed to originality—much of what could be identified as "original" in the image, its "appeal," does not originate in the photographer's creative processes and cannot thereby be attributed to him through the copyright law.~ TE(æ)A,ea. ( talk) 02:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

      That US Copyright Office document links to a glossary noting that Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017) recognized that photographs qualify as a copyrightable subject matter. If you are truly aware of any court cases that limit copyright protection on the basis that the work's main appeal was not purposeful by its creator, please cite them. BluePenguin18 🐧 (  💬 ) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, the image seems to have potential for commercial use & can easily be replaced by a CC image (once one is taken/found). The photograph may be historically relevant, but fair use on Wikipedia seems to be a bit of a stretch. Jan-Janko ( talk) 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This is the most notable image and is shown throughout the media (or different variations of Trump raising his fist) so it is most informative to readers and the most relevant image to display in the infobox. Bill Williams 00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Being notable and relevant is not the same as being justified under NFCC. Di (they-them) ( talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  "or different variations of Trump raising his fist" – so it's highly likely that a free alternative exists or could be created ( WP:NFCC #1). Adabow ( talk) 00:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete One does not need to see an image like this (that is now being used to show "he's a tough guy" on social media) to understand the subject matter. Non-free media of various kinds can be used instead, or something may be released down the road Zaathras ( talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I do have to ask, in the context of a shooting, is a strong-looking image bad or unnecessary? No. Also, I'm sure analysis of the image probably will happen, but "they are using it" isn't a good argument imo. BarntToust ( talk) 01:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

What "non-free media"? Marcus Markup ( talk) 01:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is essentially the image of the event. If I were asked to choose an image to summarize the event, I'd choose this. It doesn't matter what some people on social media are using it for. This image certainly does help in understanding the event. It shows Trump's shot ear and him being escorted. Coulomb1 ( talk) 04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You are showing clear bias and it's pretty obvious you want the picture removed because of the effect that you perceive it having in the public - an effect you clearly do not like. The picture should stay because of its historical significance, regardless of how you feel about it or the ways you think someone on social media might be using it. I don't even see how that's relevant or why you even mentioned it, other than to demonstrate your bias. 178.222.30.152 ( talk) 10:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah - exactly what I've spoken of in previous comment. Zathraas wants it deleted, because it shows image of Trump as a 'though guy' rather then lack of educational substance. Disingenuous reasoning, that should be dismissed. 2A02:A319:20A9:6E00:4D35:1D80:CF18:22E6 ( talk) 14:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: It's an amazing photograph, artistically speaking (and kudos to the photographer), but it's still Evan Vucci's copyrighted image. As such, unless we can get a better, non-copyrighted image, I don't think we can keep it, per BluePenguin18 and Di. Better to not have a photograph. — Javert2113 ( Siarad.| ¤) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails #1 in that a free image depicting the event could easily be made available at any point soon. Fails #2 in that it's clearly a popular image of a current event and the wire photographer will be selling it to newspapers around the world for Sunday/Monday papers. Fails #5 and #8 in not adding to encyclopedic understanding of the event as of present. Also fails #8 if the premise is that it's an historic image: the event happened like two hours ago and we can't be certain what happened. Significance cannot possibly have been established. Kingsif ( talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment Vucci is a photographer at AP, so the image is not acceptable as fair use as a press agency photograph unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article, as noted at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • That actually makes it a speedy - WP:F7b. I'm not about to be the admin to push the button, though. — Cryptic 01:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete. Copyrighted image —  48 JCL 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

...that might have merits for use? Not seeing any complex argument from 48JCL here. BarntToust ( talk) 02:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. President Trump lives! KEMBMB61 ( talk) 02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

KEMBMB61 and BarntToust. It's almost like this is unacceptable fair use! —  48 JCL 12:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per arguments above - it's too soon to be sure that free media will not be available, and I don't think the photo is strictly necessary to significantly increase understanding about the topic. As such, fair use shouldn't be claimed. Gazamp ( talk) 00:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - copyrighted image, political propaganda. LucasR muteacc ( talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Propaganda implies bias. There is no inherent bias in a picture caught in the moment. 68.201.235.85 ( talk) 08:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. This seems to me like a unique photo of a historic event, which happened over the course of a couple minutes, and of which it is now permanently possible to find a replacement photo. Like, how are we supposed to go take a freely licensed replacement photo of an assassination attempt, send a second assassin? I have looked over WP:NFCC and I don't really see anything to indicate this is an unacceptable piccy. If there really is something in there specifically proscribing this, let me know and I will change to delete, but for now I am in favor of keeping it. jp× g 🗯️ 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Noting that the article now says: An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards. Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history". Another image, as reported by Axios, taken by Anna Moneymaker, was spread by his prominent political allies as a rallying symbol."

This seems pretty straightforwardly within the remit of WP:NFCC. jp× g 🗯️ 02:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

For which image? The Gucci one or the Moneymaker one? The Daily Beast has a different angle captured by Brendan McDermid. I think it's far too early to tell which, if any, of these are historic enough to meet WP:NFC#CS. Adabow ( talk) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Perhaps if we were using it by that commentary. That does not, however, justify its current use as an infobox image. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 07:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete There were tens of thousands of people at the rally, so it is possible, even likely, that a free equivalent exists or could be created (fails NFCC 1). A very recent event and us hosting this doesn't respect the commercial value of the image (fails NFCC 2). I also don't think it meets NFCC 8 (contextual significance) in the way that it's currently being used (infobox, describing Secret Service escorting Trump away). Adabow ( talk) 00:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete copyrighted image at event with many attendees, likely another acceptable photo of the event will be uploaded to commons in the near future. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 01:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep This is a unique photo of a historical event, as recognized by Politico and the The Daily Beast [9], and the fist in air was highlighted by virtually every media organization, though they didn't specifically mention the photo. Personisinsterest ( talk) 01:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

CNN used the image as the main one in a gallery article [10]. New York Post included the image in a series of them taken by AP, highlighted in the article [11].

Now recognized by Axios. [12] Personisinsterest ( talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep this is a historic image. Please, quit with the "what ifs", we're not just trying to illustrate the article with random photos that happen to maybe be taken, maybe be uploaded feely, maybe exist, probably not be as good as this. This has merit in the sense of being a sort of iconic photo. see Personisinsterest and their argument for it. it's unique. BarntToust ( talk) 01:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Uniqueness doesn’t establish fair use. If anything, it argues against it, as a unique photo has a larger market value, will will be more impacted by it being illegally hosted on Wikipedia Timtjtim ( talk) 16:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Picture posted by Don Jr [13], noted by many orgs. [14] [15] [16] and more. Personisinsterest ( talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Your citations to various news sources reporting on the photo's significance would only justify its use on an article about the photo itself. Under Wikipedia's non-free use policy, this copyrighted image cannot be used simply to illustrate the broader event. BluePenguin18 🐧 (  💬 ) 01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep while only hours after the incident, RS have already described the photo as -at least- very important. Hard to imagine the photo not making headlines globally tomorrow, too. Juxlos ( talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Hard to imagine the photo not making headlines globally tomorrow, too - that's more of a reason to delete. Commercial value of a current image. Can't claim fair use. Kingsif ( talk) 01:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  That's why we can't host it here without licensing it from the photographer. Nosferattus ( talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep it explains an aftermath of the shots fired. Cwater1 ( talk) 01:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is not a valid argument to keep. We are discussing the fair use of the image. Natg 19 ( talk) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per others. Historic is quite a stretch, as this event happened only a few hours ago. Natg 19 ( talk) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I am going to go out on a limb here and say that, contrariwise, some guy shooting the President of the United States is an exceptionally notable phenomenon that does not in fact happen very often. I mean, I don't know, maybe in 2027 they will start doing it every ten days, and that'll be the new political tradition, but for the last few hundred years this has not been the general practice. jp× g 🗯️ 01:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The claim is not that the event is not historic (obviously it is, we have an entire article about it). To meet the criteria for non-free content, the image must not be possible to be replaced by free content - i.e. if the image itself was the topic of an article. Adabow ( talk) 01:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Noting that the article now says: An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards. Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history". Another image, as reported by Axios, taken by Anna Moneymaker, was spread by his prominent political allies as a rallying symbol." jp× g 🗯️ 02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  This actually proves others' points relating to fair use, that there are other photos out there, and thus this individual photo cannot meet NFCC as a unique photo that we must use. Natg 19 ( talk) 07:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete A lot of the comments here point out that this is a historically important image. While I don't disagree that it's important, that doesn't mean it satisfies NFCC. However, I don't agree that it's historically significant in such a way that this specific non-free photo must be the true one and only photo we use. As other editors have noted, there are many different photos of the incident (taken at different angles, photographers, etc). The incident is extremely recent, and considering how many attendees there were, it's not implausible to think that a free equivalent may exist. Just because it hasn't turned up ~4 hours(!) after it could have been taken does not mean it doesn't exist outright (NFCC 1). WhoAteMyButter ( 🌷_talk│ 🌻^contribs) 01:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: the image is iconic for sure, but it is not compliant with the fair use. Read the banner: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts" -- RicoRico ( talk) 01:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This image has significant commercial value and is not strictly necessary to understand anything discussed in the article, thus it fails to meet fair use rationale. Whether or not it is "historic" is irrelevant. Nosferattus ( talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Just added some text about it. Personisinsterest ( talk) 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Where? I'm not seeing it. (If it's the one-liner in Evan Vucci's article, that wouldn't be sufficient, even if we were talking about putting the image there instead.) — Cryptic 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Responses: other. Personisinsterest ( talk) 01:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  It is actually very relevant.

  See

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_historic_image 2A01:4B00:BB07:B300:9E1:8685:3BEA:B71E ( talk) 16:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per others. – The Sharpest Lives ( 💬• ✏️• ℹ️) ( ping me!) 01:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment It is worth noting that no free images have at this point been released. Personisinsterest ( talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment I only support temporary use of the photo until a copyright-free version of it are released or uploaded, then change the image. Mhatopzz ( talk) 01:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep at least until some other photo emerges that is (1) closer in time to the moment of shooting, (2) generally representative of the situation, and (3) high enough resolution to be of value to the viewer. Please let me know if someone knows of a better photo based on these criteria.

If it's not covered under fair use, can't the photographer give permission? 204.237.0.170 ( talk) 02:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete, copyright image that is infringing on photographer's possible opportunities and simple illustrating the article, not being used in an acceptable context. 🌸wasianpower🌸 ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Strongly keep This is the photo of the event. It's already spread like wildfire and describes a lot of what happened. Pickle Mon ( talk) 02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete It's unclear on the source of the image and it's currentely being used for political uses on twitter, i feel it should be an image right before shots were fired to keep it consistent with other presidential assasination articles and it provides a clearer view NoKNoC ( talk) 02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

To not use this image does not make sense as it has high relevance to the actual shooting. It should be kept as is. 2603:3020:1D28:0:A102:898D:4162:35B0 ( talk) 03:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Strongest keep possible. This is objectively the most notable picture of this event. When people see this, this is the image people think of. If this image gets deleted, it would be a horrible disservice to Wikipedia. Skirjamak ( talk) 03:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as per wasianpower and especially NATG 19 , doesn't add to the article and not historic at all. Maybe a reeval soon?

Sharrdx ( talk) 03:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - per reasons listed above. Just because a photo is notable does not mean we can undermine Wikipedia's adherence to copyright law. It also does nothing to help the reader understand the article better.

The diagram in this article showing where the shooter was located is a perfect example of a useful image, albeit not copyrighted. Ayyydoc ( talk) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep, per above arguments

Madeinlondon2023 ( talk) 03:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep — This image is likely to become one of cultural and/or historical significance. 2603:6081:893A:610B:D4CE:7D69:3DEE:CDAD ( talk) 03:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. This image is clearly of great historical significance. It should not be removed or replaced. 2601:602:8C81:C690:D091:DD6D:9C3F:4D8F ( talk) 04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - Image will be generation defining 2600:1700:8528:F60:367D:E8A6:D501:A28F ( talk) 04:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Strong keep. This is the photo that summarizes the event. If you were to choose a photo to summarize the event, it would be this one. Photos are meant to aid the reader in understanding the article further, and this image very well does this. Coulomb1 ( talk) 04:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - This image has been spread everywhere among news articles and social media, and already is and will be to a further extent one of great cultural and historical significance and recognizability. The image itself is subject to commentary as it singlehandedly improved Trump's image and perceived character. KyleSirTalksAlot ( talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, its a cool image but its not fair use MildLoser ( talk) 05:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per others

LittleMAHER1 ( talk) 05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Copyrighted image, the image is not the subject matter itself, enough said. If we can find a non-copyrighted image, then use that, if not, no image is necessary. Real tlhingan ( talk) 05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep 2600:1700:103C:3410:C815:6813:7DA:9704 ( talk) 06:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep Iconic and remarkable image of defiance in the face of lethal political violence. Userino ( talk) 06:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Tentative keep. Supposing that some visual becomes emblematic of this event in the public consciousness, there should absolutely be a corresponding photo present in the article. Of that much I am certain.

It seems that the moment this photo captured has become emblematic of the event itself, being featured in numerous articles and publications. Only time can give us absolute certainty, but this is a fair bet to make. As such, if this moment becomes ingrained in our collective psyches as representative of the event, then a free, equivalent photo should absolutely be included in the article if one exists.

Should this copyrighted photo itself become the defining photo, then that absolutely justifies its usage. However, only after some time passes will we know with certainty. I withold final judgement until then, and I believe that that should hold true for the rest of us.

Until and unless some amount of time has passed and we can clearly see that no, this moment did not in fact come to be emblematic of the event, I think we must absolutely keep either it, or an equivalent, in the article. I think that this is a fair and balanced take on the matter. Hanoi89computerlover ( talk) 07:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Bold DecafPotato ( talk) 07:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep This is a historical photo that features Trump's iconic fist symbol after the attack. Similar to the photo of Reagan right before his assassination attempt GodzillamanRor ( talk) 07:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete, at least as currently used. In the infobox, it is not being used to explain discussion of the photo; it is being used for its content rather than for its historicity. There is at least an arguable case of having a small version of it near the discussion of the photo itself, but the infobox is totally outside the flow of the article. All the argument that it illustrates the event well is but-I-like-it argumentation, which does not address the copyright concern. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This photo is going down in American history, it'll be talked about forever in political science classes and the photographer will probably receive a pulitzer for it..keep! 68.10.108.140 ( talk) 08:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep Photo looks hard af 49.188.176.117 ( talk) 08:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep and wait until a satisfactory substitute is found. Doubtful we'd be able to find one though. Ronan.Iroha ( talk) 09:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I simply have to disagree. The photo shows a scene of the incident, which makes it absolutely justified in my point of view. 2A02:FF0:331C:C3DD:440:A65D:8F78:4267 ( talk) 09:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep

This is an image that, according to the "public image of trump" section, does indeed affect the "public image of trump". TheYeetedMeme ( talk) 14:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep The image is so iconic, its explanatory power is equal to 10 paragraphs. It is very important for the article. Mstf221 ( talk) 09:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep as the image itself is extensively discussed on the article. This is more subjective, but the article feels incomplete without the picture. Collorizador ( talk) 10:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep for now per others JSwift49 10:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment I believe there could be an ulterior motive behind this proposal, concealed beneath a veil of copyright concern. 178.222.30.152 ( talk) 10:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - the iconic image adds depth to the article. Very purposeful. TheMovieGuy ( talk) 03:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

"Delete, WP:F7. (CC)  Tbhotch ^™ 01:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- this image is clearly justified under fair use rationale; there is no similar free image. -- Rockstone ^{Send me a message!} 01:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Incorrect, they exist. (CC)  Tbhotch ^™ 01:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Where? - Sebbog13 ( talk) 02:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  "there is no similar free image"—It's too early to say that. There were reported to be 50,000 people attending. WP:NFCC#1 states "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." It's highly likely that there is another photo of the event which is free or could be made free by the owner. Adabow ( talk) 01:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Users claiming this is an historic image: the only way this is going to get kept is if somebody adds sourced commentary about the image itself to the article; it wouldn't matter if there were a thousand bolded keeps in a row here. Policy's as unambiguous as it gets on this point. — Cryptic 01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Not a valid reason to keep. (CC)  Tbhotch ^™ 01:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Nevermind, I re-read it. (CC)  Tbhotch ^™ 01:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  It has to be noted, this doesn't just mean commentary about "Trump was photo'd with his fist raised", it would have to be about this exact photo at this point in time, need RS's talking about Evan Vucci's Trump photo. Because it's still eminently possible there's a photographer out there who took one of the many similar images and could release it as Creative Commons. Kingsif ( talk) 01:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete this is not covered under fair use Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete, reluctantly. While it's probably the best image for this article, it has pretty clear commercial value. Also relevant is that the article isn't about the image itself. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment I don't think WP:F7b applies here; [17] is sourced commentary on the photo itself in the article ("An image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air taken by Evan Gucci of the Associated Press was spread on social media shortly afterwards"). It's not being used to say much, but that seems to keep it out of speedy territory. Dylnuge ^{( Talk • Edits)} 01:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yo, got some new commentary in the article on it. Check it out in aftermath, it'll develop BarntToust ( talk) 01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • It has to have sourced commentary in our article. Personisinsterest did add a statement to that effect, but it was removed within three minutes. In any case, it was awfully skimpy, and would at most support putting the image in that section, not in the infobox. — Cryptic 01:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    Hey, look, Politico and The Daily Beast, they reported on that. Axios showed a similar image too! BarntToust ( talk) 02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    The quote in my comment is from our article (or at least what was in it when I made the comment). The article is changing quickly, but it seems relatively stable that the photo is commented on in the article itself and said commentary has been sourced. That strikes me as being ineligible for deletion under F7b, unless I'm missing something. Dylnuge ^{( Talk • Edits)} 02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  It's worth noting that the very first example they give (Rich McCormick tweet) is not this image but a similar one. That illustrates that it's the event that's significant, not this photo. Adabow ( talk) 02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This clearly falls under fair use as a historical image. Rreagan007 ( talk) 01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless there is an article on this particular photograph, somehow. Bedivere ( talk) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Not only is it a historical image, the article now includes commentary about the photo itself. Skyshifter talk 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  This is also good commentary. Personisinsterest ( talk) 02:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yeah, the is there COMENTARY? argument is being satisfied, so that can no longer be realistically used as a definitive reason against, also, do wait for more commentary, surely more will come. BarntToust ( talk) 02:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes. This meets multiple requirements now: Historic image, no free equivalent, commentary on it Personisinsterest ( talk) 02:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The cle notes that a different photo is being used by his allies. Thus, it may be the one that becomes iconic instead. It's simply too early to tell. -- i Zanimum ( talk) 02:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  No, it shows a different photo but this is the one that is being spread Personisinsterest ( talk) 02:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  How is leaving out this image detrimental to the understanding of the article, @ Skyshifter. Answering that question is critical to this picture being used. Nfitz ( talk) 02:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Question: Are there any freely licensed photographs of this shooting? The photo of Trump with his fist up is somewhat iconic at the moment, and we could use non-free images if no free ones exist (we can't exactly make free ones exist if they don't, since this event already occurred). But I do wonder: is it truly necessary to use a photo like that here? Is it irreplaceable? — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  No. Trump's supporters may not even know what a Creative Commons license is. It takes a special kind of not-normal, "nerd" (not used derogatorily, only factually) type of person to understand those things, and the general populous, like most of the attendees, probably doesn't understand those concepts. And only the few in the front rows could be able to take good pics. Don't count on it. BarntToust ( talk) 02:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Saying "Trump Supporters" instead of "the general public" can be construed as an attack on that group, especially when referring to things they allegedly do not know. Reads like "Those stupid DRUMPFKINS don't know bout the Creative Commons, those rural morons!". Perhaps you could consider better phrasing for your comment, such as "general public", "non-registered users", "non-Wikipedians" etc. WP:Etiquette point 4. 86.180.196.148 ( talk) 03:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The user goes on to say "the general populous, like most of the attendees, probably doesn't understand those concepts", and the phrasing used was "Trump's supporters", which is a subtle difference but is a factual descriptor of who was at the event. RadioAlloy ( talk) 04:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Very specious reasoning to declare that "Trump supporter" is a factual descriptor of all attendees. Can you provide a source that everyone in attendance was a Trump supporter, including all members of the media? Seems a big stretch to suggest that no Independents, Democrats or Undecideds were there. (EDIT: missing word) 86.180.196.148 ( talk) 04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • @ BarntToust: I don't believe the argument of 'no free image could exist because all the photographers probably don't know about Commons' would satisfy NFCC. WhoAteMyButter ( 🌷_talk│ 🌻^contribs) 03:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    in fact it's just a bad fallacy. Bedivere ( talk) 03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    I do wonder if the Secret Service has some footage of the event. That would be in the public domain. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 03:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    I'm referring to people, not the photographers there in this case.. We needn't rely on potential for someone to decide, "well, I somehow managed to snap a pic in juuuuust the right moment here, let me release it from my ownership forever". It's a big thing, letting people at unrestricted use of a photo.

    Yeah, I should've referred to the minority of people who are there not for the obvious reason to rally at a rally along with everyone for a catch-all term. It does sound bad when taken out of context. I do have to admit, I really don't trust that most people in a given situation, regardless of political affiliation or any other unrelated aspect of their persons, would be familiar with the process, or even understand commons as a system. It's not an insult to them, it's just not expecting them to be familiar with things that most are not. Or simply be aware of such a system. If that were so and everyone was familiar with Commons, we'd have a new infobox picture of Ryan Reynolds every time he and Blake Lively go out to eat. That is, if someone could get a good pic of him. It's an extended metaphor. It does seem bad when taken the wrong way, but I'd like to assure you that it's really not what I intend. I don't want to expect anything that has many possible roadblocks. BarntToust ( talk) 04:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Fails WP:NFCCP#1. It is impossible to know if there is a non-free equivalent right now. Somebody else could have been close enough to take a picture of Trump, and it is possible that a person may release one under a compatible license in the near future. Also fails #2 because the photographer is certainly seeking to sell this picture. If reliable sources begin to write about this particular image, then it might be appropriate to use the image in the context of that description; per #8 it certainly shouldn't be in the infobox, divorced from that discussion. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I see the image has been moved below, obviating the concerns about commentary on the image. Howeer, this still fails NFCCP 2, so I am still in favor of deleting. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep per above. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 02:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete - clearly violates image policy. Its way too soon to conclude that there isn't a free alternative. Surely, given this hasn't even been published in newspapers yet, it may be impacting the market value of the image. If used, surely it should be much lower resolution. I don't see how it helps the understanding of the event; there's no context to the blood. How is leaving out this image detrimental to the understanding of the article? Nfitz ( talk) 02:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Please look at commentary of the image. More surely to come. BarntToust ( talk) 02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  None of that is in the infobox so not really rellivant. ©Geni ( talk) 02:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Put the commentary in the infobox. WP:BEBOLD BarntToust ( talk) 02:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  In that case the image needs to be moved out of the infobox and to the relevant section of the article. There's no rationale for it being in the infobox. 🌸wasianpower🌸 ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The New Yorker, Politico, The Daily Beast have specifically reported thoroughly on the photo now. Dare I say a criteria for keeping has been fulfilled, and a reason for deletion is gone? BarntToust ( talk) 02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Nope. Still an AP image primarily being used to illustrate the event rather than being used for commentary on the image. ©Geni ( talk) 02:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Read the commentary, please. It's there, making the image relevant. Maybe put photo down there? Put commentary summary of it up there? BarntToust ( talk) 02:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete, this is some photographer's greatest work of their life, and not to be used without compensation. This is not a blurry album cover type of fair use. Abductive ( reasoning) 02:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  What? Okay, that is your opinion and not very relevant to its purpose, which has been defined above. Please keep such out of rationale for deletion. BarntToust ( talk) 02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The 4th pillar of fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." so very relevant. ©Geni ( talk) 02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The non-free use rationale relies on the image being cropped and low-resolution, but Abductive is emphasizing that this image has a high commercial value that is infringed by Wikipedia's unlicensed usage. The "purpose" of using this image to illustrate the event is insufficient because the article successfully explains the event without relying on the photo. Even the newly added commentary on politicians posting raised fist images is an insufficient justification because some are posting photos other than Vucci's, so we do not need to infringe on this specific image to illustrate that commentary either. BluePenguin18 🐧 (  💬 ) 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  This logic could be used to delete the Tank Man photo or the painting Guernica. Not saying that you do support that position, but following that chain of logic would lead to that sort of thing. Bremps ... 03:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The difference is that those images are used on pages about the images themselves, so they are necessary for understanding the subject. This is not the case with the shooting. Di (they-them) ( talk) 03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Tank Man is about the man, not the photo. Shankar Sivarajan ( talk) 04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  …who became known because of the photo, but the relationship to #2 is different anyway, point is moot. Kingsif ( talk) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  It's literally criteria #2: respect for commercial opportunities. It's a current photo, so a very relevant concern. Kingsif ( talk) 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  And so we should have deleted them, before they'd even been printed in the newspapers (for tank man at least). Nfitz ( talk) 03:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete This image is absolutely not necessary for a full comprehension of the text, and as such should be deleted. Des Vallee ( talk) 02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep historical photo [18] Bedrockbob ( talk) 02:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The New Yorker says it's historic, so that buttresses the case for its existence. BarntToust ( talk) 03:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  An OpEd in an unreliable source. So, wrong and wrong. Zaathras ( talk) 03:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The New Yorker? It is a legitimate website. and, Really? Op-ed is not the word for writers' opinions. That's what commentary IS, Zaathras. Please understand this. BarntToust ( talk) 03:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I mean, commentary on stuff like that IS NOT what you are making it out to be, @ Zaathras. It's valued input on the significance of an image. I think you've got the New York Post and The New Yorker confused. BarntToust ( talk) 03:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The New Yorker: per the page, "Although its reviews and events listings often focused on the cultural life of New York City, The New Yorker gained a reputation for publishing serious fiction, essays, and journalism for a national and international audience, featuring works by notable authors such as Truman Capote, Vladimir Nabokov, and Alice Munro." also, "It is well known for its illustrated and often topical covers, such as View of the World from 9th Avenue, ^[1] its commentaries on popular culture and eccentric American culture, its attention to modern fiction by the inclusion of short stories and literary reviews, its rigorous fact checking and copy editing, ^{[2] [3]} " et. al.

• You are confused. BarntToust ( talk) 03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  This appears to be a reliable website. You are wrong on saying it's unreliable. BarntToust ( talk) 03:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  User:BarntToust, I'm pretty sure Zaathras is replying to a user sharing an op-ed from NewsBreak, which is listed as an unreliable source at WP:RS/P. They weren't replying to you about the New Yorker. Also, just a friendly suggestion, be mindful of when you may be leaving an excessive number of messages like this, as this could be perceived as WP:BLUDGEONING.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Oh okay, I didn't realize. Apologies for any ill feelings, @ Zaathras, but I simply wished to be proactive in this, and my points do stand. Also, I take the linked essay from @ Vanilla Wizard as an essay, not my binding duty, and I plan on (albeit respectfully) continuing my dialogue for however long this continues. I saw that Zaathra posted their words directly under my New Yorker source, and I apologize for going at it under a perhaps unfortunate and misunderstood context. I'll be more pragmatic in my edits from here on out. Thanks, Vanilla, for speaking with me. Have a good one all! BarntToust ( talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  It's not even the same image - most obviously, in the image in the The New Yorker piece, Trump's mouth is closed and the female agent's head is higher. (It's not even quite the same image as in the Politico article - we should be using an uncropped, though still reduced, version, if at all.) — Cryptic 03:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yeah, Vucci's work is the best here, and the subject of legitimate critical commentary. So, a Vucci image could probably illustrate it best, in the illustration of such commentary and notability. BarntToust ( talk) 03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - this is most certainly going to be the image that defines this particular event, for sure 03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire 26 ( talk • contribs)
• Delete - there would only be a valid fair use rationale if there were an article on the image itself. But using a copyrighted image in the manner it was originally intended, that is to illustrate material about what the image is of and not to discuss the image itseld, when that copyrighted image is at the height of its commercial utility is a violation of our fair use criteria and the photographer's and/or agencies right to market and profit from that image. This is a blatant fail of NFCC #2. It may well be valid under US law for fair use, but our NFCC is considerably more strict than that. nableezy - 03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep and close — Commentary has been provided about this image. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Commentary was necessary to keep the image from being deleted immediately, but it's not by itself sufficient. Every non-free image has to meet every one of the WP:non-free content criteria, and I've still got grave concerns about #2 and #8, and lesser ones about #1 and #10 (it's not at all clear, for example, that it was first published by Business Insider). — Cryptic 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - this is an historic image that cannot be recreated since the event has passed. It provides significant aid to the reader by illustrating the nature of Trump's injuries and his reaction to them. R. G. Checkers ^talk 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yeah! most efficient image to use to cover many aspects of the situation. BarntToust ( talk) 03:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: from the template itself ({{ Non-free historic image}}): Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). The actual use of this non-free image is in the article about the event itself, not in an article about the image itself. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Have you seen the commentary? It's in the article. BarntToust ( talk) 03:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ BarntToust read the template content. The use should be on an article or a section about the image itself, not the event. It is what is written in the template. Again: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 04:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Okay, so the usage of non-free rationale should apply for this one, if the template is not valid in the context of an image in an article. BarntToust ( talk) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

From the boilerplate notice on the template: Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). As used in the article about the event itself, this is certainly a breach of this restricted use condition. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The market role can be mitigated by reduction of its size to the point in the uncanny valley where it's illustrative but not usable outside of the context. BarntToust ( talk) 04:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ BarntToust the image is right again in the infobox, which clearly shows the purpose of illustrating the event: a breach of the conditions imposed by the template stating that it should only be used when it is the subject of a commentary, not a subject of the event. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 07:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I'd argue it counts as a historic image, considering how widespread it currently is and how many people associate this event with this image and Trump's reaction. Justrz ( talk) 03:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This is one of the most iconic pictures of the incident. Nuke ( talk) 04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete' WP:COPYVIO. It's a recent image and the keep !votes calling it "historic" seem odd. There are fair use alternatives that are already emerging. Jontesta ( talk) 04:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  What's odd about calling it historic? — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} ( talk) ( contribs) 04:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Perhaps the answer will be revealed if you re-read my historic comment from 20 minutes ago. Jontesta ( talk) 04:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Jontesta Your comment didn't involve a US President being shot or two people getting killed. Please keep the sass down to acceptable levels. (I think you're a masterclass at it though, notwithstanding this discussion.) BarntToust ( talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  My tone is one of confusion. There are multiple photos of this incident and we should prefer one that is fair use. Jontesta ( talk) 05:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  This literally is fair use, though -- see WP:NFCC. jp× g 🗯️ 06:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  What alternatives? Where? Whose? We need a link to commons or Flickr or something. BarntToust ( talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Question Are we able to contact the Copyright-holder for permission to use this image? Lord serious pig 04:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The Associated Press owns the copyright. Hell would freeze over before they give the image to us for free. Luckily for us, that's why fair-use is enshrined in U.S. law. Bremps ... 08:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  In order for fair use to apply for our purposes and according to Wikipedia guidelines there cannot exist any other photo that would depict the event that is available via the commons. Thousands of people were at this event, it is probably best to wait for someone to upload their personal photo to commons. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 13:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:COPYVIO. Historic or not (of course, it certainly is), we have guidelines to adhere to right now as a community, and I think this fact should take precedence - there are fair use images already out that depict the situation just as completely and wholly as this. DualDoppler ( talk) 04:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  How would another image of the same event be fair use but this one not? Huh? Endwise ( talk) 06:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I think Dual Doppler meant creative commons images. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 13:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete, on copyright grounds, per arguments by DualDoppler. If the photographer releases the image under a Creative Commons license, then it can be kept and moved to Commons. - Mardus / talk 05:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Copyright is copyright and Wikipedia legally needs to comply with it. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 05:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Man, let me tell you about this cool thing called fair use. Bremps ... 08:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep Like him or not, this image is going to be iconic - numerous sources are already calling this a historic image and that is not going to change. It should be removed from the infobox, and then replaced with a free image when one becomes available, but § Effects on Trump's public image describes the image and its impact and can justifiably be used there. -- Lewis Hulbert ( talk) 05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep I see no logical or encyclopedic reason to remove the image. This image is the one most commonly used by the media and by those in social media as the means by which the event is most recognizable and understood. It is not that much different from the one most commonly associated with the attempt on Ronald Reagan's life, and is currently used on Wikipedia for the article covering said attempt. Given its wide circulation throughout the media, there is little basis to state that this image shouldn't be used because of copyright. As has been said before, this is a historic image and that alone should merit its keeping on the article. Vivaporius ( talk) 05:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Strong keep - as we have other copyrighted historic images that aren’t in articles discussing the image. This will very likely become an iconic image. So I think it’ll qualify as fair use. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  It's already been circulating in some of the largest media outlets out there like CNN who say as much too. From CNN: 'The images will stand in history and enrich Trump’s mythology just as surely as the picture of his mug shot in at Atlanta jail and the footage of his return to the White House in 2020 after beating a serious Covid-19 infection.' —" Attack on Trump reopens a chilling chapter in American politics"

Strong keep per LuxembourgLover, Coulomb1, Personisinsterest, and others. - AndreyKva ( talk) 05:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep I don't think any organization really owns the copyright of the image, its historic, and is commonly used on the internet. Dose any organization own the copyright to the image? if so which one. Zyxrq ( talk) 05:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Zyxrq: Evan Vucci owns the copyright of the image. Common use alone does not satisfy NFCC. WhoAteMyButter ( 🌷_talk│ 🌻^contribs)

• Keep This is of vast historical and encyclopedic value, and the arguments against it are remarkably disingenuous. — THORNFIELD HALL ^{( Talk)} 05:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not satisfy fair use requirements.

• Keep The image is of historical importance compared to the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue, a major key event of the 2003 invasion of Iraq symbolizing the fall of Saddam's regime. Likewise the image portrays a key event of the 2024 United States presidential election. -- CaeserKaiser ( talk) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep, since this is already being shown on multiple news websites including CNN, and is being posted everywhere online. It's the most recognizable image there can be of this event. LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the  East  ( talk | worse talk) 05:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep it. It is historical and iconic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.136.24 ( talk) 06:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• DELETE - This image does not satisfy NFCC and the substance of the article can be conveyed just fine without it. RahelTensions ( talk) 06:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. with respect and kudos to the photographer, the photo appears to show Trump in what could easily be seen as an ostentatiously strong light, and used alone, it encompasses the events of the day very narrowly. Additionally, whether or not we have license under Wikipedia rules to use the photo in the way we are currently displaying it on the page doesn't quite seem concrete.

-- User: MattiasLikesOxygen-- — Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The media is calling this specific image "one of the most iconic photos in U.S. history". It therefore cannot be replaced (NFCC#1) and is a significant aspect of this event which we would miss if we didn't include (NFCC#8). I note also that the article already contains discussion of the image, which would be significantly diminished without the image's presence. Endwise ( talk) 06:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete I'm a pretty strong supporter of property rights and I am not persuaded by those on the other side of this discussion that this image meets the legal criteria for an exception to copyright protection. There are quite a few very dramatic images of yesterday's events. I am fairly sure we can find one or two that will pass legal muster and do justice to the article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 06:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC. — Locke Cole • t • c 06:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Very obviously a history-defining photo that falls under WP:FAIRUSE, per above; case closed (Comment/Abstain proviso: I support an explicitly free-use alternative if available, but I doubt we'll see one for some time ipso facto).-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 07:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Endwise: recognizable photo that illustrates the event. Cremastra ( talk) 07:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Image improves the article and is of obvious historic importance. Glass Snow ( talk) 07:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Image is of particular note. Besides that, we don't really have a free use image to replace it, other than those of poor quality. Keep this for now and see what happens with the licensing of the image, we have a commentary on the image located within the article anyway. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep, at least until another good image can be found. I've participated in a decent number of FFDs and here's my opinion. This image is definitely historic given its importance and the degree of coverage it's getting. (It wouldn't surprise me if it gets its own article after the dust settles.) I'm quite sure it's an acceptable historic image, because it's the subject of significant commentary. The only thing I'm worried about is whether this meets NFCC 2, respect for commercial usage. After all, we're using it to report the news--it's mostly not the subject of commentary. The Quirky Kitty ( talk) 07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  NFCC#2 is I think the most reasonable concern, but our version is low-res and the photo has already been licensed to hundreds of news outlets, so we probably aren't really hurting its commercial success? Endwise ( talk) 11:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete on copyright grounds as articulated by many others. If the photographer releases the image under a Creative Commons license, then it can be kept and moved to Commons. Craig Andrew1 ( talk) 07:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  This line of inquiry is a dead-end, AP will never freely license this. However, the image is historic enough that it's fair-use, to the point that there is significant discussion about this particular image. There is a significant loss if this image is deleted. I'm voting Keep. Bremps ... 08:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep Anyone trying to delete this is purely doing so for political reasons. 90.244.131.5 ( talk) 08:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  As the original uploader, let's assume the best of each other here. Bremps ... 08:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete All the keep !votes that don't say how it meets NFCC are not worth much. It is too early to say whether it meets NFCCP 1, while 5 and 8 are borderline at best and it definately fails 2. Aircorn  (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per u:HandIsNotNookls and u:JPxG (Nico Hines of The Daily Beast called it "one of the most iconic photos in American history"). No chance of finding a free equivalent (NFCC #1). Low-res version would not harm the author's commercial opportunities (NFCC #2). The current use is minimal (NFCC #3). Alaexis _¿question? 08:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I think what other people advocating for deletion was concerned about was NFCC #8, about which at the time, the article lacked a major discussion on the photo(now it does imo). Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There is one problem I notice within the opposition here. Some falsely assume that this image is propaganda and hence violates NPOV. This is easily debunked that Associated Press, the last news website to ever upload Trump 'propaganda', was the uploader of the image. Hence it is not propaganda, which as a pejorative can't be used in encyclopedic discussions, but a remarkable image overused amid a fierce political season. I would argue that 'propaganda' isn't per se unencyclopedic— if we have a stunning portrait of Adolf Hitler, that's not propaganda, that's just a perfect photo to depict him. I notice that the image has an entire critical analysis section at the bottom of Aftermath, which seems to legitimize the presence of this picture. I would suggest moving the image to that part of the art. instead, so that its significance is more obvious. Gerald WL 08:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  That's not the concern with the opposition, the concern is it violates copyright. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 13:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  A thorough look at the opposition (at least, some) indicates such. With the presence of extensive commentary, I do not consider copyright to be a hindrance to the image being present in the art., as it is in low res, and is cropped. Fair use is applicable in this case. Gerald WL 14:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Immediate Delete The image is a blatant violation of copyright, and its continues use opens up the Wikimedia Foundation to legal liabilities. It does not meet the criteria for fair use. Anyone arguing that it is an iconic image should create a new article specifically about this image. Hallucegenia ( talk) 08:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Specifically the claim for fair use fails condition WP:F7 "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and may be deleted immediately. Hallucegenia ( talk) 09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

the subject of sourced commentary - ? jp× g 🗯️ 10:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

For information, I have created a new article about this photograph, which I think qualifies for use under the fair use criteria. Photograph of Donald Trump after shooting Hallucegenia ( talk) 12:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep I don't see the copyright problem here, fair use is dominant in this case. Matthieu Houriet ( talk) 08:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep, given the significant coverage of the photograph, it's entirely possible that this image should get its own page, and certainly a mention on the photographer's page. Some users seem to be confusing the question of whether we should keep this image on the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump page, and whether we should delete the image altogether. Just like many copyrighted images, there's a clear fair use case for this. Whether or not we should use the image on the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump page is a different question entirely (I would personally still lean towards, 'yes, it should be used on that page') but that's its own discussion. Joe ( talk) 08:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep – until we can find a better-quality free replacement, this will do for now. It seems like a valid case of fair use to me. —  AP 499D25 (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep, without future replacement by a free image. Historical photo, importance being noted by many reliable sources, applies for fair use, and is the most representative picture of the event. So what's the problem? Super Ψ Dro 09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  How is this "most representative" of the event? The event was a shooting. This is a moment in the aftermath. -- Zanimum ( talk) 09:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Significantly after the event occurred no less, after the shooter was neutralized. There are images taken place during the actual attempt, which should take priority. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 13:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Articles are trickling into the mainstream press with titles like Trump’s Raised Fist Will Make History — And Define His Candidacy (Politico) and "Amid the Mayhem, Trump Pumped His Fist and Revealed His Instincts" (The New York Times). Trump's reaction to the attack is notable in and of itself, and this image is an ideal means of illustrating that aspect of the event. Particularly if this ends up being a turning point in the campaign—which is certainly credible considering how other assassination attempts of political candidates has gone in the past—having this image will be a critical piece of Wikipedia's coverage of the event.

Now, for the policy wonks—There is clearly no way to get a free use image of this not-legally-recreatable event (NFCC #1), the photographer's commercial opportunities are clearly not being hampered by us running it since so many mainstream outlets are running the full-size image (NFCC #2), it is used once to illustrate one article (NFCC #3, #7), as stated before it has been previously published in major news sources (NFCC #4), it is encyclopedic (NFCC #5, although I contend that this site has ground the word "encyclopedic" down into such a fine paste that it has no meaning anymore, but that's what the policy asks for here), I can see no reason it would violate WP:IUP (NFCC #6), as the de facto defining image of the event it inherently increases readers' understanding of the article topic and would be detrimental to the readers' understanding (NFCC #8), NFCC #9 is not relevant to a deletion discussion, and the image description page looks up to snuff (NFCC #10). — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep the current layout with the image used in a section specifically discussing impact and coverage of the image should be fine. Whether in can be used for the article overall should be up to people better versed in copyright law. — jonas ( talk) 10:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep an image with very clear historical importance.-- Martianmister ( talk) 10:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, until a free image is available - Jonnmann ( talk) 10:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep, given the significant coverage of the photograph. But I agree that we must replace the photograph when a free image available. Mmnashrullah ( talk) 10:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Since no one on the Keep side has offered more persuasive reasons than "common use" or "historical event", I find myself, as a law student, obliged to give some, though I confess that my reasons may rather be more like "legal policy" instead of "original text". I also invite @ BluePenguin18 to join the discussion here so that we can better address this case.

BluePenguin18 has mentioned that the photo here falls undoubtedly under the protection of US copyright law, which I won't oppose. Here I'll rather refer to a German case that the Wiki community has lost in a row of appeals (BGH, 20.12.2018 - I ZR 104/17, Museumsfotos): while the artworks in the museum were all in public domain, the German court found the photos on Wiki infringing, relying on the photographer’s neighboring right (no copyright for “Lichtbilder” there), as well as the museum’s land right along with standard form contract ("Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen"). Two inspirations: first, even without copyright, monopoly on info may still occur through other means; second, throughout and even after the whole legal process Wikimedia has been a staunch endorser of free use. ^[1]. For us Wikipedians, fair use should never be a compliance requirement which hinders our free expression. Rather we have a long history of “rebel”.

You may argue that here we’re talking about a newly created picture, not something in the public domain, and the two cases must be distinguished. Fine. But from the outset of the modern interpretation of fair use doctrine (since Campbell) there has not been a consensus that it is only a defense for customers who accidentally and “harmlessly” takes a free riding. Rather, many scholars have seen fair use as per se shaping the limits of copyright and hence encouraging positive secondary uses, even if the use is at odds with the original author’s potential commercial plan. (See for example, “Fair Use: An Affirmative Defense?” by Lydia Pallas Loren, 2015.)

Among the four factors of fair use, Factor 4, i.e. market incentives, has often been seen as significantly, if not decisively, important. Yet few, if not none, has talked about it here. We need to recognize that Evan Vucci, as an employee of AP and already prize-winning photographer, enjoys much more economic benefits from elsewhere than from a petty license on Wiki. And due to the news nature of the photo he may expect more financial interests from the next Pulitzer Prize rather than from broad online licensing. More importantly, after the news he HAS POSTED THE PHOTO ON THE X PLATFORM so that anyone from Elon Musk to a nobody can freely cite it. Did he just post a low-quality copy of the photo there so that he can price discriminate on different sites? Nope. And he must be aware that the photos online does not harm his capacity to license other famous magazines and papers.

Conclusion, even if Vucci does really want more profits from Wiki, that doesn’t mean we should give in first. Just wait for him to DMCA us! -- Jason211pacem ( talk) 10:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Additional Comment I find that some among us believe that "since there are photos accurately capturing the moment of shooting, we shouldn't use Vucci's photo here" or "we may keep until we find closer moment to the shooting". That sounds quite weird to me. Then we must replace the headline photo in Assassination of John F. Kennedy (JFK's convoy minutes before the event) with one accurately capturing the bullet passing through the poor president's head? Remember that the moment seized by Vucci happened just ONE MINUTE after the shot. We need not question its news value. Jason211pacem ( talk) 14:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

We use File:JFK limousine.png because it is both the image most associated with the event's news coverage and in the public domain. Copyrighted images cannot be used on Wikipedia simply because they satisfy the first criterion. BluePenguin18 🐧 (  💬 ) 15:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

While "how does fair use align with public expression" and "how does one assert copyright ownership in the age of mass online image sharing" are great topics of debate for a law class seminar, the Wikimedia Foundation is a registered organisation that has certain legal responsibilities. You will note that Wikipedia's NFCC requirements are stricter than US fair use law, and part of that is because Wikimedia's lawyers do not want to wait for him to DMCA us. I have never seen someone with purported knowledge of copyright law to be so flippant about ignoring it on the basis of 'but it would be really hard for the copyright owner to challenge WP'. Kingsif ( talk) 15:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Building off Kingsif, Vucci's decision to post the photo on X is not proof that he is flippant with the image's copyright. The image was already being widely proliferated across social media before Vucci's post, and any photographer knows that policing social media posts for copyright infringement is too cumbersome. By making his own post on X, Vucci was simply promoting his creation to increase its commercial value among institutional customers. BluePenguin18 🐧 (  💬 ) 15:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete for the sole reason that the image is easily accessible across tabloid sources, a simple web search will find it instantly. We do not need to have non-free content here that is extremely easy to find elsewhere. Ideally, though, a photographer or agency holding the rights to an image would conduct a VRT release, but I really doubt that would ever happen. There is big money in images like this, hence why Wikipedia needs to be careful - I would not be surprised if the copyright holders look around for violations and sue the reusers as a way of getting some extra money. Redtree21 ( talk) 10:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep Now covered in detail in the section Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Effects_on_Trump's_public_image. An entire well-sourced paragraph and a half is used for this discussion of this photo. Now satisfies WP:NFCCP #5 and #9. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep as other users here have stated, multiple WP:RS have specifically identified this image as notable and of historical importance, and iconic in relation to the event. Thismess ( talk) 10:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Keep Relevant image definitely. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHaveBecauseOfLocks ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - historic image, the subject of sourced commentary, and so it complies with our non-free images policy. Levivich ( talk) 11:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete It may become iconic and/or historic. At this point, a few hours after the incident, it is neither. 2403:6200:8810:F964:B067:4711:4774:5642 ( talk) 10:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non copyrighted image should be used as I understand it this Photo belongs to Evan Vucci and he works for Associated Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataCrusade1999 ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

KEEP historic image that is sure to define this generation and become an iconic photograph. daruda ( talk) 11:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep It is low-resolution version (per Wikipedia's fair use policy) of the only photograph in the article that illustrates its subject. Ivan ( talk) 11:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Definitely a historical image.-- Aréat ( talk) 11:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep I can't think of any picture more historical and relevant to the section it is in than this. ★Trekker ( talk) 11:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete While I understand the point by some above, there is significant doubt this actually meets WP:NFCC criteria, which means this must default to delete. Copyright is a serious deal for Wikipedia, not a game of chicken ([...] that doesn’t mean we should give in first. Just wait for him to DMCA us! is quite out of the question). I think it is far too soon to tell if this is actually a historic image; just because some eager people call it as such on the day of doesn't make it so (especially with so many other images of this). This does not proscribe it in the future if circumstances change. Curbon7 ( talk) 11:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for your kind mention, Curbon7. My timetable and the lengths of my previous statement didn't allow me to elaborate, so I left a hippy-style conclusion. Yet by saying "let him DMCA us" I didn't meant to completely ignore or topple the copyright regime. About such an idea I am Half Serious. Plz let me clarify it here:

  1. While copyright is absolutely a serious deal, its legal regime should not be treated as moral burdens to the secondary users. Rather, it provides us with instructions and legal tools on negotiating a license with the right holder. DMCA, in particular, falls into such a description, as it tries to maintain a balance among right holders, platforms and net users. While "let him sue" may sound appalling, I don't find it a taboo for a copyright discussion.
  2. By saying "fair use is not a compliance requirement" I don't mean ANY compliance is unnecessary. Rather, I believe that rules like NFCC is foundational for our forum. Yet my argument is based on the following idea: copyright, like other IP rights, doesn't mean full property rule. For example: A. S. Rinehart, in her 2010 essay "Contracting Patents: A Modern Patent Exhaustion Doctrine", modelled patent exhaustion as a pliability rule which, under certain circumstances, shifts the protection level from property rule to liability rule. I believe the case in copyright fair use is similar. And I further believe that, with a liability rule and a quasi-contract-style protection, the secondary user, based on reasonable good faith, need not immediately refrain from the use and delete the copy; whether our faith is indeed no problem, is subject to the "let him sue" stage. Therefore, we need not resort to the strictest interpretation of NFCC, and an adequate level of application is enough.
  3. So let's pay attention to NFCC. While all 10 criteria should be met, in individual judgments the 10 factors must be correlated. Here I only mention the criteria 1 & 2, which I find most important. While criterion 1 may be the biggest barrier for the secondary use, I think its main focus is rather about citation of literature than about photos. There can be so many different photos serving similar encyclopedic purposes; if we too stringently follow the text, then we may find it quite troubling to search for free yet publicly unknown materials: "Is there any better option than Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima that adequately adresses the WWII History of the United States?" For criterion 2, I must say that my idea may change a little bit if the photo is from a rather humble photographer who happens to make their creation viral (I know it's hard for pixiv artists to make money through single pictures, many of them must resort to privitized customizations). But this is a typical case of famous photographer earning a living on his trademark instead of individual photo licenses. -- Jason211pacem ( talk) 13:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now with no prejudice against restoring later. There's no way to tell less than 24 hours afterward if this image has a unique significance with no free alternative. The event is significant, but there's no transitive property that conveys a unique significance to the image. There were untold numbers of cameras at the event, making untold numbers of photos. Any one of those may be released for free in the near future. The article is about the event, and not about the image. The image itself needs to be rendered irreplaceable. GMG ^talk 11:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This photo will have (if not already has) a historical value. Trang Oul ( talk) 12:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:NFCC has no exceptions for " crystal-balling the importance of something based on editor whims", and it fails the other NFCC criterion, particularly 2 and 8; there is nothing in the text that is significantly harmed by not having it (and the choice clearly seems like an intentional end-run around NPOV considerations, as well.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - if copyright can be obtained. Otherwise, Delete if we'reunable to. Has anyone attempted to try to contact the photographer for permission to use it on Wikipedia? He does have some social media sources, and I believe he should have an AP e-mail address. Maybe once the event is a month old and is no longer as profitable for the photographer that they may give limited permission to share on Wikipedia. The Legacy ( talk) 12:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

What are we supposed to do until the initial flurry of profitability that you describe has passed? Would it not be better to reupload once we have permission and a release from Associate Press (if this ever even occurred)? Redtree21 ( talk) 12:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep - Like others said, a former president getting injured in an assassination attempt is an exceptional event; and this photo has probably entered the historical pantheon. Vucci would agree - it's been shared and reproduced on an enormous scale, without any complaints from him at all. Unless we get a notice from AP, there's no need to remove it; in fact, it would be contrary to our mission of being a compendium of knowledge. HalfdanRagnarsson ( talk) 12:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The usage is minimal: the extent of use has been reduced by reducing the resolution and cropping. It is implausible that this low resolution cropped version of this photograph which exists in the original, high, resolution, alongside various other high-resolution photographs with the same subject, is commercially usable in itself. This specific file with the dimensions of 514x479px does not have desirable properties for commercial use. The author can benefit from distributing the original version, and this modified version appearing in one Wikipedia article does not substantially diminish his commercial opportunities with respect to this work. I don't think that free images exist that could be used in place of this image to adequately illustrate the section Effects on Trump's public image (permalink). The image is of high contextual significance irrespective of it being a "historical image" because what is depicted has a strong connection to what is being discussed in the section: The footage of his reassurance that he was only lightly wounded to spectators and media alike moments after the assassination attempt was broadcast internationally. The image of a bloodied Trump pumping his fist in the air, surrounded by the Secret Service, and with an American flag in the backdrop, was taken by Evan Vucci of the Associated Press and spread on social media shortly afterwards.— Alalch E. 13:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a copyrighted image where it is too early to tell whether a free equivalent was made ( WP:NFCCP#1). However, if the image is one day discussed separately in its own article, then there would obviously be no free equivalent for that article, and fair used could be claimed. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 13:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  It doesn't matter if there is an article about the image or the image is used to illustrate a portion of the content of another article. Completely the same. — Alalch E. 13:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Chaotic Enby it is too early to tell whether a free equivalent was made is a poor reason to delete the photo now. If a new, license compatible photo is found, then we can delete. But if, after deleting this photo, none crops up, we will have deprived readers of valuable information for no real reason. Mach61 13:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Except Wikipedia policy really is if there is no free image, to have no image, until it can be reasonably judged it will not be possible to ever have a free image. Then explore fair use. Kingsif ( talk) 15:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Kingsif I have never heard of the existence of such a policy, nor do I read such a requirement in WP:NFC. Strictly speaking, all copyrighted content will be in the public domain at some point, but that fact does not invalidate our fair use claims Mach61 16:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  NFCC #1, with added emphasis: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created. The point is, can we reasonably say it's not going to be possible for an image to be released freely. A year after the fact, probably, not 24 hours.
  Future PD is sometimes mentioned, but as far as copyright lifespan before becoming PD — for current works, that’s creator’s lifespan plus 75 years in the US, which Commons requires, so in the realm of indefinite — it’s, as far as I’ve seen, just treated as the same thing, i.e. having to generally agree that there won’t be a free image (until copyright expires on non-free works). Then they can be used fair use until reaching PD. Kingsif ( talk) 17:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The point being, we don’t default to using non-free while still looking for free alternatives. Copyvio errs on the side of caution, if nothing else, and defaults to no image while still looking for free ones. Kingsif ( talk) 17:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep, the photo meets criterion eight by virtue of actually depicting the aftermath of the event itself, in color, something text cannot do. It meets criterion two by cropping and lowering the resolution compared to the original. It meets criterion one because the event has passed, and no free photos of it have, to my knowledge, been released. Mach61 13:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  FWIW I have no special attachment to this photo over any other photos depicting the event or its immediate aftermath, w/r/t the Assassination attempt against Donald Trump article. Mach61 16:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep, I don't think it's hyperbolic to state that it is an historic and iconic image, with only The Situation Room popping to mind as another historic post 9/11 American image. The image is already getting widespread media attention and represents the event well. CaptainTeebs ( talk) 13:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The Situation Room photograph is in the public domain, as it was taken by a White House photographer. BluePenguin18 🐧 (  💬 ) 15:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete, fails NFCC#1 and #2 and fulfils the F7b speedy deletion criteria. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 13:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  F7b applies "where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary". See Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Effects on Trump's public image. Endwise ( talk) 13:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Historic image. 14:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Toadette ^Edit! 14:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Super turbo speedy keep This image has been used by thousands of news outlets, has been articulated clearly in the events article, and obviously meets fair use standards. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 14:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Sebastián Arena... 14:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep The photo itself is in the focus of news coverage. See for example Telegraph.co.uk: Bloodied face, fist raised in defiance: how this image may win Trump the US presidency. So the following statement will become untrue: "the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary" Slieredna ( talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

KEEP it's a historical image. All of the above keep arguments are important. The entire article is about what is shown in the image, it's relevant. 98.203.91.148 ( talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Stealth reply

Weird, I didn't notice the photo actually being a documentary of the background, shooting, aftermath and public response. It would only qualify for "automatic" fair use if the article was about the image itself, not (one part of) the article being about (as you say) what the image depicts. Wikipedia cannot accept fair use claims for photos that don't capture the events they supposedly depict, only on the basis that they are iconic of the response. Response sections never unequivocally need images, better NFCC-compliance arguments are needed. Kingsif ( talk) 15:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

KEEP. There's nothing good faith about it; the only reason people want this image gone is because they're scared of how it might improve his political standing. 2601:410:8200:3910:41D5:1020:7BA0:3E4F ( talk) 14:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — 2601:410:8200:3910:41D5:1020:7BA0:3E4F ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Weak Keep, although there are copyright concerns around this image, the photo is iconic and has been used by quite a lot of websites and new outlets already. ABG ( Talk/Report any mistakes here) 15:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

KEEP. I am from Germany so I got no horse in this race. This picture is being used on international news outlets all over the world. No one will remember who shot Trump in 2025 but this photo is going down in history. Edit: The national news used the photo in their coverage: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/amerika/trump-wahlkampfveranstaltung-evakuiert-100.html

• KEEP. Much as the Zapruder film became vital to the discussion of the Kennedy assassination, this photo is destined to become synonymous with this event. Substituting with another photo well not have the same effect.

Capnpen ( talk) 15:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. This is a historic image depicting an attempted assassination on the former President of the United States. AbdullahMzm ( talk) 14:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. This image is historic image that will be remembered. I guess is ok to leave it on the page. Santixd12 ( talk) 14:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment Just going to build off my own comment above where I say Wikipedia cannot accept fair use claims for photos that don't capture the events they supposedly depict, only on the basis that they are iconic of the response. Response sections never unequivocally need images to address NFCC #8, that is, importance within the specific article it is being used in.
  Because even if we accept that the photo itself can be fair use (which it probably will be once the immediate commercial opportunities slow down), and that there will never be a free image to depict the entire article subject of the shooting (i.e. that the only way this article can have an image is to use a fair use one; this is incredibly unlikely), we also would need to reach a consensus that the best photographic representation of the article subject is this one, that this is the right fair use image for the article.
  Personally, I think that a fair use photo depicting the moment of the shooting would probably be more pertinent, even a photo of the rally either beforehand or being evacuated might encapsulate the entire event better. Of course, this is one of the subjective criteria, but it needs to be addressed if trying to !keep. Kingsif ( talk) 15:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Note that this does not preclude an article about the photo being created, nor that the analysis in the event article could come to rely on (i.e. need) illustration. It is my understanding that neither of those are relevant at the moment, at least, not as described in the file's fair use template (#10). Kingsif ( talk) 15:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is copyrighted and hasn't been released by the author, and has significant commercial value. A free alternative will almost certainly become available. Horep ( talk) 15:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  When and if it would be available we can bring this argument. Currently this argument is improper. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  No, the opposite: to quote myself, Wikipedia policy really is if there is no free image, to have no image, until it can be reasonably judged it will not be possible to ever have a free image. Then explore fair use. Kingsif ( talk) 15:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The photo itself is the subject of news coverage that is discussed within the article.-- Tdl1060 ( talk) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - If Wikipedia is keeping the image of Will Smith sucker punching Chris Rock who is not a president or former president, then I think we should keep this one. -- LasVegasGirl93 ( talk) 15:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment as an addendum to my above call for deletion. After reading through this discussion, I am struck by the large number of Keeps that seem to either entirely ignore, or seriously downplay the legal issues here. Copyright and respect for that, is one of the more important policies we have as a community. On which note, has anyone considered contacting the AP, and asking them for permission to use their image? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep I concur with what Alalch E. wrote about its minimal usage and strong connection to what is being discussed in the section. BlueShirtz ( talk) 16:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete as it doesn't meet WP:NFCC. It's a great photo but there are plenty of free media about the assassination attempt that could also illustrate the event. I think the best comparison is 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre and Tank Man. While the Tank Man photo is iconic and historically significant, it isn't present in the article about the main event because there are sufficient free alternatives. Since the photo itself became notable, it gets used in its own article, but not in the article about the main protest/massacre. Citing ( talk) 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  It doesn't matter in which article it is used at as long as it serves a valid illustrative purpose relative to some portion of the text. — Alalch E. 16:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Sure, but what's the portion of the text? A paragraph saying a photographer took a really good photo? I think that's pretty thin justification, otherwise every news event would be littered with copyrighted material. Maybe this photo will take on historical significance and a life of its own, but we can't tell that at this point and this website isn't a crystal ball. For all we know, reliable sources will stop talking about it by the end of the news cycle. Citing ( talk) 16:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Citing I have no issue with removing this photo from the main article if a free alternative is released. None has, so far, and none could be newly created, as the event has passed. Mach61 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Mach61: There were thousands of people at the rally, many of whom were recording or taking photos, and it hasn't been 24 hours. I'd be shocked if *no* free media were uploaded. Citing ( talk) 16:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep per users above
• Delete, same photo was deleted on Commons and this file should be deleted as well. Changing my mind. Toadette ^Edit! 16:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Adding there is a larger problem reported on Meta on this image. It is a copyvio that should be deleted. Toadette ^Edit! 16:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Commons has different policy. It's routine that Commons would delete what the English Wikipedia would not. — Alalch E. 17:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep in concurance with what Alalch E. about it's minimal usage and strong connection to the subject. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk) 17:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep, this promptly iconic image meets the criteria of WP:Fair use. -- Norden1990 ( talk) 17:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep, this is a historic image. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{( talk / contribs)} 17:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: The image is not the exclusive image taken and, less than a day later, we have certainly not exhausted the search for images without copyright restrictions. Furthermore, there is the possibility that we are infringing on a compelling commercial interest by duplicating this image without permission. If an article on the image or images is written, then we could have a reason for fair use. The "historic" merit of an image is not a compelling argument in this case and should be understood as not pertinent~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

File:Deir Suryan mural.jpeg

File:VivziePop YouTube profile picture.jpg

File:VivziePop YouTube profile picture.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LunaEclipse ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free icon used to illustrate the infobox of a living person, for which freely licensed images could be created. Fails the NFCC. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 06:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment May count as a significant part of the YouTuber's branding. Bremps ... 07:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete under WP:F7. Profile picture is non-free content from a commercial source (her monetized YouTube channel) and is not the subject of sourced commentary. — Kodiak Blackjack ( talk) • ( contribs) 08:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, this is essentially using a fair use image to illustrate a living person which fails NFCC. Di (they-them) ( talk) 12:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete as the article does not concern the logo itself, but rather the individual using it. Redtree21 ( talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

File:Hcalvinasgarcia.jpg

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

Non-free screenshot being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Henry Calvin#Career; the file is also being used in Zorro (1957 TV series)#Main. This file was uploaded in 2007 and was being used as the main infobox image for the "Henry Cavin" article, but was replaced by the Commons image File:Henry Calvin (1946-1947).jpg after the non-free was removed by Explicit with this edit in January 2023. Explicit also removed the non-free use rationale for the "Calvin" article with this edit. The file was, however, re-added by ProudLondoner with this edit in January 2024, without giving a reason and without adding a non-free use rationale for the use to the file's page. The use in the "Calvin" article, therefore, fails WP:NFCC#10c, and the file could be removed for that reason alone. After consulting with Explicit about this at User talk:Explicit#File:Hcalvinasgarcia.jpg, it was recommended that the file's uses be discussed here at FFD because of concerns that the non-free use in the "Zorro" article might also not be policy compliant. I don't think there's any justification for the non-free use in the "Calvin" article, but the use in the "Zorro" article seems borderline to me given that the character "Sergeant Demetrio Lopez Garcia" is listed as a main character. Since no stand-alone article exists about the "Garcia" character, I guess it could be argued the argument for non-free use in the article about the TV show is a bit weak; perhaps a non-free full-cast photo like this, or a publicity still like the ones shown here could be found that is {{ PD-US-no notice}} or {{ PD-US-not renewed}} given that the show ran from 1957 to 1959 which would make any non-free image unnecessary. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 11:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Yeah, the full-cast photo is the far better route. Bremps ... 12:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Professional wrestlers who boxed amateurly and professionally

• Propose deleting Category:Professional wrestlers who boxed amateurly and professionally ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Why do we need people who are at the triple intersection of three sports? Mason ( talk) 17:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Professional wrestlers who use Asian mist

• Propose deleting Category:Professional wrestlers who use Asian mist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Narrow in subject and non-defining. We don't have other categories were the subject as ever used a specific move. The category description indicates a huge inclusion criteria of using a specific move. "This category is for all professional wrestlers who, at some point, used Asian mist." Mason ( talk) 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:WWE wrestlers

• Propose deleting Category:WWE wrestlers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We don't need to categorize people by which wrestling organization they're signed Mason ( talk) 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Scottish noblewomen

• Propose renaming Category:Scottish noblewomen to Category:Scottish women by rank

Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename and purge this category to mirror British women by rank and English women by rank Mason ( talk) 16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:People from the Austrian Empire of Swiss descent

• Propose merging Category:People from the Austrian Empire of Swiss descent to Category:Austrian people of Swiss descent

Nominator's rationale: Extremely narrow category. There's no need to have the intersection between era, nationality, and ethnicity Mason ( talk) 16:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:De-extinction genetic engineering

• Propose merging Category:De-extinction genetic engineering to Category:Genetic engineering

Nominator's rationale: This category only has one page in it and seem to be highly overlapping with Genetic engineering Mason ( talk) 14:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge for now without objection to recreate the category if and when some more articles about the topic will be available. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'd support a merge for now. Mason ( talk) 17:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Human enhancement

• Propose merging Category:Human enhancement to Category:Transhumanism

Nominator's rationale: This seems like too narrow of a category as well as fairly overlapping with existing categories related to Bioethics and Transhumanism Mason ( talk) 14:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom and perhaps merge the article as well. The difference is unclear. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Twin canopy aircraft

• Propose deleting Category:Twin canopy aircraft ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining nebulous category, discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Twin canopy aircraft?. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:South Korean anti-feminists

• Propose renaming Category:South Korean anti-feminists to Category:South Korean critics of feminism

Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename this category to mirror the sibling categories (Female critics of feminism‎ etc) in its parent Critics of feminism. Mason ( talk) 14:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Based on the article texts, merging to Category:Men's rights activists may be a better idea. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Funnily enough -- that was the other name I was contemplating! Equally fine with me Mason ( talk) 16:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Articles with wanted PUA characters

• Propose renaming Category:Articles with wanted PUA characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Articles with wanted Private Use Area characters
• Propose renaming Category:Articles with unsupported PUA characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Articles with unsupported Private Use Area characters

Nominator's rationale: Expand abbreviation. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Museum collections

• Propose renaming Category:Collections of Allen Memorial Art Gallery to Category:Collection of the Allen Memorial Art Gallery
• Propose renaming Category:Collections of Allen Memorial Art Museum to Category:Collection of the Allen Memorial Art Museum
• Propose renaming Category:Collections of Amgueddfa Cymru – Museum Wales to Category:Collection of Amgueddfa Cymru – Museum Wales
• Propose renaming Category:Collections of Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery to Category:Collection of Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery
• Propose renaming Category:Collections of Derby Museum and Art Gallery to Category:Collection of Derby Museum and Art Gallery
• Propose renaming Category:Collections of Herbert Art Gallery and Museum to Category:Collection of the Herbert Art Gallery and Museum
• Propose renaming Category:Collections of Lancashire Museums to Category:Collection of Lancashire Museums
• Propose renaming Category:Collections of M – Museum Leuven to Category:Collection of M – Museum Leuven
• Propose renaming Category:Collections of National Galleries Scotland to Category:Collection of National Galleries Scotland
• Propose renaming Category:Collections of National Museums Scotland to Category:Collection of National Museums Scotland
• Propose renaming Category:Collections of North Lincolnshire Museum to Category:Collection of North Lincolnshire Museum
• Propose renaming Category:Collections of Palazzo Abatellis to Category:Collection of the Palazzo Abatellis

Nominator's rationale: Subcategories of Category:Museum collections for individual museums currently use a mixture of the styles "Collection of [the Foo Museum]" and "Collections of [the Foo Museum]". I propose to standardize to "Collection", singular, as that seems more logical; the article Collection (museum) mostly refers to a museum as having a "collection" as opposed to "collections", plural – although "Very large museums will often have many sub-collections, each with its own criteria for collecting. A natural history museum, for example, will have mammals in a separate collection from insects." Even in those cases, though, it's still idiomatic to refer to the collection of, say, the British Museum – see this Ngram. Ham II ( talk) 06:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose It is indeed correct to use a plural categroy name when a museum has multiple named collections, often each with their own subcategory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose As Andy. Collections in plural (for all but the smallest museums) is correct. Especially for our use, where we regularly have subcategories to more specific collections. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose for the reasons expressed above. I think it would be better to standardize using "Collections", since it is not uncommon for museums to have multiple collections. — SGconlaw ( talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose and standardize 'Collections' per Sgconlaw. For example, I often refer to Wikipedia's topic collections and not overall 'collection of articles'. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Bengali letters

• Propose merging Category:Bengali letters to Category:Indic letters and Category:Bengali language
• Propose merging Category:Devanagari letters to Category:Indic letters and Category:Devanagari

Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles in each of these categories, that is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom nafSadh ^{did say} 15:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Historic cigar factories

• Propose Renaming Category:Historic cigar factories to Category:Cigar factories

Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT

While Category:Cigar factories on the National Register of Historic Places has clear inclusion criteria, this category does not. In my subjective opinion, the El Laguito Cigar Factory is not historic but, in the subjective opinion of another editor, it is . The proposed rename would make the category objective. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Background: We previously eliminated similarly subjective "historic" categories here and here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Rename per nom. No need to make categories more confusing than needed. Mason ( talk) 14:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Whirly-Girls

• Propose merging Category:Whirly-Girls to Category:Helicopter pilots

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; the name is not what these women are referred to but only the name of the organization. Note that these articles are already in Category:Women aviators by nationality. Hence only single merge. Alternative suggestion: keep and rename to Category:Women helicopter pilots which would expand the scope of the category. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, I think renaming to Women Helicopter pilots is suitable and appropriate. There is currently a lack of categories on Wikipedia to suitably identify/locate topics/persons related to women's aviation. The current categories make it difficult to find these aviation pioneers, which are few and worthy of inclusion in a category as it is a defining characteristic. This is why I developed the category in the first place. Thank you for the measured discussion here. Nayyn ( talk) 23:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

While there are categories for female aviators, gyro and rotor pilots have different certifications compared to fixed wing pilots and thus it is a unique and defining category. There are comparatively few women who are helicopter pilots overall, and a category specifically for helicopters is particularly useful addition to Wikipedia. Nayyn ( talk) 23:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

as per WP:USEFUL [t]here are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument Nayyn ( talk) 23:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• No, "useful" is entirely subjective. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge, not a defining characteristic and women can be easily traced in Category:Women aviators by nationality. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 00:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't agree that "women can be easily traced in Category:Women aviators by nationality." I think the suggestion to "keep and rename to Category:Women helicopter pilots which would expand the scope of the category" makes sense.

I'm not sure what the argument "not a defining characteristic" refers to above? Nayyn ( talk) 00:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Non- defining is a keep tennet of Wikipedia:Categorization. @ Nayyn, I strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with the policies of categorization. Mason ( talk) 12:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 02:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep We have Whirly-Girls as an article on a presumably notable organisation. It seems reasonable to preserve a category that contains its members. The rest would be handled by supercats. If it is considered that women with the temerity to fly rotary wing aircraft are a defining characteristic (they'll be wanting to vote next!), then provide a category for that. But that's a separate grouping. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Organisations based in Macau

• Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Organisations based in Macau to Category:Organizations based in Macau (over redirect)
• Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Defunct organisations based in Macau to Category:Defunct organizations based in Macau
• Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Organisations based in Macau by subject to Category:Organizations based in Macau by subject
• Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Medical and health organisations based in Macau to Category:Medical and health organizations based in Macau
• Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Sports organisations of Macau to Category:Sports organizations of Macau
• Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Youth organisations based in Macau to Category:Youth organizations based in Macau
• Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Non-profit organisations based in Macau to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Macau
• Propose renaming REDIRECT Category:Naturalised citizens of Macau to Category:Naturalized citizens of Macau
• Propose merging Category:Macau voluntary organisations to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Macau
• Propose merging Category:Scouting and Guiding in Macau to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Macau, Category:Youth organizations based in Macau and Category:Scouting and Guiding by country

Nominator's rationale: Subcats use a mixture of -s- and -z- spelling; seven others currently use z. There is no reason to use the -s- spelling in Macau, diverging from the international default -z-. The voluntary orgs cat is non-standard and an unnecessary layer, and the Scouting and Guiding cat holds only one article. – Fayenatic London 16:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Rename and merge all per nom. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Rename and merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per WP:RETAIN. There is no "international default". Categories use a mix of 'z' and the Commonwealth English standard 's'. So the nomination is based on an entirely false premise. Note also that we have Category:Organisations based in Portugal (Macau was a Portuguese colony) and, of course, Category:Organisations based in Hong Kong, in case anyone claims that 'z' is standard in China and we should change all categories to match. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Nominator explicitly mentioned there is a mix of s and z so there is no false premise. Since China consistently uses a z that is a good reason to use z in Macao too. Hong Kong presumably is a different case with a consistent use of s. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Clearly you misunderstood my comment. There is no reason to use the -s- spelling in Macau, diverging from the international default -z-. The claim that there is an international default is the clear false premise. There is none, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Hong Kong uses 's' because it was a British colony. Macau was a Portuguese colony and our Portuguese categories also use 's'. What the other Chinese categories use is irrelevant when relating to these two cities because of their very different origins. I do wish editors would stop claiming that the way Americans do things is some sort of international standard. It is not. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, "international standard" may a bit too much. It is both standard American English and accepted in British English though. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:RETAIN is a fairly compelling argument; is there a reason to ignore it / a reason it does not apply here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 02:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Rename per MOS:COMMONALITY. One variety of British (and Commonwealth) English, Oxford English, prefers "z" spellings, so these should be encouraged (at least in subject areas like this which don't have strong ties to Britain or the Commonwealth) as an area of commonality between the main varieties of English. The United Nations uses Oxford English, hence the spelling of World Health Organization and so on. (I wasn't aware of this CfD nomination when I made the same argument at CfDS two days ago. I said then that it was a conversation for another day; that day came sooner than expected!) Ham II ( talk) 08:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Sandžak

• Propose deleting Category:Sandžak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:History of Sandžak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. Regional name Sandžak is apparently hardly in use anymore. Even the articles in the history subcategory hardly mention it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Considering Sandžak is very small area of Serbia, there is really not that much to write but it deserves to have a separate category. I'm not sure if there are rules involved as in how many articles should category have in order to even be considered but I believe that the amount written so far is good enough to keep it. Боки ☎ ✎ 07:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Size isn't the issue here, WP:DEFINING is. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is it defining?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 02:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional illeists

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional illeists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Category:Fictional illeists then undeleted out of process. Still seems non-defining. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per WP:G4. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 22:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

G4 doesn't fit, as it was undeleted via Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion rather than recreated. -- HPfan4 ( talk) 23:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• That is still out of process. WP:DRV would have been the right forum. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I would still support deletion per WP:TRIVIALCAT. I just don't see this as a defining characteristic. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 13:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: the characteristic is defining enough to be covered by and discussed in reliable sources (see, for example, Mantis (Marvel Comics), Elmo, Hercule Poirot). See also the discussion of Category:Illeists. -- HPfan4 ( talk) 22:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a defining trait, and often discussed in sources. Dimadick ( talk) 08:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 00:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:EBU stubs

• Propose deleting Category:EBU stubs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category and template, newly created to hold just one article. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for just one article of interest -- the minimum bar for the creation of a stub category is 60 articles, and for that very reason stub categories should normally be proposed for creation by Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting rather than just getting created willy-nilly.
But the parent category Category:European Broadcasting Union has just 14 articles in it of which only two are short enough that tagging them as stubs would be justifiable -- so really the only possible source of any significant amount of content for this is the Category:Eurovision events subcategory, but Category:Eurovision Song Contest stubs and {{ Eurovision-stub}} both already exist to cover that off, and the one article that's been filed here already had that on it, thus making this entirely redundant to another stub template and category that we already have. Bearcat ( talk) 21:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Bearcat and LaundryPizza03: what do you envision happening with the stub template {{ EBU-stub}}? Deleted? Made to feed into Category:Eurovision Song Contest stubs? Something else? House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Just deleting it would be fine with me, though I'm not averse to repurposing it if somebody's got actual ideas for how it could become useful... (I can attest only that it isn't needed on the one article it's actually on, since that's already tagged as a Eurovsion stub, but I can't swear on pain of death that there aren't other more valid places for it to be used.) Bearcat ( talk) 01:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag {{ EBU-stub}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Replace and delete {{ EBU-stub}}. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Films directed by Wayne Kramer (filmmaker)

• Propose renaming Category:Films directed by Wayne Kramer (filmmaker) to Category:Films directed by Wayne Kramer

Nominator's rationale: Needless disambiguation. Clarityfiend ( talk) 13:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose per associated article Wayne Kramer (filmmaker). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Independent film stubs

• Propose deleting Category:Independent film stubs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Stub category and template that have likely outlived their usefulness. As always, the core purpose of stub categories is to facilitate expanding and improving the stubs enough that they can be pulled out of the stub categories -- so the most useful stub categories are ones that correspond to a community of editors with some expertise in the subject area, who can therefore collaborate on expanding the articles. But there isn't any particular community of independent film experts -- editors' areas of expertise are going to centre around countries and/or genres rather than indie status per se.
That is, there are editors who work on American films regardless of their major vs indie status, and editors who work on Japanese films regardless of their major vs indie status, and editors who specialize in science fiction films regardless of their major vs indie status, and on and so forth, but there aren't really any editors whose area of expertise is "independent films irrespective of country or genre".
This was certainly a good faith creation at the time, when we had far fewer articles about films and far fewer stub categories to group them in -- but the stub category tree is now so much more deeply granularized that this just doesn't represent a particularly useful characteristic to group stubs on anymore, because we have many more stub categories for much more specific and collaborative country and genre and time period groupings than we had in 2006.
I've already gone through the category to ensure that each article also has genre and/or nationality film stub templates on it as well, so nothing will be stranded if it goes, but it's just not at all clear that indie status is nearly as useful a basis for collaboration as the country and genre tags are. Bearcat ( talk) 15:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag {{ Indie-film-stub}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:People from the Savoyard state

• Propose merging Category:People from the Savoyard state to Category:People from Savoy

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason ( talk) 23:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ Smasongarrison: not very overlapping, there is quite a difference between the duchy of Savoy in the Holy Roman Empire, the "extended" Savoyard State which largely consisted of current Piedmont in Italy, and two French departments with Savoie in their name, Savoie and Haute Savoie. The category tree is quite messy but this is not the way to solve it. Perhaps a better alternative is to convert Category:People from Savoy to a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Hmmm. I worry that making People from Savoy a disambiguation page might make it even messier. So would the FOOian century people from Savoy catergies need to be rearranged as well. I'm open to alternative solutions that tidy up this mess. Is Savoyard State really the term we should be using at all? Because it seems not be a nationality from my skimming of the category. Mason ( talk) 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Agree that the centuries need to be renamed. It is a composite state, comparable to the Crown of Aragon and the United Kingdom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Dobrujan Tatar

• Propose deleting Category:Dobrujan Tatar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. It only has two articles: Dobrujan Tatar and Dobrujan Tatar alphabet. Everything can be included in the parent Category:Crimean Tatar language, as Dobrujan Tatar is a dialect of it (and the page on the dialect already includes this category). Super Ψ Dro 23:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Surely merge, but I am not certain of the Crimean Tatar target. If that is correct, then the article should be revised in order to make it more clear. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It might sound confusing due to the geographic names but the Crimean Khanate once extended beyond Crimea and its population was semi-nomadic from what I understand. Dobrujan Tatar is a dialect of the Crimean Tatar language, this has been discussed already at Talk:Dobrujan Tatar. Super Ψ Dro 10:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Thanks, I had not checked ths talk page. From what I understand of the discussion, the merge target should be Category:Kipchak languages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• No, it has been not. We are not linguist at all. I, as a speaker of this language, disagree with it. The situation of this language is not clear!!!! Maybe you hear "it's a dialect" from somewhere and act with own knowledge, this is not a solution. The language is in discussion by SIL, and they noticed that the language is different than Crimean Tatar. The discussions are in progress. Zolgoyo ( talk) 13:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ Zolgoyo: do you agree with the merge target Category:Kipchak languages instead? Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Marcocapelle I do not understand why it needs to be merged? What's the problem of the category? There are so many categories based on language, variant, dialect etc. And the category is about "Dobrujan Tatar" and not about any other topic, how do you want to compress this category into another category? Zolgoyo ( talk) 21:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • @ Zolgoyo: the problem is that the category adds zero value to navigation. The two articles are already directly interlinked. When a reader wants to find more related articles (which is the purpose of categories) the next most related topic is Kipchak languages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    Firstly, how do you know that there won't be more pages on this topic? Secondly, this is not the only category in this situation. Each category proliferates and expands at its own pace. Why we need to close this category by making such an extremist move? Zolgoyo ( talk) 13:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    • We can always recreate the category if there are going to be more articles. And no, this is not extremist, this happens all the time. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Super Mario Wii 2: Galaxy Adventure Together

• Super Mario Wii 2: Galaxy Adventure Together → Super Mario Galaxy 2  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Super Mario Galaxy 2 is not known by this name. The article has only had this title for 16 minutes before being moved back. Mia Mahey ( talk) 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Super Mario Wii: Galaxy Adventure

• Super Mario Wii: Galaxy Adventure → Super Mario Galaxy  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Super Mario Galaxy is not known by this name. The article has only had this title for 24 minutes before being moved back. Mia Mahey ( talk) 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete - not aware of it ever going by this name. Seemingly nothing more than an artifact from an erroneous/misguided page move years back. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Kangxi Radicals

• Kangxi Radicals → Kangxi Radicals (Unicode block)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Either Kangxi Radicals (Unicode block) sjhould be moved here, or it should point to Kangxi radical (where Kangxi radicals points). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Kangxi radicals. There is no reason why either different capitalisations or singular/plural should lead to different places. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Best Year Ever

• Best Year Ever → Best Week Ever  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The page title could also refer to the SpongeBob 20th anniversary celebration known as "Best Year Ever". Retarget to SpongeBob SquarePants#Twentieth anniversary or disambiguate? 1033Forest ( talk) 03:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Disambig. Unsurprisingly this is a very common title for references, but in addition to the current target and the SpongeBob Squarepants targets I've found I Love...#Best Year Ever… (More4), Amelia's Best Year Ever ( Amelia's Notebooks#Elementary school), and a Doctor Who episode ( Doctor Who: The Eighth Doctor Adventures#Series 4 (2022)), none of which seem primary. It wouldn't surprise me if there are more as this is not an easy thing to search for (which also means search results will be extremely unhelpful so we definitely should not delete this). Thryduulf ( talk) 13:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

QTPOC

• QTPOC → LGBT  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• QTIPOC → QTPOC  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target page, or at List of LGBT-related acronyms. Un assiolo ( talk) 22:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I believe this should point to Person of color. But since it's not mentioned there, Wiktionary could solve the problem. It should be noted that this abbreviation is mentioned here, here Web-julio ( talk) 01:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

and here, here, and here. many others Web-julio ( talk) 01:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

QTIPOC also exists. Web-julio ( talk) 01:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Which I added to the nomination. Dsuke1998AEOS ( talk) 19:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - someone added it to List of LGBT-related acronyms now with sourcing, so either keep the current redirect to LGBT or change the redirect to the list article. Raladic ( talk) 00:26, 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! 01:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Crows in popular culture

• Crows in popular culture → Cultural depictions of ravens  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Redirect leads to Ravens. Which is a different bird. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Corvus#Cultural depictions, which covers this topic. - Eureka Lott 18:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Corvus#Cultural depictions per EurekaLott -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Corvus#Cultural depictions 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 05:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Retarget per above BugGhost 🪲👻 12:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep and WP:RM. The current target also covers crows so I'd rather see a name change to reflect that. Probably something like Cultural depictions of corvids. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 20:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep and move target to Cultural depictions of corvids or Cultural depictions of ravens and crows (I prefer the latter, per WP:COMMONNAME, but don't object to Tavix's suggestion either), while also updating the lead section of that article to mention crows as well, because the body of the article definitely includes crows pretty prominently alongside ravens. Fieari ( talk) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: the Cultural depictions of ravens article currently mentions crows a few times, but I wouldn't say that it covers the subject. The article could be modified to expand its scope, but that's outside the purview of RFD. We shouldn't base our decision here on a hypothetical repurposing of another article. - Eureka Lott 17:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:1930 Canadian federal election/New Brunswick Southwest

• Template:1930 Canadian federal election/New Brunswick Southwest ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I couldn't find sources to add confirming this information. Boleyn ( talk) 15:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:User WikiProject Dacia

• Template:User WikiProject Dacia ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym ( talk) 09:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonial Empires/Userbox/CEBASICBOX, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_7#Template:User_WP:AGS, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_7#Category:WikiProject_Dacia_participants and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 7#Category:WikiProject Colonialism participants. Although the WikiProjects are gone, these templates and their accompanying categories have historical interest. It would have been helpful to bundle these related nominations together or at least link them. And polite to notify the successor wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. –  Joe ( talk) 09:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep but change "is a participant" to "was a participant". There's no reason that past relationship can't be expressed through a userbox. Also this is the wrong venue (should be at MfD). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:User WP:AGS

• Template:User WP:AGS ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym ( talk) 10:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonial Empires/Userbox/CEBASICBOX, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_7#Template:User_WikiProject_Dacia, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_7#Category:WikiProject_Dacia_participants and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 7#Category:WikiProject Colonialism participants. Although the WikiProjects are gone, these templates and their accompanying categories have historical interest. It would have been helpful to bundle these related nominations together or at least link them. And polite to notify the successor wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. –  Joe ( talk) 09:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep but change "is a participant" to "was a participant". There's no reason that past relationship can't be expressed through a userbox. Also this is the wrong venue (should be at MfD). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Argue date

• Template:Argue date ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation of parameters, or incoming links. Created in 2019. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Aflplayer

• Template:Aflplayer ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Created in 2011. Probably superseded by a more comprehensive template. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Moldovan userbox templates

• Template:User mo ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:User mo-0 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:User mo-1 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:User mo-2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:User mo-3 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:User mo-4 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Category:User mo-N ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Category:User mo-1 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Category:User mo-2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Category:User mo-3 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Category:User mo-4 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The templates and categories should be deleted. ISO 639 code for Moldovan, mo, has been deprecated. ( https://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php). Lucjim ( talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: Userboxes go to MFD. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Draft:Nations Unbound Great Cyber War

Draft:Nations Unbound Great Cyber War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 15:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thomas Matthew Crooks

Thomas Matthew Crooks ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A user SNOW-closed a discussion after just 5 hours, so short some people in certain time zones can’t respond, and on their talk page, refused to re-open the discussion. And while keepers cited how BIO1E does not apply, this does not take into consideration the WP:RECENTISM concerns, which went unaddressed. Downerr2937 ( talk) 17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Absolutely zero rationale for such an early closure. Based on the policy arguments there wasn't clear consensus for keep. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 17:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse – the consensus was quite overwhelming. Considering the deletion request was based on WP:BIO1E, it stands to reason the majority of 'keep' votes would be addressing it. I would also disagree that concerns regarding WP:RECENTISM were unaddressed; plenty of editors highlighted the article's notability and widespread coverage, particularly with reference to past assassination attempts. I fail to see the value in reopening it, to be honest. GhostOfNoMeme 17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The close of this AfD was blatantly inaccurate. There were no "strong policy-based arguments" for an aricle, only for inclusion. Qwirkle ( talk) 17:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment as closer. WP:SNOW is a shorthand for taking decisive action to avoid "long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions". I felt, reading over the discussion, that consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of keep, and backed by policy-based arguments. From my point of view, we could spend a full week arguing over the AfD, which would then be closed as keep, or I could close it as keep immediately, reflecting the consensus and saving a lot of editors a lot of time. I did not see any scenario in which this AfD was closed as anything other than keep given the !votes of editors so far, our policies, and the simple fact that over the next 7 days, *more* information is likely to come to light about Crooks, and *more* reliable journalistic profiles are going to be written about him. This is not a case of WP:IAR, but it is a case of WP:NOT a bureaucracy. We are not a bureaucracy, and my close was intended to reflect the discussion's overwhelming consensus and save us all some time and thousands of words of argument. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Which, put another way, was to ignore the strengths of the arguments, and treat this as a simple vote. Qwirkle ( talk) 17:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  If I was not clear, what I mean is that the policy-based arguments for 'Keep', specifically, were stronger than the policy-based arguments for 'Redirect' (by far the second-most common position). This was not a vote and I did not read it as such. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Nonsense. Looking at the first few votes, I see blatant "other crap exists" arguments. Mmoving downward, I see notability arguments - which do not, at all, justify a separate article, only inclusion . I see a great many people whose balls are apparently crystal, justifying retention because surely an article's worth of information is bound to surface in a day..or a week...fortnight...century.

Vote, done to lessen Dramah. That I get, but I do not think it s a good idea. Qwirkle ( talk) 17:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply