Wikipedia:XfD today

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This page

XfD
-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.


Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

Purge server cache

KBRO-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Most references are to the FCC website. Could merge into Dish Network. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSPK-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJCS-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Mires

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

This is a resume, not an article with reliable sources and significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPDC-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG; some sources are questionable. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown School

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

Previously declined prod. I could not find coverage to meet

WP:NSCHOOL. Note there are other schools in the world with the same name. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Meyer

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

Not a notable individual. Fails

WP:GNG. Possible autobiography. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Techspressionism

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

Techspressionism has no reliable sourcing that it is an art movement or style. The portmanteau coined by an artist, but it entirely his own invention. The references in the article point to interivews, press releases and self created website. There is no reliable sourcing. https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ is a puff piece on Colin Goldberg. https://www.27east.com/arts/techspressionism-a-global-movement-with-local-roots-1933155/ refers exclusively to Goldberg's self named style. https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/ has a quote by Goldberg naming his own art. Techspressionism is part of a walled garden created by COI accounts. There is no alternative to deletion. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please see my reasoning below. Scribe1791 (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Scribe1791 (talkcontribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates I feel that an accurate definition of Techspressionism is that it is a community of artists.
Christiane Paul, Digital Art Curator at the Whitney Museum, stated in a discussion on Techspressionism (which I moderated):
"One thing that I like about Techspressionism is that as a term, it can transcend boundaries, and in terms of the question of whether we need to clearly delineate things, I am all for openness, and I think Techspressionism already fulfills an important function if there are artists aligning themselves with that term and finding a platform to discuss issues that are relevant to their work; that is always a function that makes a term valuable."
Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Glurhxyms&t=1478s Scribe1791 (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Per WP:RSP, Wired is considered a RS and I'm not sure how a quote from the artist who coined the term would invalidate that. Most of the arguments here made for Keep are completely irrelevant though. YordleSquire (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hashtag #techspressionism is widely used on social media by artists around the world to refer to their technology-based artwork, with over 71K posts using the hashtag on Instagram as of today: https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/techspressionism. For the sake of transparency, I am the artist who coined the term, and like any term, it has an inventor. To be clear, the term was defined as neither "an art movement or style", but as an artistic approach in which technology is utilized as a means to express emotional experience. This definition was created in 2020 by a group of artists (Patrick Lichty, Steve Miller (artist), Oz Van Rosen, and myself) as well as the art historian and critic Helen A. Harrison, who is well-respected in her field. It would seem that at this point, the term became something beyond a "portmanteau" describing my work alone, although it certainly started that way. The 27 East article that you stated "refers solely to Goldberg's self-named style" is about an exhibition which I curated that was comprised of the work of more than 90 artists working with technology from over 20 countries, and thus clearly did not represent "my personal style." Moreover, to address another editor's comment in the article's revision history: "(Techspressionism) was one show, not a "movement": the activities of the community are ongoing, as evidenced by the group's monthly meetups on Zoom (Techspressionist Salons) in which artists from different countries gather to share work related to art and technology and discuss ideas. There have been 80 of these meetups since 2020, and they are archived here: https://techspressionism.com/salon/ There is also an active Techspressionists Facebook Group, to which I will post a link to this discussion, so hopefully other members of the community can weigh in on whether the term is simply a description of my own work. To state "there is no alternative to deletion" shows an unwillingness to consider any sides of this discussion other than your own. Scribe1791 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    very well said and reasoned. seems a bit silly to dismiss this term you had originally coined and have since championed through it's growing community and reach. It evolves not only with the technology used by artists but it relevance in the art market and institutions. It that way it is like every other art style and movement that has emerged in the last few centuries. Mwoody37 (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Mwoody37 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Being only an 'occasional' editor on WP I'm not sure of how to engage in a debate here, but I will try.
1) As an artist who sees his work well described by Techspressionism as a term, I'm a bit confused as to where the deletion author comes to the conclusion that it is simply a Goldberg portmanteau. I identify my work as Techspressionist. See my work as example (https://leeday.photography).
2) As you can see from the references above in Instagram and other physical and online forums there is a substantive group of people who also identify as Techspressionist Artists.
3) Furthermore if Whitney Museum Curator of Digital Art Christiane Paul and Helen A. Harrison, Director of the Pollock-Krasner House and Study Center can debate the significance of Techspresionism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Glurhxyms) then it would seem a worthy subject to include in Wikipedia.
Finally, if the article needs work then I would suggest this retention category WP:POTENTIAL certainly applies. poltergeister (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Lday (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


  • Keep. The movement, while relatively new, is established, there are artists, who are considering themselves as part of it. There are exhibitions, there's a community, there are publications. One could also find it strange that the proponent of the deletion didn't engage with the editors on the talk page, but instead suggested it directly for a deletion. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note to closer there's a !vote on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Techspressionism that should be included in the assesment. It's not in English but is accessible via google translate Star Mississippi 12:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like it now has been added below. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Wikipedia article on Techspressionism should not be a candidate for deletion. The four articles you mention with their focus on - Colin  Goldberg “ puff piece” and “self named style” do not adequately address the totality of what techspressionism is. You mention it is an art movement or style.Techspressionism is an “approach” rather than a movement or style. https://techspressionism.com/artists/. Colin Goldberg is not alone in ushering in this approach.There are a number of notable artists who are a part of this approach.https://techspressionism.com/artists/. Goldberg strives toward a model of decentralized social sculpture created by participating artists akin to the German artist, Joseph Beuys who believes that “social sculpture could potentially reshape society and politics.”
You point out articles that only speak of Colin Goldberg’s artistic practice. Take the time to do a thorough reading of the Techspressionism website. Visit the link below to see the work of other techspressionists artists such as Oz Van Rosen, Steve Miller, Patrick Lichty, and many others who join Goldberg in this approach. https://techspressionism.com/history/. Please note the number of artists listed in the index. https://techspressionism.com/artists/  Also note that techspressionism has 78.K international artists that use the hashtag #techspressionist on social media. Many of these artists meet at our monthly online salons moderated by several different artists.
The Techspressionism group advisor Helen Harrison, director of the Pollack-Kasner Museum is also an art historian, museum director, critic, artist and journalist who specializes in Modern American Art. In her interview with Colin Goldberg she discusses Techspressionism. She sees it as an “approach” that uses technology in a subjective way revealing internal feelings.See “Art in Focus: What the Heck is Techspressionism?”
Lastly, watch the interview between Christiane Paul, curator of digital Art at the Whitney Museum and Helen Harrison in a discussion focusing on Techspressionism as it relates to art historical movements of the past. https://techspressionism.com/video/roundtable/curators-in-conversation/
The Techspressionism Wikipedia article should be retained. Cynthiadidonato (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Cynthiadidonato (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment and suggestion - I have noticed that some editors are repeatedly refactoring/editing their previous comments/arguments. In an AfD it's probably best practices is to strike your earlier comment (if you change your mind) but leaving it visible, then add the changes with a notation that it is new text. For example: This is old stuff and (revised) this is new stuff. This is performed by adding <s> before the text you want to strike, followed with </s> at the end of the text you want to strike. This simple procedure helps others to follow discussions/thoughts better. Please consider doing so if your comments or !votes change. Thanks. Netherzone (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though I'm here to argue in favor to Keep this page, I don't know Colin and I first became aware of Techspressionism in 2021 through noticing artists using the hashtag and have since become conscious of both the community and the greater sphere of Techspressionism slowly over the past couple of years.
I have found many great artists through Techspressionism as a hashtag and do believe it has gained a life beyond it's creator and the creator's inner circle, and I take note that even on the creator's website it states that anyone who claims to be a Techspressionist is a Techspressionist. It is not exclusive, and it is a way for many artists working in modern tech modes to give a name to what they do. To delete this article would be premature, I believe it is being adopted and growing more with the passing of time and with the ever increasing influx of tech in our modern art world. The entire sphere is likely still coming into focus and while there may be collective debates about what "is" or "isn't" Techspressionism on the road ahead, Techspressionism itself most certainly subsists.
It's growth is of a modern virality itself through artist profiles, posts, tags and a collective consciousness, rather than PR articles or outmoded promotions of that nature. MarioCCult (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) MarioCCult (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note to all participants please put your comments at the bottom of the page, such as I have done here. Click edit and scroll down. @Scribe1791: may I suggest you close up the spacing in your comment so editors don't think it's finished. That's what's leading to some of the astray comments landing in the middle of yours. (To be clear, there's nothing wrong with yours, people just don't realize you're not done). Thanks. Star Mississippi 02:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Star Mississippi - I am not exactly sure how to do that without messing up the formatting of the entire thread, as my technical expertise here is fairly limited - if you are able to assist, that would be great. Scribe1791 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I've done so, leaving your keep and your further comment distinct, but please feel free to restore if you think a line break was key to your meaning. Thank you Star Mississippi 01:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for guidance As of March 13 a major contributor to the article Techspressionism has
    WP:CANVASSed on Instagram, Facebook, and their own talk page. What are the suggested next steps to get this conversation back on track and within the recognized Wikipedia boundaries of discussion? Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @WomenArtistUpdates, in your request for deletion it appears that your primary concern is that Techspressionism is simply a "portmanteau" that describes my personal artistic output, with no sourcing to prove otherwise. I have made other members of the Techspressionist community aware of this discussion so that they can weigh in, and actually stated above that I would post a link to the discussion on the Techspressionists Facebook Group. There was no effort made to disguise this action, as it was publicly stated directly. Is this something that is inappropriate if the very fact of whether there are other artists who identify with the term appears to be the primary issue? I was not aware of the term "canvassing" (within the context of Wikipedia) until looking it up just now, or the fact that obtaining public opinion outside Wikipedia is a no-no. It was also brought up in the discussion for deletion above (by a contributor I have no familiarity with) that you did not first raise your concerns in the article's talk page first. Wouldn't this approach be more aligned with a collaborative spirit, versus your declaration that "there is no alternative to deletion"? Lastly, regarding the question of sourcing referring to Techspressionism as a movement, I would point particpants in this discussion here. NB: it was not me who wrote the article, or its headline. Scribe1791 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-هنرمندانی از سراسر دنیا خودشان را با اصطلاح Techspressionism
    همراه دیدند و از این هشتگ استفاده کرده اند.
    Colin Goldberg
    هرگز از این از کلمه بعنوان به عنوان سازمان یا سبک استفاده نکرده و ازاین کلمه به منظور روش یا رویکرد استفاده کرده . اصطلاحی فرامرز که باعث همراهی هنرمندان زیادی از سراسر جهان شده و امروز هشتگ آن به 71.8 هزار رسیده است .
    ورود این اصطلاح به
    مثال دیگری از تایید این اصطلاخ می باشد . لطفا تمام منابع را مطالعه بفرمایید . Oxford University Press بعنوان یک لغت
    SAHARMOUSSAVI (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) SAHARMOUSSAVI (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - I'm holding off on !voting on this AfD for now and am debating whether or not to spend the time to do a source analysis chart, which I may do after the SPA activity dies down. Regarding the subject, Techspressionism, I think it has cultural value, however am doubtful if it has encyclopedic value.
In the meantime, I've worked up some Google N-gram charts for the term/movement/style in relation to all these other terms: Techspressionism, Techspressionist art, Digital art, Computer art, Digital painting, Computer painting, Electronic art, New Media art, Multimedia art, Digital media art, Generative art, Systems art, Ars Electronica, Virtual art, Cybernetic art, Art and science, Technology and art, Augmented reality, Generative art, Algorithmic art, Computer graphics, - and came up cold with ZERO hits for Techspressionism and Techspresionist art in relation to these other terms. I will place screenshots of these on the talk page of this AfD. (Don't know how long these screenshots will remain on talk, they might be taken down by Commons.)
I also found zero hits on google books other than Colin Goldberg's self-published Blurb book. And found zero hits on JSTOR, zero hits on Oxford Art Online, zero hits on entire WP Library.
I do think, however, there is a viable alternative to deletion. This article could be redirected to or merged with Colin Goldberg, Digital art Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Netherzone; thanks for your thoughtful note on my user talk page; the links you provided did provide insight and make sense to me. I think that your proposal that the Techspressionism article and the Colin Goldberg merge makes sense; however I would like to see what you think about the proposal that the Colin Goldberg article should go away and be redirected to the Techspressionism article, or simply be deleted, if that makes more sense. I feel that Techspressionism is certainly more notable than I am as an individual artist, as it has grown into a sizable community with many other artists involved. For instance, we have our first museum show coming up in Brooklyn this summer, for which I am not a curator. The other artists in the group feel strongly about the importance of this community, and in this video, Whitney museum curator Christiane Paul discussed the importance of Techspressionism, not me as an individual artist. Regarding the Ngrams you posted, they are based on Google results up to 2019 and Techspressionism did not formulate into an artist group until 2020, so the outcome that there are minimal results in comparison to longstanding terms such as Digital art is predictable. However, Google shows about 12,300 results for "Techspressionism" vs About 4,990 results for "Colin Goldberg". I feel that Techspressionism is not a subset of Digital art and should not be merged into this article, as it encompasses artforms such as painting and sculpture. In fact, the term was created because of the inadequacy of Digital art as a term to describe work that is physical but created with the aid of technology, (such as my own, and that of many others in the community). Please let me know what you think about this line of reasoning. Also, I think the Techspressionism article should be the one that remains of the two since the article has already been deemed B-class (I'm not even really sure what that means), and the Colin Goldberg article is start-class. Certainly, I would add that any edits required to establish a neutral tone should be made. @WomenArtistUpdates, and @Netherzone, what are your thoughts about this proposed solution, and the rationale behind it? Scribe1791 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
WP:PRIMARY. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@WomenArtistUpdates I read them, and respectfully disagree with your position. Note to closer: a cursory Google Scholar search on Techspressionism yields these results. I realize that the actual academic papers are behind a paywall, but I would assume that Google Scholar can capably index their contents. I also submit that the Master's thesis on the topic of Techspressionism by Vivian Lazaridou is currently under review by her university in Greece and was given to me by the author to post on the community website for feedback on a page with writings by notable artists in the community, as well as a short essay by art historian and critic Helen A. Harrison on the topic. Scribe1791 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"respectfully disagree with your position" is a disingenuous statement after having smeared the nominator's good reputation across multiple off-Wiki online platforms by calling them a "hater" and canvassing a flock of COI single purpose accounts to support your position. That is not how things normally work in this community. There is no hatred going on. Experienced editors like the nominator – who BTW has created over 850 articles most of which are on under-known notable women artists who slipped though the cracks of history – are here to uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia. Challenging the notability of an article is not personal, you only think it is because of your COI and use of undisclosed paid editors in the past to promote yourself and your "movement". Netherzone (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone and @WomenArtistUpdates I apologize for my emotional response on social media, and I have removed the offending statement from my Instagram post. It felt personal, I suppose, especially after I saw the recent effort to strike the term from Wiktionary as well as Wikipedia. However, I do disagree on the issue of notability. @Netherzone, the very sources that the nominator took issue with in their nomination are the same ones that you identified as valid sources for the article on Colin Goldberg, on the article's talk page; " Wired is an excellent source that's contextually relevant to the work. 27East.com looks fine as well esp. since it's an affillate of the Southhampton Press, East Hampton Press and Sag Harbor Express newspapers and Hampton's Art Hub looks good too." Regarding my sharing this nomination for deletion with others, I guess I am not accustomed to the culture here. I still fail to understand why my notifying other artists in the community regarding this nomination for deletion is somehow wrong. I invited other artists to the discussion, not "COI single-purpose accounts". The box that is at the top of this page reads "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. " I hope that this is still the case. Not that this is relevant in any way to this discussion, but I will say that I share the nominator's (assumed) sentiment that the art world in general is skewed in terms of gender politics, and have made a conscious effort towards gender equality and general cultural diversity in any curatorial (or other) aspects of this project because I believe this is extremely important, and in fact, a responsibility. I am the father of a daughter and I believe this is the way it should be, for what it's worth. I have said all I can say on this matter of whether or not Techspressionism should exist on Wikipedia. Consensus will decide, as it should. Scribe1791 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEONING. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Scribe1791 Please refrain from continually refactoring your comments here. Your last comment had 22 different revisions. This makes it hard for others to get a grip on what you are trying to communicate from moment to moment. You have been reminded of this twice already. Please use the strike-out feature described above. This AfD has become quite messy. Let us try to keep it an orderly process. Netherzone (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having conducted a research on Techspressionism, that lasted 6 months, to complete my academic dissertation for my Masters degree I would argue that the proposal to delete the Wikipedia article is a rather rush one. Techspressionism, while not characterized by a distinct artistic style or certain guidelines, themes and artistic aspects an artist should follow to fall within the term, is still a valid artistic approach that resonates with many artists, many of which I have personally interviewed. If one studies material on art and technology, they will be able to understand the need for Techspressionism in the art world and how it differs from digital art. My research was based upon various sources where I explained in detail how Techspressionism is linked to art movements that came before it. Like all art movements, Techspressionism is still in a stage where it is developing through its community. I suggest you give my dissertation, which was linked by Colin Goldberg, a read, it was evaluated and it will be soon be published on my university's repository.Viv98 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Viv98 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some input, especially analysis of available source material, from non-canvassed editors would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raymone Bain

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

TRL (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are celebrating women by deleting a black woman's bio who has represented some of the biggest names in sports and entertainment. OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickey1009 (talkcontribs) 03:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Mickey1009 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Weak Keep - The person has demonstrated GNG based on sources, but other than representing Mike Jackson 20 years ago, she's a simple entertainment attorney with some notable connections. Augmented Seventh (talk)

Felicia (Darkstalkers)

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

Going to be direct: this is yet another Niemti effort, and has the same hallmarks as the previous articles: an overreliance on lists that say next to nothing (often how sexy the character is), sources cited for saying more than they actually are, and ultimately nothing said about her character.

Felicia is a very recognizable character. One of the most recognizable ones from the Darkstalkers franchise, alongside Morrigan. However, recognizable does not equate to *discussion*. Even the recently added academic article added has nothing to do with Felicia, but commentary on cosplay in regards to decency laws, and not an examination of Felicia in those regards (Hell even by the article's own admission the cosplay was changed from the character's appearance).

Sadly...you can only say "Felicia is mostly naked" so many times. That alone doesn't merit an article.

C. Viper was compared to a King of Fighters character in terms of design by a massive number of publications...and just that. And that didn't survive an AfD. Multiple Dead or Alive
female characters also had some variation of "they're sexy" as the crux of their whole article, and they also didn't pass notability standards.

I would really like Felicia to have something, but after extensive searching...all we have is "she's mostly naked and sexy for it" and "she's one of the most recognizable of the lot because she gets reused a lot". That's not a base to build around when all the commentary is the same. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House clearance

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

This does not seem to be a notable concept. Boleyn (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schengen Cloud

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

Created when it was briefly in the news, but never attained sustained coverage nor came to fruition. A failed product could be notable, but it does not appear this one is. Without sourcing to verify this name is a thing (or helpful search), I don't think a redirect is of value. Note on searching, this is not' the cloud-based Schengen area visa processing system. Star Mississippi 02:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Europe. Star Mississippi 02:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Schengen Cloud is a concept rather than a well-defined proposal. I added some references from 2015 and 2016 that deal with the concept with multiple names like "Europe-only cloud" and "technological sovereignity" – still the same basic idea. I think it's a notable concept. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Kech District attack

2023 Kech District attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created a day after the event. All the sources are from April 2023, no evidence of

WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge (like a paragraph) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023. It doesn't seem an especially significant one of Pakistan's many, many attacks, but given Pakistan's broader security problems it's best to retain that it happened and this article has a few details that would be useful for a brief summary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVPS-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.NET Bio

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

Fails WP: N. I can't find any additional sources that would establish notability. Of the four sources on the page, two don't mention the library by name, and the other two are from Microsoft. This apparently had a PROD within an hour of the article's creation in 2013 which is kind of silly, but I'm sending this to AfD just to be safe. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swaret

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

A PROD on this article was removed because "Swaret was used" at some point in the past. The justification, based on the edit history, is that a singular user on a public forum said that they used the package some unknown amount of time ago. I'm sending this to AfD because this added source does not establish notability. It's not reliable, does not provide extensive coverage, and it isn't clear whether the source is necessarily secondary. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agafodor

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

PROD removed. Random name that fails

WP:NOTDICT. No sources found outside of dictionary definitions, databases and baby name websites. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, on the grounds that while Агафодо́р might be notable in Russian, Agafodor isn't in English. Hence, Agafodor isn't warranted here. I also note that there are no notable people on Wikipedia with the first name Agafodor. Klbrain (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dictionaries. If an article can be sourced only to dictionaries then I’m pretty sure it’s not likely to be notable. Even if the bishop is notable, we’d need at least two articles to meet
WP:NNAME. I’ll look into the other people further when I have access to my computer. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn’t satisfy notability requirements due to not being notable. Mr Mangina (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XVidCap

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

All of the references are primary sources. I also can't find any secondary sources that are reliable enough to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CudaText

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

I can't find any reliable secondary sources, both within and outside of the article, that would establish notability. Most of the secondary sources I could find are by people with unknown credentials. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch 01:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose deleting this as it's clearly a very active project (note the forum) with some history. I know people that use it. Okay it's no notepad++ popularity wise. I also see no gain from CudaText's side as it's open source and my adblocker kicked in only for the github link (to those that don't know GitHub is a VERY popular code hosting site and this is very normal). The article is also being kept up to date. 86.140.41.40 (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The activity of its forum or the number of people that you know that use the software has nothing to do with whether this should be a Wikipedia article. Please read
    WP: N. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gwrite

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

There are no sources that would establish notability, and a quick Google search doesn't reveal anything else that could establish notability either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: All I find are social media and download sites, not seeing anything for software notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of US and Chinese Military Armed Forces

Comparison of US and Chinese Military Armed Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems wholly synthetic and redundant as far as lists go. Remsense 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files

File:Everyone Knows That unofficial cover.jpg

File:Everyone Knows That unofficial cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Microplastic Consumer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Source does not state anything about subject about the article Pyraminxsolver (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Redirects

Brookville Police Department

no mention on target page, plausibly notable. asilvering (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeletE as per nom.
WP:REDLINK. I uh, think you put this new RfD nomination right in the middle of an existing nomination, which means you stole the original version of this comment from Master of the TreboN Altarpiece ^^; That said, no harm no foul, as my vote for this one is mostly the same anyways! Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Lunamann: What happened was the first non-bot edit of the day broke the top text that Twinkle uses to detect where to put new RfD nominations. But ... this is odd since apparently, per other nominations on this page, XFDcloser ... knew where to put the relisted nominations, even with the top matter looking abnormal. Maybe Twinkle could take a bit of code from XFDcloser to utilize for new RfD nominations in the same manner that XFDcloser determines where to place a relisted discussion? (Eh, might as well ping Novem Linguae so they are aware of this as they seem to be one of the most active editors at monitoring both tools these days.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Weird. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, weird! I didn't realize that's what happened and was wondering why your initial comment didn't seem to make sense. -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can add a mention of the department on the target page a little later today. I thought I did so already but I guess I am mistaken. My apologies. Infrastorian (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note, for the record, that this proposed edit would change my vote from Delete (er, DeletE) to Keep (or perhaps, Refine.) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refine to Brookville, New York#Government, which now has a mention. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Brookville. The Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania Brookvilles (at least) also have police departments, and the Ohio Brookville is about double the New York one's population. No telling which Brookville Police a reader is likely to be looking for. (Alternatively, if someone wants to put in the work, this could be a disambiguation page just among the four (?) Brookvilles with police departments.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mention added at Brookville, New York is so brief that it's hardly useful at all. There's no point retargeting to the place name's disambiguation page. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of proposed target Brookville.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thalassic (album)

Needless disambiguation, let alone the wrong target. The

primary topic. dannymusiceditor oops 01:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

2023 Mother's Day photograph by Catherine, Princess of Wales

Suggesting Delete as an implausible search term. The photograph was taken in 2024, not 2023, and is of, not by, Catherine, Princess of Wales. The redirect was likely created as a result of an editor's !vote to rename Where is Kate? to the redirect in the AfD discussion, evidently mistaking the year and preposition. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 01:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DFTS

Rarely, if ever, referred to that way. Googling, the most common topic is Defense Freight Transportation Services which we don't have an article about, and I don't see any use of this abbreviation elsewhere Wikipedia. Could be a typo of DFTD, since they're one off on a QWERTY keyboard, but I don't think it's worth keeping a typo of an abbreviation. Rusalkii (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lumbersexual

Currently points to a busted anchor, not sure where to redirect it to maybe Hipster (contemporary subculture) or 2010s_in_fashionblindlynx 00:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

Template:Us-bowling-score-sheet

Unused. DB1729talk 03:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:REC US

Template is under-used, transcluded on only 35 pages. NeutralhomerTalk • 02:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 02:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Project namespace#Wikipedia how-to and information pages 2600:1004:B1A3:76DD:3CA8:346:B245:C0C0 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's underused because, in my estimation, adding it as a standard transclusion to infoboxes (as suggested) is not needed. However, that's not a reason to delete it; there are pages where it could be useful. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 03:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

Deletion review