Delete - This painter of pilot boats does not meet criteria for inclusion perWP:NARTIST norWP:GNG. All I can find are auction records, name checks, connected sources and very short mentions of his work, indicating that he was simply arun-of-the-mill painter/illustrator doing his job. There is nothing about him in the usual databases of notable artists such as the Getty ULAN or any others. Absent are the usual indications of a notable artist, such as his work being held in the permanent collections of multiple notable museums or national galleries or multiple in-depth art reviews. The only in-depth source was written by his nephew, therefore a COI-connected source which claims his work was in a couple small, specialized museum collections; however, when I search those museum collections, nothing comes up for the artist[1],[2],[3], so perhaps they were donated but the museums' acquisition board did not approve or retain the work for the collection. Either way, the article does not meet criteria for inclusion.Netherzone (talk)18:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added five sources to the article, one as an inline citation to the pictureCentennial and the remaining four as general references, which I plan to weave into the article in due course, expanding it if I can. There's a short entry in a Who's Who type work, two pages of coverage in a book, a few paragraphs in another book, and a couple of magazine articles about individual works. For me, that is sufficientsignificant coverage to meetWP:GNG - it is not tons of coverage, but enough for an article of this size. Cheers,SunloungerFrog (talk)21:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly this is is a failure of verification. There are 68 services listed for this company, but of these only 16 have any citation at all. The list as a whole is unverified. This is also a common-sense fail since the majority of services listed (40 out of 68) are ones that Air Moldovadoes not fly.
Secondly this is a notability failure under our applicable standards (WP:NCORP andWP:LISTN), since the sourcing isentirely to sources that failWP:SIRS and/or isn't significant coverage of the topic of destinations of Air Moldova. Instead the references cited in this article are entirely from the company website, blogs like airlineroute, aeroroute, anna.aero (which is now 404 anyway), routesonline, and brief reports about individual routes in industry press like Avianews and Aviation.direct (notWP:SIGCOV, notindependent).
Keep Unless there is something wrong with theSan Bernardino Sun as a newspaper that I am unaware of, there is reliable sourcing available that is already in the WP article + more. Whole articles are devoted to the school. Would have said speedy keep if there weren't a second vote already.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk)00:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you. San Bernardino Sun piece based on own press release of the institution about the number of students by no means can be used to satisfy theWP:SIGCOV. Institution's own website is also not a source. I do not see any other sources on Google search.WestwoodHights573 (talk)01:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This particular institution, again, has no reliable independent coverage to meetWP:SIGCOV. It rather appears to be a shell entity of one of the biggest Medicaid fraud cases in the state, which I find quite unexpected -Prem Reddy. I take the name of this institution and Google it, and it shows nothing. While there are no issues with looking up media coverage of actually notable institutions. Feel free to add sources, and editors would evaluate.WestwoodHights573 (talk)05:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed some of the unsourced PR stuff, and added a number of newspaper articles. It has some coverage from outside the area. I think there is enough here to passWP:GNG.4meter4 (talk)05:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Propose to eitherdelete orredirect toLGBTQ rights in Indonesia. This is an unnecessarycontent fork, as the information in this article is already covered in the main article. The main article's prose size is only about 34 kB (around 5,300 words), which is still within the "readable prose size" range. I understand that Aceh has greater autonomy than other provinces and implements sharia law, but it is not the only province that bans LGBTQ activities.Ckfasdf (talk)04:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as long as his name is mentioned in that other article. Having a redirect is, if anything, much less bad than naming him there. If it is removed and stays removed, then delete.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Participants are arguing for a Redirect but that is opposed by the nominator. So we need to hear from more editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!04:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable as a stand-alone subject, but worth merging into an appropriate target that remains to be chosen.
The article suffers from verifiability and citation issues (includingover-citation in the lead and a lack of citations in parts of the article body). One section is tagged as outdated since 2020, although no specific reasons are given. I think all of those issues can be addressed by the merger.
The 2013 AfD (also on notability grounds and forWP:NOTNEWS) resulted in "no consensus". The closer stated that "merging has been proposed, but what the merge target is is not quite as clear". The only target that was seriously considered wasTurkification. My proposal here is tomerge intoTurkish nationalism, as it looks like the better fit to me. I also consideredXenophobia and discrimination in Turkey as a target, but that subject may be too narrow.
P.S. The previous AfD suffered from civility issues, including personal attacks against the nominator, as noted by the closing admin. I hope we can avoid that here.Renerpho (talk)00:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An update would be helpful. Have scientists or their organizations outside Turkey accepted the name changes? Has there been a reaction from Kurdish or Armenian scientists or government agencies?LeapTorchGear (talk)17:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LeapTorchGear: I don't see how that could be done without beingWP:Original Research, because there are no sources. As far as I am aware, the proposal has been completely ignored by scientists outside of Turkey, and beyond the initial "news flash". I don't think there have been any news reports about the issue (in English) since 2013, so I don't see what there is to update. For sources from Kurdish or Armenian scientists specifically, we would need someone who can search through sources in these languages and in Turkish.Renerpho (talk)17:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know about the Kurdish languages or Armenian Wikipedia but unfortunately I am not the only person who finds Turkish Wikipedia a hostile environment and have more or less given up on it. I see their article only has one Turkish source and that is over a decade old.Chidgk1 (talk)04:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I see no consensus here at all, and it might take more than one week to gather enough knowledgeable, interested participants. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!04:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a connection between Moodle and ErfurtWiki, but it is not mentioned at the page and I cannot find a great source to add it in.Casablanca 🪨(T)02:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comment in the AFD is incorrect. Moodle was not built on top of ErfurtWiki. You can create wikis inside Moodle as an activity. It is only the wiki created as an activity through Moodle that is based on ErfurtWiki. It's like redirecting 'Meat' to 'Sausage' because sausages contain meat, but they are not the same thing and redirecting in this way is misleading. Sausages are made of more than meat and meat contributes to more than just sausages.DrKay (talk)16:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target nor atTonsillitis. This appears to be a rare manifestation of syphilis and a rare cause of tonsillitis and therefore likelyWP:UNDUE for inclusion at either target. Per the edit summary, this was created as part of aWP:DERM initiative to create articles or redirects for every single entry atList of skin conditions and every rare disease mentioned in a well regarded dermatology textbook. Lacking suitable content, this should bedeleted. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)01:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a synonym of "syphilis" so the language cited atWP:RFD#DELETE #8 is irrelevant. Anyone searching this already knows it has something to do with syphilis and sending them to a 6,000 word article that doesn't describe the condition isn't helpful. It's more considerate of readers' time to identify that the topic is not covered. They might then go to a search engine where they will find several case reports in a matter of second, as we both did while looking into this. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)13:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know this surprises some Wikipedia editors, as we're generally quite literate, but the fact is that not everyone who sees that name (e.g., on a medical report) will actually know that it's the 'syphilis' part of the name that matters instead of the 'tonsiliitis' part, especially when it's obvious that it's your throat that hurts.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Readers with low literacy/health literacy are even less well served by this redirect. When someone searches for a specific complication of syphilis, we should not send them to a page that does not address it at all. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)14:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with retargeting. As someone who speaks Australian English, the first thing I think of when I hear "dictation test" is the immigration policy of Australia, since every child in this country learns about the dictation test of theWhite Australia Policy during third grade of primary school. Not everyone who uses Wikipedia uses American English or British English, and while you claim that it "doesn't seem like it would be what a user... would want to see",that is not what a typical Google search seems to corroborate, the top 50 results all relate to Australian immigration policy. Unless you can provide ample evidence that a "dictation test" is acommonly used synonym for a dictation exercise, I am in favour ofkeeping the redirect, or at the very least, converting it to a disambiguation page. --benlisquareT•C•E13:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Benlisquare: Thank you for the information. However, I have used four different search engines and only Google has a search result for the Australian immigration test, and Bing has a search suggestion for "dictation test australia".[6](Google),[7](DuckDuckGo),[8](Bing), and[9](Startpage). To ensure fairness, screenshots were taken by zooming out to the minimum zoom allowed, and taking a screenshot.
Thus, I conclude that our google searches aren't enough to determine this since they contradict each other.
So I searched Google Ngram ([10]), and the correlation between the two terms seem to be not insignificant, but not decisive either, looking purely at the recent usage. Any ideas on what else might help determine this, or whether there is a flaw in my reasoning?
Also, please note that while Australian English's use of "dictation test" to refer to what the redirect currently points to is significant, it's probably more important to focus on how the majority of English speakers use it, and your comment appears to overemphasise the Australian usage of the term. (I checked Google Trends ([11]) and it looks like Australia accounts for 1/3 of the global usage.) But that aside, thank you for the useful information.
Delete. Old, but it's basically always been a redirect — upon creation in 2009 it was a separate article, but it was redirected within half an hour because it was a content fork — and the unneeded punctuation at the end makes it quite unlikely. Combine that with its improper capitalisation ("college" in place of "College"), an unusual word ("Computering", maybe an error or maybe an odd choice of words by the school) and the shorter title of the target (few people will type the long form when the short form will do), and we have an implausible redirect: the only way you come here is if you make two errors when attempting to type a long name that apparently isn't in use anymore. Any of those factors, alone, is all right, but combining all of them makes this extremely unlikely and very un-useful.Nyttend (talk)03:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This template is derived from Template:Infobox military conflict, which has a longstanding consensus about limitations on the numbers of combatants/participants/commanders included that have not been followed on this iteration of the template and completely ignoreMOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox is *grossly* oversize and this will still be a problem even if it were to be substed into the article. I have no opinion one way or another about whether to keep this or refactor it back to the parent template (I'm not a fan of substing an infobox into an article directly, particularly in this case where the parent template is *not* single-use); but any such solution must address that issue. See further discussionhere.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!05:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the issue about this Infobox being grossly oversized and ignoring MOS, while I do not disagree with you, that is not my area of expertise and I would not really know where to start with what info to remove and what should stay. That sounds like a separate discussion to whether this single use infobox needs its own template.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)05:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand; I'm not suggesting any changes to{{Infobox military conflict}} either, just noting the history. But your rationale for deleting *this* template is that it's a one-off; while I agree that you're correct in that assessment, I disagree in your suggestion that if deleted it be substed into the article. See, e.g.World War I,World War II, etc. Most conflict infoboxes on major articles, particularly those of any significant length, are not subst'd, they're transcluded; they do not "live" on the same page as the article text. In the event that this template is deleted, it would be better to start from a clean slate in full compliance with the MOS; this will not harm the article because perMOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE the article must be complete even without the existence of the infobox. And I disagree that the extreme size and ignoring of the MOS are a separate discussion -- this is a formal deletion discussion and two of the explicitly valid reasons for deleting a template areThe template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance andThe template is redundant to a better-designed template. One could reasonably conclude either of those to be the case here.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!05:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A terminology mismatch I think. I agree with you that thatWar against the Islamic State should call{{Infobox military conflict}} directly... Not call a single use template that in turn calls{{Infobox military conflict}}. I do not agree that it should be substing that template instead of translcuding it. I'm not a template expert so take this with a grain of salt in case I explain some part of this wrong. When Page A (e.g.World War I) calls Template B (e.g.{{Infobox military conflict}}) using the twin curly braces, that is a transclusion, not a subst. It is calling a template that exists in a separate location, and transcluding it into this article. That template never actually lives on Page A. In contrast, a subst would require one to include {{subst:TemplateB}} somewhere on Page A. Instead of calling that template from TemplateB each time at runtime and displaying it within Page A, a subst is a one-time only operation that adds the content of TemplateB as text into Page A at the location it is located; i.e. instead of transcluding in the template, it substitutes it permanently into the article. See, e.g.User_talk:Stateside_Steve_Happy#Blocked for an example of a subst: of{{Checkuserblock-account}} (we commonly subst user warnings and talk page notices because of the sheer number of them across thousands of pages). Note how much unnecessary formatting and how much longer the subst'd version includes. Now for comparison, seeUser:Swatjester/sandbox/Templatesubst and look at the source. That's{{International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox}} when subst'd. All of that text would be on the article page itself *before* the lede of the article. That would make the article effectively unreadable for an source editor who has no idea what any of that means and just wants to add some content.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I was interpreting what you said in the nom, as taking that edit you just made, and putting subst: in front of it, which it sounds like wasn't what you meant. Based on what you just showed, I would supportdeleting{{International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox}}; but I'm not in favor of just replacing it with the same size and MOS problems on a different template. I would rather see it simply deleted outright and a new infobox (which would use{{Infobox military conflict}} just like your version does) can be rebuilt in a more slimmed down and MOS-compliant fashion.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see theCommunity portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see theDashboard.
