Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

30 September 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< September 29	October 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Pataki shruthi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Falls WP:GNG and unsourced. TyphoonAmpil ^{[citation needed]} 06:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rules lawyer

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simple failure of WP:NOTDICTIONARY as the article only consists of a definition. A potential WP:ATD is merge to Letter and spirit of the law, but that one is more in a legal context than a gaming one, and not exactly well-sourced or stable in itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. come on, this is the stuff we come to Wikipedia for. Suppose it could be merged somewhere; would support that if appropriate placement is identified. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT. While you may enjoy the article, personal preference doesn't factor into AfDs, only evidence that a full article can be created based on the idea of "rules lawyering". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m satisfied what’s there shows it can. Tell me where you would merge it. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Role-playing game terms seems like a better place to merge it than letter and spirit of the law given its predominant use in RPGs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it is now, although short, already has some content which would not fit into a dictionary. And a WP:BEFORE search shows that various sources dealing with table-top roleplaying games have more to say: On A Roll p. 45, The Civilized Guide to Tabletop Gaming p. 66 and The Postmodern Joy of Role-Playing Games all have about a page of content, including commentary. And the journal Analog Game Studies Vol. IV has a full essay on the topic. How can 6+ pages contain "only a definition"? So it seems to me the nomination is mostly talking about the current status of the article, which is not decisive when deciding about deletion. All that said, the first and primary paragraph could be merged in to Role-playing game terms, and later be spun out again as soon as someone uses the listed sources further. But aside from that fact that I see no advantage in that, it would already be akward to fit in the other contexts where same term may pop up, but more rarely so if the Google Books search is any indication. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analog Game Studies is a good source, the others seem like definitions or brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else. Usually one solid source is still not enough to merit a full page. Therefore I am still not "convinced", though I will admit there is a non zero amount of coverage about the concept of rules lawyering in RPGs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: The first two books (sorry, I had a wrong link there) each have a specific section dedicated to the topic, so brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else is not correct here. The third one does talk about the concept in a larger context, but has significant analysis way beyond a definition (what it means for the game, contrast to other concept,...). So is there material to expand the article beyond the length of a stub? Absolutely! Daranios (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Daranios. BOZ (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge that one paragraph into Role-playing game terms. The relevance of the "Related terms" seems very tenuous to me. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with merge, Related terms would appear to be NOTDICTIONARY. IgelRM (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge main article content into Role-playing game terms, alongside Rule as Intended and Rule as Written which discuss two sides of the same coin. A list is a better place for this, since a standalone article is borderline WP:NOTDICTIONARY.Jtwhetten (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is sufficient to meet WP:N and we have more than just a dictionary definition. I could see a broader article on this plus related things such as RAW and RAI (as mentioned above). Hobit (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between editors advocating Keep and those pushing a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus and would rather not close this as No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Ambani

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article failes WP:GNG, I did WP:BEFORE but couldn't find anything of note. This article was recreated a month or two after the last AfD. Recently it was made into a redirect and an IP editor reverted claiming that the last AfD was not a delete but a no consensus. This is not true, the last AfD was a delete, the current article does not meet pass notability. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the second AfD where it ended as a no consensus. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG the subject has received coverage particularly after he became the chairman of Reliance JIO India's largest telecom company and one of the most important corporate positions in India. It is the third largest mobile network operator in the world. Note the coverage listed below about the subject is due to the fact he is the Chairman of Reliance JIO not because of his being Mukesh Ambani's son and hence WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply here.Further How one becomes Chairman or President or director is not a concern as far notability is concerned Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources on page, fails WP:GNG. benǝʇᴉɯ 04:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. benǝʇᴉɯ 04:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Adams

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one reference on the page and it's a dead link to a bio of her from the government organization she works for. A quick search shows a decent amount of articles about and by a South African woman named Rachel Adams regarding AI (here, here, and here) but this seems to be a completely different woman who just happens to share a name and nationality. benǝʇᴉɯ 04:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep She doesn't "work for a government organization", she's an elected member of the National Assembly of South Africa, the parliament of South Africa. Easily meets WP:NPOL. Quite easy to find the correct link. AusLondonder (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ramli Mall

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Shopping mall in Bahrain fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Bahrain. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was not able to find anything of note about this building. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Society

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. No WP:SUSTAINED WP:INDEPTH WP:DIVERSE coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject Polygnotus (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Psychology. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Prometheus Society has been active for over 40 years. It has had hundreds of members, and its journal, Gift of Fire, has had over 200 issues printed. Every article I know of that discusses high IQ societies more selective than Mensa mentions it. There's no other high IQ society more selective than Mensa which is better known, with the possible exception of Mega. Promking (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Prometheus Society holds a prominent place in the history of high IQ societies. It accepts people who have an IQ at the 4 sigma level, with a minimum IQ of 164. As stated, this is the best known IQ society above the Mensa level. I've been a member for many years. 2604:2D80:A682:5800:E0EE:FD15:96AA:925A (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been brought to AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research Superfund Site

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to establish notability. None of the article's sources appear independent of the subject, and are thus not reliable enough to support a claim of notability. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any other sources with significant coverage which would help. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and California. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping for AfC reviewer Garsh2. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The following articles exist:[1] [2][3]. The first two constitute significant coverage. The third is a passing mention but worth noting nonetheless. Additionally, I would argue some the government sources in the article may be secondary, as well as number 5. Garsh (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garsh2: I saw the California Aggie article in my search but did not mention it here as that publication is a campus newspaper run by students at UC Davis; see their Instagram profile. The Sacramento Bee article looks good, but I'm highly skeptical of the reliability of ToxicSites (citation 5), and I'm not sure if the government sources are independent enough to count towards notability as the site seems to be managed by the US Department of Energy. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garsh2: One more ping since we're on the second relist now. Are you inclined to reconsider your !vote based on my source analysis? Are there any other sources that might support a notability claim? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indianola Records

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, which is the applicable SNG rather than WP:MUSIC, because it's a company. Graywalls (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). Graywalls (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 September 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!} 03:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatay, Konak

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged unsourced in 2009 and does not seem to be notable. Konak article exists so maybe this one not needed Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: See [4], [5] for instance, but even without these, it should be speedily kept based on WP:NTOWN. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is ‘’semt’’ still a legally recognized subdivision of “ilçe”?Chidgk1 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a "semt" can be informal, but Hatay in İzmir as a city center is well-recognized even if it does not have official boundaries. The Konak municipality has a center there, public transit stations, events, etc... Within the "semt", there are lots of officially recognized "mahalle"s, each of which can have their own articles, according to WP:NTOWN. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I can create an article about any “mahalle” I like without any sources at all? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Only two sources have been found so far, and as these are both the same publication, they count as one. A moot point as the second source is a passing mention. The first is a little better, suggesting the subject is a large district, but the discussion above suggests that the description is an informal one. Yet if we had multiple independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the locality, the legal status would be irrelevant. I would move to keep if more and better sourcing could be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TarnishedPath^talk 03:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some coverage from a local newspaper columnist: [6]. I am still convinced the article should be kept per WP:PRESERVE, and many more sources can be found (books, travel guides, print archives, etc...) TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gao Village

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BEFORE shows that this is barely mentioned in reliable sources which is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. There may be other elements of the novel that could be notable but this is a very minor element. Jontesta (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mysticons characters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable list without WP:SIGCOV. The only sources are database style notes about the cast. WP:ATD would be to redirect this to a section in Mysticons. Jontesta (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Monarch of the Glen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable list of characters that is completely unreferenced. WP:SIGCOV could not be found. Jontesta (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xandar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable concept that does not have WP:SIGCOV based on a WP:BEFORE search where this is barely mentioned. Jontesta (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nova Corps - Its only notability is being the home world of the Nova Corp, and all of the essential information on the planet is already covered at that article. Per WP:NOPAGE the two topics should very obviously be covered under the same topic rather than being split out into two redundant articles. Rorshacma (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oa (comics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable concept that's improperly sourced, without meeting definition of WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Zone

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable concept largely unsourced, or sourced to unreliable / non-independent sources. Jontesta (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Livingston

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unsourced article that appears to have been created and largely edited by a WP:SPA. It seems to be simultaneously trying to cover the fictional character, the series of books they appear in, and the author, and all three of those things appear to fail the WP:GNG. Searches for the character and the books turned up no coverage or reviews that I could find in reliable sources, and searches for the author only turned up a few brief mentions as an "acknowledgement" in a couple other books. Rorshacma (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Rorshacma (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find the author's About page on Amazon. dunno if this counts as a reliable source though. [7]https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B002BLWHAM/about Bluepotato81 (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina women's national under-18 softball team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG or WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Argentina. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Part of a bundled nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team) so it can not be Soft Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Road, Adelaide

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Most of the references are simply maps like https://location.sa.gov.au/ . LibStar (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article about a major arterial road in western Adelaide. It is also part of a set of Adelaide roads. The article has existed for over six years with no concern. Scott Davis ^Talk

"The article has existed for over six years with no concern" is not an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Bduke (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 sources were added since nomination, however I don't see evidence of third party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as per norm Tesleemah (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough sources exist to meet GEOROAD. ([8][9][10]) GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will assume 1 and 3 are indepth as they are behind a paywall. Source 2 above is a 1 line mention of Grange Road. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI — the articles are accessible via an Apple News subscription. 1 mentions Grange Rd quite a bit throughout the article and is even in the headline. There a four mentions of Grange Rd in 3. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything which could be described as significant coverage on the page and I'm not finding much else which could be considered. JMWt (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the references are simply maps like https://location.sa.gov.au/ ....and this particular reference holds multiple overlays containing relevant information to verify this road's location and councils responsible for it, amongst many other features: these sources are both reliable and from the state's own government department. Certainly there is more room for improvement and for a better variety of sources, but I don't believe it's a reason for deletion. Enough attention might encourage more contributions to invoke WP:HEY if it's not already there Lordstorm (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a clear consensus here to Keep but I'm unsure if the existing sources can justify this closure. Can editors who want this article Kept do a little digging for some reliable secondary sources? If this road is that important, they should be out there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of political movements named after dates

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, does not meet WP:SALAT as it is too trivial Bluepotato81 (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]