Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

16 November 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

< November 15	November 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Luca Allam

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

declined and rejected at draft zero independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Journalism. Theroadislong (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Gana Parishad

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, political party that had representation in the national parliament of India. Not impossible to source, and as per the number of references it is worth noting that there isn't a lot of 1999 material from Indian press online but WP:NEXIST more sources will exist offline in Indian national news media. --Soman (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of WP:NEXIST is "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface". This article has been tagged as having no sources since December 2009. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading NEXIST. Here is a party in national parliament, so it is reasonable to assume that there would exist offline sources available in addition to the available online sources. And lack of sourcing is not a deletion criteria in itself (apart from BLP articles). --Soman (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Davies (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to have significant success in the sport. Less than 130 Google Search results. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:45, 13 November 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!} 08:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Cosnett

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having won the British Open and being the first player to have been paid by the UK government to play darts, Cosnett has coverage of its time - Sunday Mercury, Black Country Evening Mail for same, Herald Express for same - for this matter, there's a heap of other regional papers who cover him for being the only player at the time paid by the government for his sporting career. Further coverage of him "rounding off his year in style" in the Black Country Evening Mail by winning the British Open, the national darting competition at the time. There's also the Black Country Evening Mail covering him switching careers to enter the pub business (which isn't quite about his sporting achievements, but it'd be weird for a regional newspaper to cover some non-notable bloke applying for a pub license...). I don't have access to the BNA but there's also a story in the Wolverhampton Express and Star entitled "Darts star John off to seek fame", and in the same publication for him not paying his taxes - again, not really about his achievements, but it's hard to think some random unnotable would get the same coverage, let alone labelled a "darts ace". I'm seeing well enough coverage from his heyday to merit keeping the article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milan the Leather Boy

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

The article has 13 references, but the issue with them is that many of them aren't reliable sources and/or don't provide significant coverage. I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions, like less than 30 words about a Milan release in an issue of Cash Box ([1], page 26, bottom right corner). toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 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 New York. toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksu Dam

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

I cannot find enough recent sources to show it notable. There are other rivers with the same name. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Engineering, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of senior members of the Privy Council (United Kingdom)

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

Unlike the Father of the House, there is no such designation as a senior privy counsellor, or a senior member of the Privy Council, as denied by the Lord President in 2009. This article appears to be a list of longest serving privy counsellors, so I would not say the content is utterly original research (it can be verified with a list of all privy counsellors), but there is still no good reason to create such a list. The article is linked from succession boxes of articles contained in the list, of which I would say we should remove those as well. ネイ (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dynasty

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

I don't see how WP:NCORP is met given the sources in the article, and I wasn't able to find sources that would be enough to establish notability either. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Patnaik

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

Being appointed as the Chief Electoral Officer of an Indian state's Election Commission, whose role is to oversee local elections, does not make her inherently notable. I tried to search for SIGCOV but found only reports about the appointment, and even these don't provide in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet GNG. GrabUp - Talk 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tamil Nadu. GrabUp - Talk 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Comment: ~~The subject meets the criteria for WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN~~ however, the subjects appointment as Chief Electoral Officer was only made today (November 9). Reliable sources may still be in the process of being published, given the significance of this position in government, although some have already been made available. Additionally, the subject is not new to politics, being an established figure in Indian national politics. That said, the article may be considered WP:TOOSOON as well and could be moved to draft status for further development.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the keep vote with a comment now.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mims Mentor: Could you elaborate on how the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN and NBIO? GrabUp - Talk 15:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the subject being an Indian Administrative Service officer newly appointed as Chief Electoral Officer for the Government of Tamil Nadu, falls under the category of WP:NSUBPOL whose members can be accorded presumed notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor: Indian Administrative Service officers are not politicians. WP:NPOL is just for judges and elected politicians. You misunderstood NPOL. Read what is listed in WP:NSUBPOL regarding India: It says, “Members of the Legislative Assemblies and Councils of the States and Union Territories are presumed notable. Members of the Autonomous District Councils may or may not have presumed notability.” There is no way an appointed Chief Electoral Officer is included under NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 15:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you. While I'm not opposed to deletion (as mentioned, drafting the article could still be relevant), there might still be potential for significant coverage, as the subject was only recently appointed to the role. This could soon meet the general notability guidelines. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then this article can be recreated. I am also not opposed to draftification, if consensus decides it. GrabUp - Talk 16:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there additional support for Draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Richardson

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source may count but would need mulitple sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 9 November 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!} 08:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balkees Jarrah

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

BLP of a human rights lawyer sourced mainly to statements she has made, comments she has offered and interviews she has recorded. Lacks independent in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Syria. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I respectfully disagree. This individual has received significant independent coverage, in my view. Firecat93 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these is literally zero coverage in reliable sources about her. Comments from the peanut gallery and advocacy outside of a courtroom are not significant coverage of a BLP. Passing mentions aren’t either. Bearian (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tararam

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

Mostly unreferenced topic, with unclear notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hebrew Wikipedia article has 27 references. Left guide (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not "mostly unreferenced," , furthermore, it should be noted that notability is not related to the current state of the article. As Left Guide noted, the Hebrew article has plenty of sources. The topic meets the threshold of notability. Whizkin (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Multiple issues tagged for years with no significant improvement. Was already deleted before by WP:PROD. Yet article came back without sufficient justification. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Egypt. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 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!} 04:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments so far? Initially the article may look like it has significant content. However firstly a lot of it reads like promotional press release content from the company itself and secondly much is unsourced and even the references themselves do not meet the requirements.- Imcdc Contact 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Africa. Imcdc Contact 02:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Club of Budapest

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

No proof of notability per WP:ORG PtQa (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Philosophy, Organizations, Politics, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Watson

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

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 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 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Arts, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name.
Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books").
(I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.)
Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[2]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Monster of Monsters

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

Fails WP:NGAME and likely falls under WP:FANCRUFT. Summary-only description of the game, with only one reference, which is about the creepypasta, not the game itself. The rest of the article is completely unsourced and provides no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Coverage on Google Books and Google Scholar is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, most of which are about the creepypasta, which I would argue is more notable, though it probably still doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nothing at all on JSTOR. Should redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Similar issues to MoM, this time with no references at all, also fails NGAME, with nothing at all on Google Books, Google Scholar, or JSTOR. Proposing same redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Godzilla: Monster of Monsters - sizable reviews in fr:Player One (magazine): [3], Mean Machines: [4] (pages 84-86), Electronic Gaming Monthly: [5]. Enough for WP:GNG. Also smaller reviews in pt:VideoGame: [6], Nintendo Power: [7]. Redirect Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters to Godzilla: Monster of Monsters#Sequel - didn't find any reviews or significant coverage for this game. --Mika1h (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one review for Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters. [8],[9] Timur9008 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Mika1h. It's weak, but there's enough for this game to pass the notability bar. Godzilla 2 should likely be Merged with Monster of Monsters given their overlap, with any Reception for War of the Monsters covered there. If anything more for the sequel comes up, ping me and I'll change my vote, but for now I feel that Mika1h's assessment is entirely accurate to how I feel on the matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bagmati Province Cricket Association

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reason,

Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpot.com

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

I can see a substantial number of articles covering their expansions and deals, but these articles lack in-depth coverage of the subject. They appear promotional or sponsored, with the coverage being trivial and not significant enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 06:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, Websites, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally added the notability tag as it was clear to me this was little more than a promo article. The source support that view. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Leaders

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

This is clearly an advertorial-style TV show that lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources under WP:NTV and WP:GNG. In terms of existing sources, the Herald Sun reference is actually to a suburban local paper owned by the same company, not to the Melbourne Herald Sun itself. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B & H Tool Works

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

I came across this in WP:NOV24. I'm not seeing coverage that would indicate a WP:NCORP pass. This is really just an interview with an employee. This piece is much better coverage-wise, but I'm hesitant to use an editorial without a byline to support a NCORP pass. This is partially a discussion with the owner and partially a statement that it received a grant.

I just don't think the above is enough to indicate a WP:NCORP pass. Hog Farm _Talk 02:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kentucky. Hog Farm _Talk 02:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Downes

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

Would not qualify for NPOL. If qualified for NACADEMICS, would need some sources to support that, which I'm not seeing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Philosophy, Computing, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) broadcasters

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not finding coverage of the broadcasters of this league as a grouping from secondary sources to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Football. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments at last AFD (which I started!). Giant Snowman 08:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Carter albums

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

I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources that discuss Lil Wayne's Tha Carter albums as a series or a set. A ranking by Vibe and XXL Mag is pretty much it. The albums have been released in a period over two decades, with not thematic coherence. This seems WP:SYNTHy and unnecessary. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [10][11][12]... Fram (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian again is a ranking, best to worst. The Billboard piece is a listicle of "Black Music Milestones", is three paragraphs long and mentions charting positions and sales. Doesn't discuss the albums as a series. UDiscoverMusic isn't listed at WP:MUSICRS and mostly talks about the first Tha Carter, not about the series as a whole. Where do reliable sources discuss the Tha Carter albums as a series, beyond the fact they got the same title? What makes Tha Carter Lil Wayne's Berlin Trilogy? As a series, what is its meaning, its cultural impact, its legacy? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards redirecting and/or draftifying. It's probably a viable search term. Not sure we need a ~~third~~ fourth location beyond the artist, individual album, and artist discography articles to discuss it. If there is a need, this article certainly doesn't demonstrate. It's basically just a (incomplete) list of release dates and singles. Put it back in the oven and let it cook. These albums have been out for years. There's no reason someone needed to sloppily rush this out yesterday. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A completely unnecessary synthesis of four different albums that all have their own articles and are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common. An article that ranks them against each other is pretty much a trivia exercise for reader enjoyment; see this example of how writers can compare anything to anything without the items being a distinct collective entity. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very dismissive. The artist treats them as a set, e.g. releasing specifically the singles from the albums as if they belong together[13]. Here is another article from a RS purely about the series[14]. Fram (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would releasing the singles together mean Lil Wayne treats them as a such "as if they belong together"? Could you elaborate? And while that would be interesting, an artist's own views on their work are secondary to how reliable sources consider it. The Vulture piece is more in depth though, but I'm not convinced as of yet. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That first part was just a reply to the weird claim that they "are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common." The artist considers them as a series, as evidenced by the titles (duh) but also by specifically releasing the singles from these albums together, as if they belong together somehow. While I have no issue with the discussion about whether they are notable as a series and whether they should have a separate article or not, I was rather amazed about the claim that they aren't even a series. But the singles set is not an argument for or against deletion, the Vulture article (which you commented upon, thanks) is an argument against deletion and pro notability. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you want on whether or not it's a "series" but that's the wrong argument. That ignores the much more precise Wikipedia policy cited by the nominator and myself: WP:SYNTH. As currently written, the article has nothing on what makes the albums a distinct collective entity, and merely lists release dates and singles and producers and guests stars. All info is repeated from the respective individual album articles. Any media article comparing/ranking them as a group is trivia as said above. Many of the article's existing sources are unreliable fansites and blogs, and the few reliable sources are about individual albums or songs. Recurring lyrical themes are valid but can be explained at Lil Wayne's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about the sources in the article or the state of the article, that's not what AfD is about in general, unless it is so egregious that WP:TNT (or in less severe cases draftification) are the best solution. There are plenty of reliable sources treating these albums as a series (and yes, even ranking them means that people consider them a series, something related and comparable and at the same time distinct from the things not listed), and the Vulture article goes way indepth about them, treating them as a separate, important, aspect of his total oeuvre worth discussing as a group: "his Carter records occupy a specific place in his staggering discography [...] But what can looking back at the previous four installments tell us about Wayne as an artist? About how he’s evolved, and what his entire career means?" (that article calls them a "series" and "a project" as well). Fram (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my comment above is rooted in multiple aspects of WP:MERGEREASON, conceptually. There just probably wouldn't much actual merging because I imagine much of this was aped from already existing articles in better shape. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After searching for almost an hour, I thought there's no such thing as a "album series" on Wikipedia, but then I stumbled across this category and I found this album series. With reliable sources, we can actually establish this as a valid album series. Vulture's writers had a lot to say about Tha Carter album series; its meaning, ranking and so on. Many reliable publications ranked albums from the series, publications like XXL, The Guardian, and Vibe just to mention a few. One thing we neglect to acknowledge is that those rankings are detailed, they dive into the works and the makings of the album series, they are not just "1–5" lists. dxneo (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chato, Peru

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

The one source linked is invalid and I am unable to find any source at all proving this place is real. Might be a hoax article. Jolielover (talk) 15:33, 8 November 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 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt this article was made by a hoax, as it is made by a long-time editor who is still active today. Those types of editors rarely make hoaxes. Thoughts, @Bejnar? -1ctinus📝🗨 19:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there some way of involving Spanish-language editors on ADFs involving Spanish-language topics in articles? Searching for small towns / villages has is often difficult for towns in English-speaking countries and using English language sources. In this case, the search is further complicated by the need to search Spanish-language sources and using names rendered into English. Paul H. (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is now https://geonames.nga.mil/geon-ags/rest/services/RESEARCH/GIS_OUTPUT/MapServer/0/query?outFields=*&where=ufi+%3D+-341758 - it says it's the same as es:Chato Chico; there is also es:Chato Grande in the same area so whether "Chato" can only refer to Chato Chico or to both, or is a combination or both places or just an ambiguous name is unclear. The article should probably be moved to Chato Chico. Peter James (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, I agree that moving the article and name to Chato Chico is appropriate. A report on disaster preparedness said in its introduction, [translated] "The Cura Mori District was created by Law No. 15434 of February 19, 1965, initially consisting of the towns of Cucungará as capital, Pozo de los Ramos, Chato Grande, Chato Chico, Pueblo Nuevo, Buenos Aires, Santa Rosa, Fundo Casaraná, Vega Monteverde, La Para and the town of Chato." Plan de Prevención y Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres 2020-2022 (PDF). July 2020.. Law No. 15434 sets out the borders, and says in part, [translated] "follow this boundary line to the summit of Loma Blanca and continue until you find the Tabanco road, extending to the Piura River bed, following its course, upstream, it reaches the point of the royal road that borders the town of Chato, continuing to the outer part of the urban area;".

I am not sure why the NGA cross-identified Chato with Chato Chico, but sources now talk about Nuevo Chato Chico in reports like Municipalidad Distrital de Cura Mori. Plan de Prevención y Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres 2019-2021 (PDF)..

As an aside, the hamlet (case or caserio) of Chato Grande is now quite separate as it was incorporated in 2013 into a new municipality called "Almirante Grau" along with the population centers of the hamlets of Nuevo Paraíso, Ciudad Noé and Nuevo San Pedro. This nugget of information is found in the first report cited above.

It is possible that the town of Chato (pueblo de Chato) of 1965 is the Nuevo Chato Chico of the 2020s. I found nothing explicit saying so. But the town clearly exists both visually and in documentation. --Bejnar (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam

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

Despite its creation by a blocked sockpuppet, specifically User:Bhusungk, this political party was founded this year and has not yet participated in any elections. The article currently fails to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG. As a newly established regional political organization, it has not made notable contributions to regional or national political landscapes. Most sources are centered on initial news coverage reporting the party’s formation by a well-known actor, lacking substantial analysis or depth regarding the party’s policies, actions, or influence. There is no indication that the party has engaged in any significant political activities or initiatives that would establish its importance. Additionally, no reliable sources provide evidence of public or political recognition or electoral impact that would qualify it as a noteworthy political entity.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Tamil Nadu. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many sockpuppets of the original creator edited the article? And if I read the article correctly, a predecessor did contest elections. but yes, I have a promo-concern. The Banner talk 14:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: I don’t have specific information regarding sockpuppets. The predecessor, however, was primarily a fan club rather than a political party. If the fan club meets notability standards, it might warrant a separate article. The current political entity does not appear notable at this time, which I interpret as aligning with WP:TOOSOON.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Owais Al Qarni, what kind of sources do you think would help Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam pass WP:GNG? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), recently founded by actor Vijay, has demonstrated significant grassroots support by mobilizing thousands of youth across Tamil Nadu, positioning itself as a notable new political force focused on addressing regional issues and youth empowerment. Abdullah099$55 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have no use for promo. What Wikipedia needs is relevant info, based on reliable, independent, quality sources. Per WP:RS. The Banner talk 20:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. There is ample evidence of Vijay founding the party. Abdullah099$55 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because the party has not participated in any elections, doesn't make it less notable, the party was created 9 months ago from a 15 years old philanthropic fan club, which did participate in an local election, especially since the recent massive political conference, TVK has already been established to be notable party in Tamil Nadu politics, as it was created by a very popular actor in India, also already got millions of memberships, the mainstream media has been covering everything, the article is supported with lots of reliable sources with significant coverage meeting the criterias of WP:GNG, and they have become more active in the past months with announcements of policies and resolutions and will probably be actively engaging in more political activities and campaign for the 2026 election. Yarohj (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's true

I agree to the point 188.236.122.29 (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yarohj: While TVK has gained attention due to its high-profile celebrity leader, actor Vijay, and its recent political conference, the article may still fall short of meeting WP:GNG. Most coverage thus far has focused on the party's formation and media events, rather than deep, independent analysis of its policies or political influence. While membership numbers and media attention are notable, the political impact of TVK will only become clearer once it participates in elections. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is enough and more evidence to prove that this is a political party with a massive public base

But I disagree the need to be deleted as it is a party created by a well known personality in India and has a high chance of winning the next legislative assembly elections by a high margin and a chance of forming a state government 188.236.122.29 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions of its electoral success are speculative, the party’s actual impact will only be clear once it participates in elections. Previous attempts by other celebrities to enter politics in Tamil Nadu, like Kamal Haasan and Rajinikanth, did not lead to significant political success. While the party's future potential is acknowledged, it does not yet meet the criteria for notability based on current available information. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now): I am not casting a strong delete vote, but I do support drafting the article, as it falls under WP:TOOSOON. Given its growing popularity and potential significance within the Indian political landscape, I believe there is a strong likelihood that the article will meet the GNG in the near future. Let me list out my point of view on the article.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The party has not yet participated in any elections. This means that its impact on the political landscape is still to be fully realized. The article mainly cites initial news reports about the party’s formation and its ideological stance, with most coverage focusing on the widely acclaimed and highly honoured actor's background as a celebrity and the announcement of his intentions for political reform. While the article includes substantial media coverage, most of the references appear to be centred around the announcement and some early speeches, rather than detailed analysis or critical coverage of the party's policies or activities.
WP:GNG requires significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, including substantial analysis or reporting. At this stage, the coverage of article is mainly superficial, reflecting media interest but lacking deep journalistic inquiry into its policies or broader political influence. For that reason, the article fall short in meeting the WP:GNG.
Finally, while the party’s registration with the Election Commission is underway, its full impact on Tamil Nadu's political scene will not be apparent until it participates in the upcoming elections (like the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections). Until then, it remains an emerging entity without substantial political achievements.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about "participating in any elections, impact on the political landscape, detailed analysis or critical coverage of the party's policies or activities, party’s registration with the Election Commission, full impact on Tamil Nadu's political scene and substantial political achievements" are not policy based or required criteria under GNG. GNG sources are not evaluated based on personal preferences. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising that you consider the points I raised as "personal preferences" rather than recognizing them as general principles that apply to all establishments seeking to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The points I discussed are entirely focused on aligning with the guidelines outlined in GNG, and are not based on subjective preferences. They are intended to reflect the standard requirements for notability, which are consistent across all articles under said category. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure they are consistent across all articles under said category? From a glance, I can see that many parties listed in Category:Political parties established in 2023 and Category:Political parties established in 2024 have only announced their participation or have only recently created their parties. It still looks more like a personal preference than a general principle. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stand by my comments. Are you confident that all the articles in the categories you mentioned fully comply with the guidelines? Have you reviewed any of them? or were discussions held to retain the articles and considered eligible for inclusion? and I notice that very few of these articles actually have reliable sources to support their notability. I encourage you to present counterarguments specifically addressing GNG, rather than listing other articles that may or may not have passed the notability guidelines. About the party in question, it is important to assess whether it truly meets the criteria for inclusion based on its current status and available coverage. Let's focus on the application of the guidelines, rather than on other cases that may not be directly relevant. And If you believe the article meets the GNG criteria, please provide a detailed explanation of how it qualifies. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If other cases are not relevant here, why did you reply above with "Previous attempts by other celebrities to enter politics in Tamil Nadu, like Kamal Haasan and Rajinikanth, did not lead to significant political success."? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some users argue that this article should remain because it was founded by a well-known actor in India and claim the party has a strong chance of winning the next legislative assembly elections and potentially forming a state government, on the basis of only "popularity". However, this is purely speculative and falls under WP:FUTURE and that is why I referenced the political involvement of two similarly popular actors, to highlight that fame alone does not guarantee political success or notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 20:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, This party received extensive media coverage because a well-known actor founded it. However, a thorough analysis is needed to determine if it meets WP:GNG. Notably, this party is not even a registered entity, as MimsMENTOR explains well.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 19:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC) (you can't vote twice and your deletion nomination is your vote to Delete Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Owais Al Qarni, you do realize that you are the nominator, right? Please strike your vote. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not seem to have sufficient content that would justify a separate article, the text about the ideology of the party can be merged into the actor's article. I think it violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDB since most of the arguments in favour of keeping the article can be seen as a indiscrimnate collection of information/news regarding the announcements and proceedings of the party. Xoocit (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject passes WP:GNG as it has substantial, reliable and independent coverage that highlights Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam’s formation, leadership and significant public interest. There is also indepth reporting from its formation to the present, beyond routine announcements. There is no specific requirement for a political party to participate in an election to be notable under Wikipedia standards and currently, there are around 12 reliable, independent sources providing indepth coverage across various points in time, not limited to a single event, which is more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG and the WP:SIRS check. WP:NOTNEWS / WP:NOTDB do not apply here, as the sources provide substantial analysis and detailed coverage of the subject, and the impact on culture/society is evident, with almost all sources being full length articles discussing and analyzing TVK. Moreover, we have around 35 English language sources and several native language sources that have not yet been added to the article. Given that the subject has a median of ~5,000 page views, which I believe likely places it higher than 90% of Wikipedia articles, deletion does not seem appropriate at this time. While deletion might have been plausible if the subject was discussed in February 2024, it is no longer relevant now. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus so far. Is a merge to Vijay (actor) a reasonable way to address the WP:TOOSOON concerns?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yagyavalkya Institute of Technology

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

Hardly to meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Rajasthan. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. Most home video lines have already been deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination), etc.) --wooden superman 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; as for notability, the release of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay has historical value and a chronological list of those films helps document what has been recognized as a valuable contribution to the history and preservation of film: the page documents that in a clear way. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the label itself is notable, the list of films that they licensed for release is not. This is just a catalogue, and largely unreferenceable. It's not like they had any hand in the production of any of these films. Catalogues of way more notable reissue labels have already been deleted, see the linked discussion above and many more similar ones. This is just WP:FANCRUFT. --wooden superman 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but my point is precisely that the list itself has value. I could add references to every item and remove those ”unsourceable” if indeed there are any. Later maybe. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cyberpower7 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Note: Struck comment from blocked user. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; @Cyberpower7 you might want to elaborate if you wish that your !vote receives attention, though. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how encyclopedic is the listing of their 2003 DVD re-issue of The Railway Children for example? Sure, examples of their really notable releases can be and are approriately included at Anchor Bay Entertainment, but including their entire WP:CATALOG here is WP:LISTCRUFT. --wooden superman 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note the following other examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 88 Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Video USA Releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Film Institute releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. No reason to make an exception to WP:NOTCATALOG here. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete useless listcruft. This is not original releases, hence no lasting value. --Altenmann >talk 19:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This distributor simply does not produce any original content themselves. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must insist here: The history and timeline of the releases of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay is encyclopaedic and no "fancruft", whatever that word is supposed to mean. The fact that the films were obviously not original Anchor Bay productions is totally irrelevant! The timeline and scope are of historic value....https://deadline.com/2024/02/anchor-bay-entertainment-relaunched-1235827165/

new iteration of Anchor Bay Entertainment with the goal to curate a new library of films for distribution, projects that range from new release genre films, undiscovered treasures, cult classics, and remastered catalog releases.

(Bloody disgusting!: https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3800174/anchor-bay-entertainment-label-resurrects-with-new-horror/)

See list of articles in Variety; https://variety.com/t/anchor-bay-entertainment/

the company’s trademark to reboot it and release genre films and cult favorites, after Anchor Bay was included in Starz’s 2016 sale to Lionsgate.

(Variety; https://variety.com/2024/film/news/anchor-bay-entertainment-cursed-in-baja-1236078418/

The only thing that could be discussed imv is whether this can be merged back into the article, and I don't think that, sizewise, it should.

Also see GBooks where individual or grouped releases by AC as a project are covered; and open, New Blood: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Horror. (2021) University of Wales Press, p. 115.

Just having a brief look, seeing it's a list and dismiss it as "Listcruft" is certainly not enough. Yes, there's work to be done. But that's not a reason for deletion.Mushy Yank (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources seem to indicate the topic of the list was covered as a set, meeting Wikipedia:NLIST, by the way. Mushy Yank (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I must insist that this is textbook WP:NOTCATALOG. As I mention above, giving examples of individual notable releases in the main article is encyclopedic. Listing every release WP:INDISCRIMINATEly is not, as you can see from the large number of precedents in the other discussions I have mentioned. --wooden superman 12:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

giving examples of individual notable releases is not what I did (your question above, on the other hand, was about one particular film's release...). The large number of AfDs you listed may or may not be comparable with the present one; but that does not change the fact that my point is that this list is encyclopaedic in my view as offering a timeline of the history of the release of rediscovered film and the sources mentioned by me are meant to prove just that (the quotes are about the topic of the list as a set not about the individual entries and just read the page 115 of New Blood and other GBooks hits, please, thank you). I'm leaving it that that because I have the feeling that I am repeating myself here. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a more substantial rationale for why this doesn't meet WP:NLIST? I see we have a lot of precedent here, but that's mostly just people saying "WP:NOTCATALOG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Underground

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

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[15][16] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --wooden superman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is notable enough (though the article could use some sources that help establish this fact, like the ones my colleague above found).TH1980 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to meet NCORP, but could do a redirect to William Lustig as a compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Lustig as a viable ATD per nom. and KH-1. Fails WP:NCORP. WP:NOPAGE applies. Sal2100 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woolf College, Kent

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this college of the University of Kent, and added an independent reference confirming its establishment in 2008. I cannot see significant coverage in independent sources, however - the reference I have added has only one sentence of coverage - , and do not think it is notable independently of University of Kent. I originally tagged it with notability issues in 2022, and redirected it to University of Kent yesterday, but this has been reverted by another editor. Tacyarg (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Woolf College meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for educational institutions and should be kept as a separate article. A precedent for keeping articles on colleges of the University of Kent was set in the Turing College AfD discussion (2018), where the result was to keep the article. The discussion highlighted that Kent is a semi-collegiate university, and each of its colleges plays a unique role in student life, not merely as halls of residence, but with distinct functions such as administrative offices and college masters.

Specifically, the Turing College AfD concluded that, like other Kent colleges (such as Eliot, Rutherford, Keynes, and Darwin), Turing College warranted a separate article due to its role within the university and the broader context of collegiate universities in the UK, such as Lancaster and York, which also have articles for their individual colleges. The same reasoning should apply to Woolf College, as it too is a functioning residential and academic unit within the University of Kent.

Historical Precedent: Just as Turing College was retained as a standalone article despite concerns about notability, Woolf College should be given the same consideration. The semi-collegiate structure of the University of Kent supports the argument that each college has independent significance and contributes uniquely to the university.

Consistency with Other Colleges: There is a clear pattern of keeping separate articles for colleges at Kent, and merging them into a single article would risk losing the distinct identity and contributions of each college. The precedent established in the Turing College AfD discussion supports this approach.

Given these points and the Turing College precedent, I believe Woolf College should be kept as a separate article, consistent with the treatment of other Kent colleges. GreenALC (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I would like to expand on my initial points regarding Woolf College’s notability. While the college's primary role is to provide accommodation, it also hosts a variety of academic events, including international conferences and lectures focused on subjects related to Virginia Woolf and broader literary themes. These events contribute to the college’s unique identity within the University of Kent and enhance its cultural and academic significance.

As an example, in 2018, Woolf College hosted the 28th Annual International Conference on Virginia Woolf, which brought together scholars from around the world. More recently, in 2024, the college hosted a lecture by Professor Rachel Bowlby on the theme of Virginia Woolf and the Property Market, demonstrating its continuing academic engagement with the legacy of Woolf and her relevance in contemporary discourse.

This active role in hosting significant academic events contributes to the college’s function as an academic and cultural hub within the university, much like Turing College, Eliot College, and Darwin College, which have retained individual articles due to their distinct history, facilities, and contributions to the university’s structure. Woolf College, in the same vein, fulfills a comparable function and warrants the same consideration for a separate article.

I hope this additional information helps clarify why Woolf College meets the standards for notability and why it should be retained as a standalone article. GreenALC (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm terribly sorry about this, because I'd rather this were kept but it doesn't pass WP:GNG on the current sourcing and there's simply nothing out there to get it past WP:GNG - which is the standard we are asked to evaluate even degree-awarding institutions against. Presumed notability is less compelling an argument for a relatively new institution. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does it or doesn't it meet GNG? Can we get a source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far from GNG. Source 1 is a passing mention

. 2, 8 (Kentish Gazette) I can't access (why are they linked through LexisNexis??). 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18 are by Kent

. 4 is by a partner, not independent

. 7 doesn't mention the subject

. 12 is an announcement for a seminar held there; trivial, primary, and non-independent

. 13 is a book edited and written by lecturers at Kent; not independent

. 14 is an announcement for a conference held at Woolf College; trivial, primary, non-independent

. 15 is a trivial listing for the same conference

. 16 yet another trivial, non-independent mention as the venue for the conference

.

Even if the Kentish Gazette pieces are both IRS SIGCOV, that's still only one GNG source when multiple are required. JoelleJay (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Colombia–Nicaragua relations

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

Unnecessary split of Colombia–Nicaragua relations. In fact, I'm not familiar with any other timeline article on foreign relations. This page covers some incidents not mentioned on the parent article, yes, but there's no reason it couldn't be covered there instead — the parent article is not very long and would absolutely benefit from more context. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NLIST. We'd literally be deleting every timeline on wikipedia if we accepted the nominator's rationale as valid. Timelines are a valid secondary form of presenting content. Per NLIST they are not considered a duplicate or a content fork of an identical topic covered within a prose article. Given that the prose version of the article has lots of WP:SIGCOV sourcing; it would be an easy matter of using those sources to improve the sourcing on the timeline page.4meter4 (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, History, Lists, Colombia, and Nicaragua. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge to Colombia–Nicaragua relations. If you want to propose a merge so the parent article covers this, you can generally follow the instructions at WP:MERGE rather than nominating it for deletion. That includes just boldly doing it yourself – I doubt anyone would object when no one's really touched it since it was created in 2007. I agree that the main article should have this context, rather than having this unnecessary split. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourcing, except for the last sentence in the last entry. There is no verification of any of this list, save that final citation. — Maile (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iida Yoshitake

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

Article has remained unsourced for 18 years. No indication that sources exist or that this person is notable per guidelines. Original creator of this article was banned and confirmed to be a sock pocket. Wozal (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Japan. Wozal (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you search in google books under his Japanese name ("飯田義武") there are lots of scholarly Japanese language military history publications with hits. In just reading the text with the "Found Inside" snippet views, I think it is likely there is WP:SIGCOV of this person in those sources. Unfortunately, they are all snippet view books/journal articles. If an editor with access to Japanese language academic publications were to participate, I think it likely this would be a rescuable article.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the ja.wiki article is much more substantial and has three offline references. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1 (NYSPHSAA)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Wikipedia is not a directory. These are also largely redundant with lists such as List of high schools in New York (state) or categories like Category:High schools in Albany County, New York etc. I'd support moving this information to a category structure (High schools in NYSPHSAA class A, high schools in NYSPHSAA section whatever, etc.) but I don't think any individual section is notable enough to justify getting its own Wikipedia page. Apocheir (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sports. Apocheir (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to New York State Public High School Athletic Association per WP:ATD. The content is useful and that article is short. It could contain the content; particularly if we were to restructure the information so it doesn't take up so much space. It's also not outside of the scope of that topic.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]