Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

11 November 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< November 10 November 12 >

Purge server cache

Stephen Budd

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

There are dozens of sources but very few that are secondary and independent or any kind of significant coverage. Most of it is primary stuff and brief mentions. I believe the only case for notability could be his role as a cofounder of the Africa Express project, but that seems too weak to me. Ynsfial (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely minor left-wing group, no notability established. Attempts to find RS come up blank, article is nearly 100% WP:SELFPUB violation. No likelihood for improvement.

Was discussed at an AFD around 13 years ago and adjourned as Keep, vague reason seems to be "sources exist" but given there's been no improvement in 13 years I don't think that defence really stands, nor can be established at this time. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.
    If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.
    As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – There appears to be some significant coverage of the group in independent sources; I support keeping the article and expanding on said coverage, specifically in regard to the South Africa case. Yue🌙 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been claims of significant coverage but it has never been evidenced. Goldsztajn above links WP:NEXIST and the section quoted below I think should really be noted here:
    "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."
    I think 13 years has been far more than enough time for the previously alleged significant sources to have been appropriately cited but this hasn't happened, which suggests a lack of suitability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's Coal Fired Pizza

[edit]
Sam's Coal Fired Pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent WP:UPE article created by block-evading sockpuppet and moved into mainspace by another block-evading sockpuppet. Additionally, the article's subject appears to fail WP:AUD inasmuch as the sources are all quite local. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoli Isshiki

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in any of the sources. Two of the three cited sources don't even mention the subject, and the one source that does simply lists her as one of several singers in a chamber choir (she is one of four singers in the soprano section). 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
    1. [1] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
    2. [2] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
    3. [3] recital
    4. [4] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting policy language here isn't about educating you Gerda (although if it does that is a bonus). It's relevant policy language to the discussion. Providing textual evidence for an WP:AFD argument is what we are supposed to do at an AFD for the benefit of all participants. I have provided a detailed source analysis below, showing how none of the references constitute independent significant coverage as required by WP:Notability.`4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, could you please notify relevant projects, such as Opera and Women (in Music, in Red), - Song is not relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Le Monde Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Non-notable award that receives only a half sentence of coverage in the article. The article is mainly about another person who won a different award which is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Anaclase.com review Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Article is primarily a review of Laurent Cuniot and the TM+ ensemble at the Maison de la musique. Isshiki is only mentioned in passing, and the paragraph she is in is primarily not about her performance but about the song cycle by Jonathan Harvey. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recital at prod-s.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN The PROD-S company is the production company which produced the recital concert by Ishki. As they are a production team directly connected to the recital, and promote their events on their website this lacks both independence and significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recording Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Vendor selling Isshiki's CD. Does nothing but verify a recording exists. It does not provide any information on the recording, and the website also lacks independence as it is selling a product featuring the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ruhrtriennale.de Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Artist bio at the website of Festival der Kunste which employed the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ensemble William Byrd Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Isshiki is listed as one of four sopranos in a chamber choir on the website of the choir itself. This is either neither independent or significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ludusmodalis.com Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Artist bio at the website of the Ludus Modalis website which employs the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Review at musica-dei-donum.org Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Review from a WP:SELFPUBLISHED non-notable blog. Not a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Philharmonie de Paris Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Performance archive of the Philharmonie de Paris. Verifies she performed with the orchestra in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
BBC Proms Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Performance archive of the BBC proms. Verifies she performed with the BBC proms in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Voce.de Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Red XN Voce.de is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED personal website of Hans-Josef Kasper. Not reliable. May or may not be independent. No way to tell with a self-published source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Brusseks Philharmonic Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Website of the Brussels Philharmonic. It's the orchestra's performance archive and is both a primary source and lacks independence from the subject as the orchestra employed her. Can be used to verify the performance but is not usable towards proving notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Res Musica review Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent secondary source, but Isshiki's performance is only given a half sentence of attention. It is not in-depth enough to be considered significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
conservatoire-orchestre.caen.fr/ Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN This is an advertisement with ticket sale pricing and links for purchasing. It is not a review, not independent, and not significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
musicweb-international.com Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent review of album on which Isshiki performs on a couple songs as a guest artist. However, her performance was not reviewed at all by the reviewer who did not mention her at all in the review. She is only listed as a performer on the couple songs to which she contributed. Without any text reviewing her work, this is not in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
French Anthologies Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent review in a reliable secondary source. However, the review of Isshiki's performance is only a half sentence long. It's not in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
www.recordsinternational.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN This is the website of a record label selling one its albums. Not independent nor significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
I am travelling, and busy with other subjects, sorry for a late reply. Thank you for diligent analysis of sources, 4meter4. My issue is that it sees every item only on its own, not in context.
Of course there are, in general, biographies around that were written by the person in question or by a publicity specialist, but in this case I see the things mentioned there (studies in Europe, award, performances, recordings) also supported by trustworthy other references. I also don't see any items in the biography (which is repeated by other sites) that I'd consider far-fetched or sensational claims.
I see a singer performing in high quality and in teams, be it ensemble or with other soloists. I like that approach. I see her performing the lesser-performed music, both old and new, and would like to showcase that instead of deleting it. As John pointed out (below), there are different ways to establish notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this Amazon listing which has her credited on all but one track. The main artist seems to be Pascal Dusapin. Then I found that her artist page at Amazon has four albums listed, one of which is under her own name. Here is another listing, from the Ensemble Vocal de Pontoise.Wikipedia:Notability (music) says our benchmarks for a standalone article on a musician include "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Maguelone (her record label) claims to have released work by Reynaldo Hahn and André Jolivet, who are independently notable, and to have been around since 1993. Overall, (and the coverage of her prize in a major French media source counts too) I think that this artist (just) meets WP:NMG, so I think this is a (fairly weak) keep from me. John (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm giving this discussion another relisting. But right now, I see no support for deletion other than the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG is tied to the notability of the record label. Albums made with an obscure small record label probably aren't notable. It's not like she recorded for a significant classical music label like Decca, Naxos, or Deutsche Gramophone which have international distribution. We don't even have an article on the label she recorded with which is telling. It looks to me like she is only active with a tiny French independent record label that doesn't appear all that notable. 4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. Comments on the sources provided would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Estonia

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

Poorly sourced and fails WP:NLIST. The Estonian language version of this article has more entries but also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of the Amalekites

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

WP:POVFORK of Amalek. Andre🚐 01:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoran University of Health Sciences

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

Non-notable education business. Most sources are discussion of naturopathy itself, don't mention the article topic, the other three are PRs or the institution's own website. No evidence of coverage in secondary sources. Jdcooper (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Medicine, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge into a new article "Naturopathic schools in the US". I generally agree with Jdcooper's comments but question whether the conclusion is to delete. I tried to improve this article after discovering that it was substantially written by an employee. Despite database searches, I could find little independent and reliable coverage. Sonoran is formerly Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences. A recent investigation found that its "medical" graduates had the 4th highest debt to earnings ratios among graduate programs in the US. According to tax filings, Sonoran had $20 million of revenues in FY2023. This seems pretty significant, so I don't think a complete deletion is warranted. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Significant, independent coverage does not seem to exist. When the name of the university comes up it is only in brief mentions in articles discussing naturopathic issues at large (example). A merge can't take place if the target article doesn't exist yet; creating it would likely end up with the same issues this article has until other naturopathy schools are identified and added to it, and we would end up with an article that takes a bunch of non-notable information and collates it under a topic that might be notable. NUNM has similar issues, but is discussed more in depth by sources; revenues can be an indicator of notability but it is not coming up in the sources. Reconrabbit 16:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient independent reliable sources. The Banner talk 17:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on merging into a new article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Indiana earthquake

[edit]
2010 Indiana earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no lasting impact. Dozens of similarly-sized earthquakes occur in the Midwest and Eastern seaboard every year, we don't need an article documenting these if they don't have any noteworthy consequences. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kambojan language

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

This should be redirected to Kambojas. As far as I am aware when I rewrote Kambojas, we barely have enough info for the people, let alone their obscure language. This article doesn't give any valuable info that isn't already mentioned in the more well sourced Kambojas#Language and location. This article also had several poor quality citations, which I've removed. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

João Urbano

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

Fails WP:BIO, has no notable achievements under WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT, only one primary source which contains basic biographical info. MSportWiki (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Monitoring and Management

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

This is a module in a chemistry course, and does not need a Wikipedia page. Even if there are multiple reliable and independent sources talking about this module, that content can go in the main page for the Higher School Certificate thing. Searched and could not find any sources for it. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stolperstein of London

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

This is an article dedicated to a single Stolperstein, which is a Holocaust memorial stone, placed in the UK. There have been over one hundred thousand of these stones placed, and the single stone placed in the UK is already covered in the inclusive article List of places with stolpersteine, and in fact that article doesn't even link here in any way. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Reason for the nom is that this is essentially very specific listcruft, where the only thing in the list is a single item that is already covered elsewhere. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lim

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

Fails WP:BIO, has no notable achievements under WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT, completely unsourced. MSportWiki (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Woody

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

Completely unreferenced article about a short film, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all automatically notable just for existing, and have to show reliably sourced evicence of passing one or more notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the attempted notability claim here is an unsourced table of awards from minor film festivals whose awards aren't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have sources. (And the most notable film festival in the table is one where it's pulling the "nominee for film festival award that was wide-open to every single film in the program and didn't actually curate any special shortlist of finalists" stunt that Wikipedia editors often pull to oversell a film's passage of "notable because awards" -- which, therefore, also cannot be an "inherent" notability freebie without sources explicitly stating that the film was actively "nominated" for the award either.)
The film, further, also cannot claim "inherent" notability just because you've heard of some of the people in the cast list -- notability is not inherited, so even a film with famous people in its cast still has to pass WP:GNG on its sourcing. A Google search, further, turned up nothing useful, finding only directory entries, primary sources and a single glancing namecheck of this film's existence as a prior work by the director in an article whose primary subject was a different later film rather than this.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did check Google Books: I'm not getting WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the film, I'm just getting glancing namechecks of its existence in filmographies and directories.
An award only supports a film's notability to the extent that said award can be referenced to GNG-worthy media coverage that treats the award presentation as news. An award has to itself be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so an award only supports notability if it's referenced to WP:GNG-worthy media reportage, and does not support notability if it's either unreferenced, or referenced solely to primary source content self-published by a directly affiliated entity (such as either the film festival's own website or the film's own marketing materials). But the awards here are all completely unsourced, and my BEFORE searches did not find any GNG-worthy referencing that could be added to support the award claims.
"Nominations" also have to be properly supported by GNG-worthy media coverage, because that's highly prone to promotional manipulation. I see this happen all the time with the Toronto International Film Festival, for example: films frequently try to make the notability claim that they had been "nominees" for the People's Choice Award, but that's not an award that actually has "nominees" — every feature film in the festival program is automatically eligible for People's Choice by simple virtue of being present in the festival program at all, so being eligible for that award is not a meaningful or notability-bolstering distinction. There are obviously some exceptions, such as the Palme d'Or at Cannes or TIFF's Platform Prize, where the film played in a special competitive program that was curated to compete for a special prize that most other films at the festival weren't in contention for — for awards like that, "nomination" is a valid notability claim, but for a regular non-competitive "every film at the festival was automatically eligible for consideration" award, "nomination" is not a distinction, so an award nomination requires GNG-worthy sourcing to demonstrate that the award was a special competitive program with a curated shortlist of nominees, and not just an "every film in the program was automatically eligible for consideration" award.
Neither the notability of cast members nor the notability of the director constitute inclusion freebies that exempt a film from having to pass GNG just because there are notable people being wikilinked in the body text, either. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Like the nominator, I am getting only brief mentions. The most that I could find was the nice but short paragraph in the Pratt DVD book. Unfortunately the other books that are listed as sources in G-Books are ones with no preview, and a web search turns up IMDB and various user-created film sites. There is a source only for one of the awards. As for Clooney and Aniston, their roles (listed in the Pratt paragraph as cameos) aren't enough to make this short film significant. Lamona (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In addition to the Pratt DVD book, I found a newspaper article about the film in the Palm Beach Daily News. It's fairly brief, but detailed and entirely about the film. Toughpigs (talk) 17:44, 7 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) 00:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrionix

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

Fails WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clementechiton

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

Lack of references Zoe Aria (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"