Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 23: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexious Kuen Long Lee}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sage wall}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sage wall}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saiyar Mori Re (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saiyar Mori Re (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 09:25, 23 December 2024

< December 22 December 24 >

Purge server cache

Alexious Kuen Long Lee

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

Not enough coverage or significance to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG - The9Man Talk 10:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I suggest renaming the article to "Alexious Lee" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), as this name yields several news sources and coverage that could establish notability. Sunbq (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunbq Please provide the references here or add to the article so that others can review and discuss them. - The9Man Talk 18:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added references to the article. Sunbq (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: The Bloomberg profile might be something, but the other sources are either not about the subject (just projects he's involved in, with a quote or two) or not independent of the subject. Quick search didn't reveal any in-depth coverage by independent sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sage wall

Sage wall (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)

No evidence of sufficient notability, has received no attention in reliable sources. Sources in article are one not independent, one good book that doesn't mention the Sage Wall, and an unreliable (though popular in some circles) source. Fram (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyar Mori Re

AfDs for this article:
Saiyar Mori Re (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)

Unable to find independent sources with significant coverage. The existing sources about and around "Saiyar Mori Re" are mostly routine coverage and paid PR/brand content, failing WP:NFSOURCES. I am also unable to find the minimum number of full length reviews, so it fails WP:NFILM entirely. The sources mentioned in the previous XfD are paid PR, as evident from the bylines and reviews from unknown websites/blogs. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why was this added to the Actors and Filmmakers list? It's a film not a person. -Mushy Yank. 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: See precedent AfD and arguments presented by User:DareshMohan, for example. A redirect seems warranted anyway (same comment) so that I am opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 19:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Freelance journalist/blogger, Brand promoted content and an article from an unknown website with no byline? Can you please read the nomination statement and WP:NFILM guideline once again and consider revising your rationale to a policy based one instead of how you feel about deletion? Here are some more PR articles that they have given out: [1], [2], [3] Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please read DareshMohan's argument? Gujarat is not a "country" but I consider the film meets NFILM's inclusionary criterion #3, if you really wish me to provide a link to a guideline. I'll stand by my !vote, if I may. I've added a couple of things to the page, rapidly. -Mushy Yank. 20:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All you have added so far is just brand promoted content, routine coverage and passing mentions with no bylines. Nearly five years on Wikipedia, yet how you interpret WP:NFIC to fit your own views is astonishing.
    Here, "distributed domestically in a country" means distributed within India. This film didn't see the light outside Gujarat and we are not maintaining a database of films released in India, but rather of notable films released in India. Comparing WP:NFIC#3's weight of a film being released/distributed domestically in a country is nowhere close to that of a film being distributed within a state. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "didn't see the light outside Gujarat" is an absurd rationale. Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally, comprises multiple industries based on language and regional distinctions. The subject here being included in the Gujarati cinema, though less prominent than its counterparts like Bollywood or Tollywood, is still a significant part of this spectrum. Drawing a comparison between Gujarati cinema and the broader, more commercially dominant segments of Indian cinema is flawed. Keep in mind that Wikipedia:Notability is not a level playing field. — MimsMENTOR talk 07:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't bring essays here. If you want to change existing policies, start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films).
    The current guidelines only support films that are successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film-producing country. You have contradicted yourself by mentioning "Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally". WP:NFIC#3 does not apply to major film producing countries and if Saiyar Mori Re were a significant part of this spectrum, it would have received reviews in reliable sources. Instead, it only has paid PR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep your tone out! this is a discussion space, essays, statements, facts and all are legit here. — MimsMENTOR talk 09:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It seems the nominator has completely overlooked sources from TOI and other reputable outlets (which still lack full consensus on reliability). With that, giving an additional consideration and collectively reviewing the coverage's from the sources from TOI, TOI 2, TOI 3, One India and from the Gujarati media: navgujaratsamay, gujaratheadline and abtakmedia as well as the film's feature at the International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 is enough for notability.--— MimsMENTOR talk 09:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • TOI - Interview / Not independent / Pre-release coverage - Jun 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
    • One India - Partner content as indicated at the top - July 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
    • navgujaratsamay - Press release from trailer launch - Jun 27 (Part of PR)
    • gujaratheadline - Same as navgujaratsamay article / Press release from trailer launch - Jun 25 (Part of PR)
    • abtakmedia - Same as above / Press release from trailer launch - July 04, 2022
    • International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 - Trivial mention / no awards
    None of the above news media outlets covered or reviewed the film after its release. It seems you have overlooked both the sources and the nomination rationale. Would you mind sharing your source analysis below? Mims Mentor Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeraxmoira Before diving into a source analysis, could you clarify or provide evidence for your claim that each of all sources mentioned are "(part of PR)"? — MimsMENTOR talk 11:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of coverage following the film's release is sufficient evidence. Apart from that, the OneIndia article is marked as "Partner Content". As for the trailer launch, inviting all the news media is standard practice and has been done this way consistently. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point about the "partner content", I do agree with that. However, when I emphasized the need for "collective reviewing" and "additional consideration" of the sources. I recognize that the coverage may not be strong enough to 'firmly keep' the article, but your own analysis doesn't solidly push for deletion either, leaning more towards WP:BARE. As for PR evidence, there isn't concrete proof to back up that claim you made (when you are talking about policies). Pre-release/press release (earned media) coverage isn’t inherently promotional, and reputable outlets like TOI often feature pre-release interviews without the coverage being purely PR-driven. — MimsMENTOR talk 12:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are bringing in more essays to XfDs. Please understand that essays are not P&G and hold no significant value in XfDs. The TOI sources are insufficient for a standalone article, especially given that there are literally zero reviews available. There are three articles about the trailer launch featuring the same banner image, yet you believe this isn't sufficient evidence that the press was invited to the event. The sources here are nowhere close to meeting GNG or NFILM. If you disagree, please provide a source analysis that might help me better understand your point of view. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Essays arent binding, but they offer relevant interpretations in debates like XfDs, especially for borderline cases. Dismissing them outright doesnt negate their value in offering nuance. The TOI sources, while not extensive, still provide verifiable coverage. Prerelease coverage is common, even for non-blockbuster films. Moreover, you havent fully explained why multiple outlets covering the same trailer launch definitively proves PR involvement. The case is WP:BARE now. I believe I’ve made it clear what aspects of the discussion align with GNG, based on policy guidelines. The nominator seems fixated on a single point and dismisses valid considerations by labeling them "essays," which is unproductive. Since the conversation is going in circles, I’ll be stepping back. I suggest exploring more sources from Gujarati media to verify additional coverage of the film instead of narrowing the focus to a single angle.--— MimsMENTOR talk 14:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, no source analysis? Cool. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? to count in more essay? Sorry No! — MimsMENTOR talk 15:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These sources can be used to write an article, but they certainly do not meet the standards required to establish GNG and there are no sources available after the film's release. Regarding WP:NFILM, there are literally no reviews for this film, despite it being released in the internet era. The fact that all the sources below greatly appreciate the film, its songs, trailer and its success, yet none of them have published a review, is quite amusing.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movie-details/saiyar-mori-re/movieshow/92209803.cms Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/business/k-brothers-produced-saiyar-mori-re-wins-the-hearts-of-the-audience-as-anticipated-after-the-trailer-release20220713132245/ No Story is provided by GPRC (Global PR Connect) Yes ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/saiyar-mori-re-new-song-manda-lidha-mohi-raj-is-winning-hearts-on-the-internet/articleshow/92653580.cms No Entertainment Desk / No byline Yes Yes ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/mayur-chauhan-on-saiyar-mori-re-i-am-feeling-akhand-mauj-exclusive/articleshow/92200116.cms No Interview Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.zee5.com/articles/k-brothers-produced-saiyar-mori-re-wins-the-hearts-of-the-audience-as-anticipated-after-the-trailer-release No Story is provided by GPRC (Global PR Connect) Yes ✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/2022/Jul/08/meet-kariyas-saiyar-mori-re-celebrates-rural-flavours-of-india-2474459.html No Express News Service / No byline Yes ~ ✘ No
https://www.oneindia.com/partner-content/jay-kariyas-debut-film-saiyar-mori-re-is-out-now-and-the-audience-can-t-get-enough-of-it-3433537.html No Partner content ✘ No
https://www.mynation.com/entertainment/film-saiyar-mori-re-wins-over-the-audience-despite-its-experimental-approach-filmmakers-express-sigh-snt-reuiuy No featured content / No byline ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/watch-saiyar-mori-re-makers-will-soon-drop-a-teaser/articleshow/92082623.cms No Entertainment Desk / No byline Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/gujarati-films-go-global/81859967.html Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/mayur-chauhan-unveils-the-first-look-of-his-saiyar-mori-re/articleshow/92034340.cms No Interview Yes No Routine coverage from an Instagram Post ✘ No
https://navgujaratsamay.com/love-story-based-film-saiyar-mori-re--a-turning-point-in-the-gujarati-film-industrys-history/221700.html No Trailer launch press release Yes ✘ No
https://www.gujaratheadline.com/%e0%aa%b9%e0%aa%b0%e0%aa%bf-%e0%aa%95%e0%aa%b0%e0%ab%87-%e0%aa%8f-%e0%aa%b8%e0%aa%be%e0%aa%9a%e0%ab%81/ No Trailer launch press release Yes ✘ No
https://www.abtakmedia.com/god-do-is-the-best-rural-areas-love-story-sayer-mori-re/ No Abtak Media / No byline Yes ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/the-international-gujarati-film-festival-igff-returns-with-its-4th-edition-in-chicago-usa-this-year-exclusive/articleshow/101098950.cms Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The best source I could find that wasn't clearly sponsored content was this, and IMHO that isn't enough. The other material is either sponsored, or less substantive. It's not nothing, though, and it's possible I am missing material in other languages, although I did search using the transliterated title. If the director or producer were notable, there is perhaps enough coverage to insert a few sentences into their biographies, but I see we do not have articles about them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pop (Pakistani TV channel)

Pop (Pakistani TV channel) (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. Unreferenced and lacks in-depth secondary references. Gheus (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tunbow

Tunbow (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)

Appears to be wholly promotional Amigao (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydev P. Desai

Jaydev P. Desai (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 academic that has no overlap with the University of Maryland page. Yedaman54 (talk)

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 23. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On the surface, as a redirect this would be the wrong venue as being in the purview of RfD and not AfD. However, this also appears to be the contesting of a bold BLAR from 2016, with the rationale non notable on its own since 2008. Another user tried to blank the redirect in 2018, with a similar rationale to the nominator here. Given that, I'm not sure if a procedural close and immediate RfD is warranted, or if the fact this is actually a second contesting of the BLAR means the pre-2016 article contents should be restored and the AfD continuing from there. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Maharashtra, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore pre-2016 contents and keep. He passes WP:PROF: #C1 through high citations [4], #C3 through being "Fellow of the IEEE, ASME, and AIMBE", #C5 through holding the G.P. "Bud" Peterson and Valerie H. Peterson Faculty Professorship in Pediatric Research, and #C8 through being founding editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Robotics Research (for all of these see [5]; the journal is published by World Scientific, a reputable journal publisher). I'm not sure how many others of these were the case in 2016 but the ASME Fellow title, at least, dates to 2015 [6]. In any case redirecting an individual biography to the main article on an entire university, as User:K.e.coffman did then, would only make sense for the person the university is named after, not for some random faculty member. Especially as, in this case, he has long since moved to another university. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apify

Apify (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)

Appears to be entirely promotional and lacks WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awaz Television Network

Awaz Television Network (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. Unreferenced and lacks in-depth secondary references. Gheus (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Play Entertainment

Play Entertainment (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. Unreferenced and lacks in-depth secondary references. Gheus (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

AfDs for this article:
2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article because I do not believe it meets notability guidelines.

Note that this article was previously deleted and then undeleted.

  • WP:EVENT - this content has no enduring historical significance. This does not have widespread national or international impact. This is arguably routine in the sense of shock news/water cooler stories/viral phenomena.
  • There are no lasting effects
  • The geographical scope is limited to Duke
  • The duration of coverage is limited to 2010 with one more article a few months later
  • There is one NYTimes article surveying the person in question but the focus is on the aftermath rather than the event in question or even the controversy in question
  • WP:NOTNEWS -

    Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style."

  • In the original AFD, the author wrote

This is not an article about the faux thesis, it's an article about the controversy that the faux thesis generated.

  • However, after 10 years, I think it is fair to say that one of the responses to that is quite accurate

But most of the coverage was not commentary on the controversy (and "media discussion over routine privacy breaches" is also very routine and needs a fairly high standard to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, is there evidence that any reliable sources have assessed this controversy within the field of "controversies over privacy" and concluding this is a significant one?). As a controversy, is this seen or will this be seen as a controversy of "enduring notability" (WP:NOT) that changed, shaped or defined the debate on privacy compared to a thousand other private communications that someone's friend posted to the world and went viral?

There are also WP:BLP considerations but I am more reluctant to specifically cite policy because this is not a biographical article. I invite others to do so if they are more confident on the matter. Transcendence (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negative keyword

Negative keyword (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 article that fails WP:GNG. Encoded  Talk 💬 15:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Documentation from Microsoft [7] and Apple [8] can be added to the references. The blog post reference can be removed. That makes room for others: [9] [10] [11].
Book references are also forthcoming: [12] [13] [14] [15]
The article is crap now, but it seems like it can be improved and the phrase is notable and common. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Keyword research as an AtD. I am unconvinced by these sources. The Microsoft and Apple sources are how-to guides for using keywords with MS/Apple products. The blog posts are not reliable sources. The first two books cited above are published by Wiley but each one (and the third book) devotes less than a page to "negative keywords." The fourth book reference is from Lulu and is thus not reliable as an WP:SPS. All told, these brief references aren't really WP:SIGCOV, and per WP:NOPAGE the subject matter can be covered encyclopedically and appropriately with reliable sources at the parent topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Swire email

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

I believe this has issues with WP:GNG

Lack of Enduring Notability:

  • WP:NOTNEWS - While the event received widespread media attention at the time (early 2000s), this coverage was largely sensationalist and lacks long-term cultural or historical significance.

Darel Chase (bishop)

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

A non-notable clergy person. Sources that mention Chase are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (his personal website, a blog from a bishop in his church, his church's official website x2 x3 x4, x5, his church's international communion website, and corporate documents on the KY secretary of state's site); and an apparent WP:SPS WordPress blog. Several sources do not even mention Chase at all ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]); these are contributing to WP:SYNTH to draw connections about the subject not present in the sources. I found nothing qualifying in a WP:BEFORE search. Finally, let me address WP:BISHOPS since I am guessing it will come up. While AfD participants have debated the applicability of BISHOPS (and I have generally accepted it as a quasi-guideline since WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES align with it, even though it's not a P&G), this bishop does not even qualify under BISHOPS. The church he leads is a micro-denomination that is not part of the Anglican Communion or recognized by any of its member churches. Moreover, Chase is the pastor of an individual congregation, and bishops in this category are per CLERGYOUTCOMES not typically found notable by virtue of their office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a little more time to come to a clearer consensus. Some excellent points are being made though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time

AfDs for this article:
Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time (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)

Has a lot of sources but nothing particurly in depth. Most nothing beyond basic release info, plot recap and casting info fails WP:NTV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Technology Development Center

Advanced Technology Development Center (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. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YL Ventures

AfDs for this article:
YL Ventures (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. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Mostly about routine funding. Some info from Techcrunch but notability is limited per WP:TECHCRUNCH. This was previously deleted per AfD before. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing Consent (Burawoy book) (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)

Article does not cite any sources. I tried to help the article and breathe new life into it with a non-free image properly uploaded, but it does not appear to be notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section 108 (film)

Section 108 (film) (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)

Upcoming film that doesn't meet WP:NFF. Could be moved to draft space, but there's nothing in the article to show how this meets NFF. Ravensfire (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Move to draft space or display maintenance tags for more verified sources which are available. WP:NFF state Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles ... However, this article provide information albeit from an individual's point of view. In addition [24] provide some context as well. QEnigma (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets NFF with the coverage about production; filming has started and is well advanced, premise known, cast confirmed, production issues mentioned. Even if it is never released it would remain a sufficiently-notable production. -Mushy Yank. 12:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Since we cannot enforce NFF to movies which have reliable sources confirming the start of principal photography/production after filming began, deletion is not warranted.--— MimsMENTOR talk 13:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see people bringing up NFF as far as production goes. I want to explain a bit about the requirements for an unreleased film establishing notability. To put it bluntly, production starting is not a sign of notability. The guideline is basically that people should not even consider creating articles for unreleased films unless production has begun. If production has begun then an article might be doable, however the article creator(s) would still need to establish how the production is notable in and of itself. In other words, if the film were to be cancelled today and production ground to a complete and total halt, would the current amount and quality of sourcing be enough to establish notability in the here and now?
The reason this came about is because for a while there Wikipedia has a rather big issue with people creating pages for announced films. No production is guaranteed, so there were quite a few films that were stuck in development hell. Names and companies might be attached or some other level of pre-production done, but it never led to any actual production.
As far as coverage goes, keep in mind that there has to be quite a bit and it has to be in depth. This is where it gets tricky, because marketing companies will flood media outlets with what is essentially the same content over and over again. They may announce a single name or change, but ultimately it's all coming from the same press release or statement. Right now the article's production section is non-existent and the current sourcing in the article is pretty paltry. I'm not saying that the film is absolutely non-notable, just that right now it's not really super convincing that this passes NFILM. I'm just concerned that the arguments for keep here are arguing that production has commenced but aren't really backing it up with sourcing to show where the production is notable. I'll see what I can do to expand this, but this really needs more/better sourcing than what is in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it but I'm still a bit uneasy saying that this passes NFILM. Production is completed, but there really wasn't a lot of coverage of the actual production. Most of it was either pre-production announcements or a rehash of pre-production announcements, stating that filming had started. Nobody really talked about the production. Everyone was pretty close mouthed about this. If this were to be an indefinitely shelved film (meaning the actual film was never released and it was used as a tax write-off), then I'm not certain that the current amount of coverage is really enough to establish notability for the movie.
I'm not against the film having an article, so it's not like I'm saying all of this because I'm a deletionist. (I lean more towards inclusion.) It's just that I don't think that the current coverage puts this comfortably out of reach of deletion, if you look at this from the perspective of "if this never releases or gets more coverage". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I agree with Reader's analysis above. Completing production doesn't in and of itself show notability, it's just a reasonable indicator that information showing notability likely exists. Here, though, no one has been able to show that is the case, so deletion is warranted. I'm at weak delete since the article certainly is doing no harm; it's not excessively promotional and the essentials of the article clearly are accurate. But it's unreleased, and there's no objective basis to say whether it ever will be, and it's standalone notability is wanting. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby School Japan

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

This article is about a branch of Rugby School, only opened a year ago. I think that it is WP:TOOSOON for it to be likely to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, and indeed I cannot find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. There was an article in The Rugby Advertiser in 2019 about the planned school, but this is local coverage and about a third of the article was a statement from Rugby School. There was an interview with the head in Relocate magazine, but I am not sure that this is a reliable source - the magazine's About talks about sponsored content. There is this article in the Sustainable Japan section of the Japan Times, which is a reliable source, but again it is mostly an interview. There is also an article from the British Chamber of Commerce in Japan, but this is not an independent source. I added a section on overseas branches to Rugby School, and redirected this article there, but another editor reverted this; so bringing it here for the community's view. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Japan, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rugby School. There is also a Rugby School Thailand which should really be considered together to avoid trainwrecks. Can that be added to this nomination? These are new ventures that purportedly are creating overseas campuses of Rugby school. Rugby is clearly notable, but the only thing making these other sites notable is the Rugby name, which is a clear case of WP:INHERITED. They are, per nom., too new to have gained any independent notability. They should, however, be discussed on the Rugby school page. There is mergeable content and the redirects would preserve former content and provide a pathway for readers to locate the relevant information in the relevant parent article. Spinout could occur if and when they become independenltly notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had redirected Rugby School Thailand too - having put brief details of both schools in the Rugby School article first - but that was also reverted. I had considered AfD for that too, but have not yet had time to carry out WP:BEFORE for that branch and it has been going longer (2017) so there may be more coverage, so was holding off on that. Happy for it to be bundled with this discussion though if people want. Tacyarg (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RottenTomato0222 speaking here: I think both articles should NOT be deleted and be kept as independent articles for the following reasons: Though not many readers might recognise either Rugby School Japan or Rugby School Thailand, some teachers/families who are intended to move to those schools have the need to read about that school online whether if they're reading it on Wikipedia or not. Second of all, just because there's not a lot of articles dedicated to Rugby School's branches in Asia compared to the original school, there are tens of articles online discussing about Rugby School Japan and Rugby School Thailand, so we actually do have loads more to write on the article. Third of all, just because the article's discussion is not widely discussed doesn't mean that the article has to be deleted. As mentioned earlier before, there are people who really needs to read those articles. In addition, other world-famous school from the UK like Harrow School's branches in Asia have seperate articles on Wikipedia; like Harrow International School Bangkok, Harrow International School Hong Kong, Harrow International School Beijing, etc.. Furthermore, other UK boarding schools' branches in Asia other than Harrow School all have an article as well, for example; Haileybury Almaty, Marlborough College Malaysia, and Dulwich College Beijing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RottenTomato0222 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might look a bit messy and have some grammatically incorrect sentences or structures as I was writing that on a hurry. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid at AfD, although here it raises an interesting question. Is this school a campus of Rugby School itself, or is it an international school in the way the Oxford International Schools (or Harrow) international schools, where these are legally independent private schools that affiliate to and adopt the syllabus of the affiliating body (e.g the Oxford Education group)? What is the legal arrangement? The page as it stands reads as if this is a campus of Rugby (which is a reasonably common arrangement, more so for universities). But if it is not really part of Rugby at all, but a legally independent private school that is permitted to use the Rugby name then a lot of what is on the page would necessarily be deleted and it is likely (as for a the Oxford International Schools) that there would not be notability of r an article as it would fail WP:NORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Answering your question, the legal arrangement is that Rugby School Japan is an independent private school, just like many other franchise schools. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hope that helps. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the school was set up by Rugby School? Looking at RSJ's website, it says Rugby School Japan is proud to be part of the Rugby School Group, an international network of pupils, teachers and senior leaders. The website for the original Rugby School says Rugby is in the process of developing a family of Rugby schools around the world, following the successful establishment of Rugby School Thailand. So should there be an umbrella Rugby School Group article, if notability is met, and then if we don't find RSJ notable, it can be mentioned there and a redirect in place? Tacyarg (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rugby School Japan, or should we call it RSJ, was indeed established by Rugby School, but that doesn't mean RSJ is part of Rugby School's campuses. In contrast, Harrow International School Bangkok for example, was established by a British private school, but still has a Wikipedia page on its own, rather than being merged with Harrow School. The reason is simple; going back to the Rugby Schools Group, that is a brand of a school set up by Rugby School, though their schools are still independent. Another reason; many British private schools in Asia might have opened under the name of their original school in the UK, but the operator of the school in Asia are different. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this was not established by Rugby School at all. It is a venture of Clarence Education Asia [25], who seem to have funded the school and then partnered with Rugby School Group. This is a similar structure used by the Oxford Schools. The school is therefore not a campus of Rugby but an independent sister school that is licensed to use the Rugby name and branding, and follows a Rugby School Group curriculum. What this means is that it is a private for profit independent school. The appropriate notability guidelines are WP:NORG. My searches do not find independent sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH, so we are still not at a keep here. The question is only whether an appropriate merge target can be found. I think there is still a case for a merge with Rugby School under a section called either "sister schools" or "Rugby school group". The alternative is there could be a Rugby School Group article per Tacyarg, and that could then cover all such schools. Failing these alternatives, my view is that it should be deleted as it currently lacks independent notability, but my preference is merge somewhere, and Rugby School remains my preference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Rugby School Japan is an independent school, either if Rugby School established it or not. Any school can be made into an article, even if it's operated under the name of another institution, unless the whole building is a campus of Rugby School, for example. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Ones (web series)

Cold Ones (web series) (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 web series. None of the sources are reliable, and none were found online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beint

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

I don't see any significant coverage. Likely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR due to insignificant roles in films which are also difficult to verify due to the lack of reliable sources. Frost 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as arguments are now evenly divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tum, Ethiopia

Tum, Ethiopia (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)

My searches turned up nothing to support the subject's notability. The only claim one could make re notability is Tum Airport which already has its own article. This article has only just been created, so I would usually draftify, but this has already been done once, and an editor has moved it back, thereby asserting that the page belongs in mainspace. Hence my nomination for deletion. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_December_23&oldid=1264751608"