Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

16 November 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< November 15 November 17 >

Purge server cache

Industry Leaders

[edit]
Industry Leaders (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 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]

B & H Tool Works

[edit]
B & H Tool Works (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 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]

Stephen Downes

[edit]
Stephen Downes (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)

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]

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

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) broadcasters (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'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]

Tha Carter albums

[edit]
Tha Carter albums (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'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]

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[4]. Here is another article from a RS purely about the series[5]. 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

[edit]
Chato, Peru (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)

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]

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

[edit]
Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (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)

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]

  • 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]
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 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

[edit]
Yagyavalkya Institute of Technology (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)

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

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

[edit]
List of films released by Anchor Bay 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)

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

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. --woodensuperman 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

[edit]
Blue Underground (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 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]

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]

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

[edit]
Woolf College, Kent (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 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 Red XN. 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 Red XN. 4 is by a partner, not independent Red XN. 7 doesn't mention the subject Red XN. 12 is an announcement for a seminar held there; trivial, primary, and non-independent Red XN. 13 is a book edited and written by lecturers at Kent; not independent Red XN. 14 is an announcement for a conference held at Woolf College; trivial, primary, non-independent Red XN. 15 is a trivial listing for the same conference Red XN. 16 yet another trivial, non-independent mention as the venue for the conference Red XN.
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

[edit]
Timeline of Colombia–Nicaragua relations (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)

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]

Iida Yoshitake

[edit]
Iida Yoshitake (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 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]

Section 1 (NYSPHSAA)

[edit]
Section 1 (NYSPHSAA) (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 also nominating the following related pages:

Section 2 (NYSPHSAA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Section 3 (NYSPHSAA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Section 8 (NYSPHSAA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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]

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