Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

Speedy deletion candidates

Candidates for speedy deletion

User:AG Sasidar

User:AG Sasidar/sandbox

Draft:AlwaysBeSmile

Draft:Chrishantha Abeysena

US Human Rights Network

Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 10	November 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Brent Alan Peterson

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

Fails WP:NBLP. Uses Ballotpedia almost entirely as a singular source, and what information isn't sourced to it uses thegreenpapers.com, which appears to be no more useful in providing notability than Ballotpedia. Google returns no news articles, sans a couple providing voting results (although I can't even find him on these) SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza in Croatia

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

Complete trivia. Nothing encyclopedic in here. Every country eats and serves pizza. We don't need a series of pages around the whole world of "Pizza in x". Geschichte (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chaotic characters

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

Could not find sources on the characters nor the list as a whole. There is some content that can be merged with Chaotic (TV series), but a lot of it is WP:PLOTSUMMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim appropriately. The subject of the list is Chaotic (TV series), so notability is not in question, except by editors who dispute the first half of the statement. Nothing stops you from cleaning up plot summary now, which will need to happen in any event. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the appropriate trimming suggestion that was brought up by @Jclemens:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTPLOT are failed by this list, since it is totally unreferenced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. Totally unreferenced and fails WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just so everyone is aware, I agree that Chaotic (TV series) is notable. The characters themselves do not have notability on their own or as part of a list, hence the AfD. Conyo14 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. The main characters are already covered on the main article for the series, and due to the lack of sourcing and the fact that the characters listed here aside from the main characters are all completely minor characters that should not be listed here, appropriate trimming would essentially mean that a separate list would not be needed. Rorshacma (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but the consensus is leaning towards Deletion right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Myong-jun

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 2007 FIFA U-17 World Cup squads#North Korea as WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Bits around and more on the web to digest, I found little bits with [1], [2], youtube, [3]. There appears to be more sources around on the internet about him which I can't be bothered to go through. The nature of his career shows there was interest in him and some reporters have picked up on that and reported it. You just need to go looking, an extensive WP:BEFORE hasn't been done here in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that information about these North Korean players is almost impossible, here at least we have something. I'm going to withdraw my vote, I don't know if it's enough for WP:SIGCOV, but let's expand the discussion. Svartner (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four sources, only the first seems to be decent. Source #2 is primary, Source #3 is against WP:LINKSTOAVOID, while Source #4 is a brief mention in match report. None of them pass WP:GNG in my opinion. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reply to Govvy and Svartner. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Svartner:, I found [4], [5], and [6] among other sources which is decent for a North Korena player. Definitelyy has offline North Korean sources too. One of few North Korean players to have played professionally for a few European clubsm and has 5 goals in 9 games for the national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people often say good sources for a North Korean footballer like the bar is lower for some reason? The nationality of the player isn't relevant and then also speculating about the apparent existence of offline sources. Simione001 (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people often say good sources for a North Korean footballer like the bar is lower for some reason? – do you understand the situation of media in North Korea? Do you realize that they don't have real media? Why should they be treated with the same strictness as those from countries with extensive media? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simione001 I think you do a good job filtering these articles from North Korean players since the majority are in fact unable to be kept. But it is valid when something comes up to establish the minimum coverage. There is a little more tolerance throughout the context of the country's regime, where there is no independent media. Svartner (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Could we get an assessment of the recently found sources? Unfortunately, we have the same guidelines for notability regardless a subject's nationality. The rules can bent but that would involve you persuading other editor's to your assessment of suitability of the existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Breathnach-Banwait

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

I don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Ireland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alison ^talk 04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books actually does have quite a few hits, BTW - Alison ^talk 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Which of the google books hits would be WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient independent RS to show that the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [7], and some analysis here [8] and here [9]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This also seems to be a RS [10], hosted on a WordPress site, but it's an online magazine with an editorial board and such. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The RTE and Irish Times are reliable sources. With a bit more sleuthing, we could find a third good source for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At one point I attempted to create a page for an author whose book An Edge of the Forest won a few significant awards in the 1960s. The page was rejected on the basis that although there was notable coverage of the book, any coverage of the author was incidental and thus failed WP:AUTHOR. In this case, applying the same rationale, I can not see that the author meets WP:AUTHOR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cane as a Weapon

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

Neither the book nor the author appear notable. This is a book summary. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Martial arts, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything immediately referencing this on Scholar or Newspapers, so this appears to be a factually correct nomination... but I wonder if we're missing something. This is clearly a real book, short though it may be, from 112 years ago. It's in the public domain. Why should we delete this solely on notability grounds? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN, is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. More broadly, it's a form of quality control/way of maintaining encyclopedic standards. Can we create quality content that abides by our policies here? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the improvements made to the article since nomination, it appears the answer is clearly yes. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source in the NYT - I also found this book that mentions the author. If there are more like this, we could probably make this an article about Cunningham and have a section about the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This description of the book is kind of hilarious. It's a favorable advert, of course, but kind of tongue in cheek. With the other source I didn't realize that was put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Is that a society along the lines of the Royal Societies? Would membership in that count towards notability? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that would be the case, but wanted to ask. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. There was a very strong, promising start but I can't really find anything else. I get the feeling that there's probably more out there, just tucked away in various archives and not indexed in any substantial way on the internet. At the same time, I don't really have a ton of proof to back that up, other than the NYT source and a handful of other things, much of which are put out by organizations associated with Cunningham.

So unless someone can provide sourcing, I'm leaning towards a delete. I don't want to make an official judgement call on my end because I'm admittedly hoping someone will find something. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a review of the book in the Saskatoon Daily Star, Feb 1913. Does that help? Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every bit helps! I'd like a little more ideally before I'd be super comfortable arguing for a keep, but this is a good step in the right direction! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saskatoon + NYT are ok. I also found this from the Newark Advocate. The Army and Navy Register bit seems ok. Found an article on NewspaperArchive (NewspaperArchive is kind of annoying so they're hard to read but you can if you use the resource and zoom in), clipped here [11]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an interesting discussion and you all have uncovered some interesting sources. But we still have to have some arguments for a particular outcome. But y'all have another week to consider where you stand on this article or whether you might refocus it to be about the author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cordillera Negra (Chile)

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

This seems to be a mountain, not a mountain range, in Chile. In any case, I cannot find any references to this mountain except a dot on a map which refers to Wikipedia as its source. Fails WP:NGEO. Please note there is a mountain range with the name Cordillera Negra in Peru, but that is a different story. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Chile. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons discussed by nominator. I cannot find any additional information and sources.

Paul H. (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find sources for Chile one Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 14:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral Searched for book and scholar sources but could not find any. Probably a hoax. Note the article creator is permabanned: his creations should be reviewed. --Bedivere (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a closer look at the topic and it seems to have been covered/mentioned in some publications, including this one by SERNAGEOMIN (geological and mining service of Chile). Also there's an offline work named Carta Geológica de la Décima Región (SUBIABRE & ROJAS, 1994), cited in this thesis, which also refers to the Cordillera Negra. --Bedivere (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well found, @Bedivere! If I read it correctly, the Chilean Cordillera Negra then lies in Futrono municipality, between Caunahue River to the north and Calcurrupe River and Curinilahue river to the south, between Llifén in the west and Huilo-Huilo Biological Reserve in the east. More to the west lies the Cerros de Quimán, another article created by the same permblockied user @Dentren. If this is right, I propose to redirect both Cordillera Negra (Chile) and Cerros de Quimán articles to the geography section of Los Ríos Region, where both Cordillera Negra and Cerros de Quimán should be mentioned in the paragraph on Precordillera. Or should it be under the subtitle Andes? Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precordillera would do IMO. Bedivere (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw The references provided by Bedivere and Fluorescent Jellyfish are enough to sustain a stand-alone article.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The nomination has been withdrawn but there are outstanding arguments to Delete this article and a proposal to Redirect it so it can't be closed at this moment until there is a consensus for a specific outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Al-Hamar

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

Declined prod. Could not find any sources in google news and google books. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. I would reconsider if there is anything in Arabic. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

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

This seems to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpot World

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

Non-notable mobile game. Sourcing about the game itself leans heavily to primary sources, low-quality secondary blog coverage or user-generated social media and influencer youtube videos. The more reliable coverage about SpinX and their business activities, such as from GameDeveloper, Nikkei, or Reuters, barely mentions Jackpot World. May be one to consider framing as notability for a WP:CORP and not for the game itself. I accept the game itself is quite popular but there isn't a lot of mainstream coverage on it from what I can see. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halonen Cave

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

I don't think this meets WP:GNG, and the sources listed in the article don't indicate why it is notable. They simple prove that it does exist. One of them is also a passing mention when ran through google translate. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoo Chang-kil

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Budd

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Music, and United Kingdom. Ynsfial (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

AfDs for this article:

(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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Florida. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5: Looking at the page history and related SPIs, the article creator and mover are under the same sockmaster who was indeffed back in May 2023. Left guide (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreeing with Left guide about the speedy option, but even it weren't, the article does not meet WP:NCORP. Conyo14 (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoli Isshiki

(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. [12] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
2. [13] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
3. [14] recital
4. [15] 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	N	Y	Y	Y	N	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	N	Y	Y	Y	N	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	N	N	Y	N	N	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	N	N	Y	N	N	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	Y	N	Y	N	N	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	N	N	Y	N	N	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	Y	N	Y	N	N	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	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Review from a WP:SELFPUBLISHED non-notable blog. Not a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Philharmonie de Paris	N	N	Y	N	N	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	N	N	Y	N	N	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	N	?	N	N	N	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	N	N	Y	N	N	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	N	Y	Y	Y	N	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/	N	N	Y	N	N	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	N	Y	Y	Y	N	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	N	Y	Y	Y	N	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	N	N	Y	N	N	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]

Delete: The article lacks mention of significant coverage or critical acclaim. There is also no information provided regarding the subject's record sales, chart placements, or awards, despite claims to the contrary. Fails WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Record sales, chart placements: not relevant for classical music. Recordings are, and recordings are there. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 10 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Estonia. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only three entries and one notable entry is not a list. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of the Amalekites

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Andre🚐 01:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid RFC: I moved Amalek to Genocide of the Amalekites as the Amaleks appear nowhere else in the Bible and the events are near-unanimously considered to be genocide. (Even by evangelical Christians.) This should have been contested through a revert and then me filing a contested move request. The description given above does not accurately describe the context. OntologicalTree (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can open a move request but what you actually did was revert a redirect into an article[16] Andre🚐 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep ? Zero rationale given for why it should be deleted. Is this some sort of error? I'm assuming a rationale will be forthcoming?Moxy🍁 02:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I just said it's a WP:POVFORK of Amalek. It's basically a duplicated rewrite of that article with a bunch of POV changes. Andre🚐 02:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Amalekites have no notability outside of the genocide. (Even conservative evangelicals such as The Gospel Coalition call it such.) OntologicalTree (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reliable source. And that's not an argument to keep the fork. Andre🚐 02:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:POVFORK of Amalek that the article creator started after a series of unacceptable behaviors. Longhornsg (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As already mentioned, this is just a POV fork of Amalek. Qualiesin (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoran University of Health Sciences

(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. Recon rabbit 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

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kambojan language

(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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Portugal, and Sportspeople. MSportWiki (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Monitoring and Management

(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

(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: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United Kingdom. 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Malaysia, and Sportspeople. MSportWiki (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Woody

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage exists in various languages. See GBooks please. Mildly notable awards and nomination. Extremely notable cast and director. A redirect to the latter is totally warranted. Willing to improve this later. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:21, 28 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]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now sufficiently well-"GNG-worthy"-sourced to show the featurette meets NFILM ("The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career, for example") and GNG (has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources) and that there's no apparent reason for deletion. See for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I am obviously talking about Grant Heslov when I mention the film is an important part in their career (not Clooney or Aniston.... See the two LA Times articles, one by Mary McNamara, a Pulitzer Prize winner.) Mushy Yank (talk) 10:22, 8 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) 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clementechiton

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files

File:Elliot Rodger manifesto.jpg

I received this photo via FOIA request from the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office, but user Trade states that the photo doesn't fall under the public domain, and that it violates Rodger and his "estate" due to it being a typed manifesto. If it doesn't fall under PD-CAGov, then it should be deleted. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this as G7. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pavel Rybalko.jpg

There is no information that the image was published before 1953. Also, the photo was removed from Commons and ruWiki. — Ирука¹³ 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sosumi.mp3

This is a complete edition of the Sosumi sound. It's not a sample of Sosumi. It's the entire Sosumi sound file. Sosumi originated as a sample of another song is true, but is irrelevant. The Sosumi sound is its own thing, with its own name, and Wikipedia article Sosumi, and news coverage. GreenC 02:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I'll fix it right away. In the meantime, I put it as a "sample" because it was listed as a sample of a xylophone. Although, I completely understand what you're saying, so what should I label it as instead? Please let me know ASAP. Thank you. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Indy HeroClix (heroclix)

Indy HeroClix (heroclix) → HeroClix (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Inappropriate DAB formatting by listing it both inside and outside the parentheses. Delete as unhelpful redirect. If kept, please redirect to List of HeroClix supplements#Main series. TNstingray (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, indeed, bring me to the page about a heroclix! Which one? The one that's a heroclix! This is a very implausible disambiguation attempt, and we don't need it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move the non-insignificant edit history to Indy Clix (which seems to be the real name per Google searches) and retartget to List of HeroClix supplements#Main series as suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC 678 04:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cute little k

Cute little k → Reaction rate constant (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Possible nonsense redirect. The only thing I can make out is that the variable is k. Don't know what makes it cute little though. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (But if this was to be kept, I think it would have to point to K.) Duckmather (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cute-chan

Cute-chan → Allison Harvard (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This doesn't seem to be a common nickname for her. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I googled the phrase and all I got was an assortment of generic -chan characters. Duckmather (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cute of the Class

Cute of the Class → The Cut (2007 film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Possible alternative translation? Don't see any mention yet. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules

Template:My

Template:My (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary wrapper of {{lang}}. We're moving away from specific templates for each language as they require an additional maintenance burden and are less flexible. See similar discussion for lang-?? templates. Replace usages with {{lang|my}} and delete template after. Gonnym (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

Deletion review

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

Files

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Musical instruments played with drum sticks

Category:19th-century American fashion designers

Category:Italian-American Anarchists

Category:English radicals

Category:Caves of Quebec

Redirects

Indy HeroClix (heroclix)

Cute little k

Cute-chan

Cute of the Class

Templates and Modules

Miscellany

Deletion review