Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

23 December 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 22	December 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Manufacturing Consent (Burawoy book)

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

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

Section 108 (film)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Move to draft space or display maintenance tags for more verified sources which are available. WP:NFF state Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles ... However, this article provide information albeit from an individual's point of view. In addition [1] provide some context as well. QEnigma (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets NFF with the coverage about production; filming has started and is well advanced, premise known, cast confirmed, production issues mentioned. Even if it is never released it would remain a sufficiently-notable production. -Mushy Yank. 12:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since we cannot enforce NFF to movies which have reliable sources confirming the start of principal photography/production after filming began, deletion is not warranted.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see people bringing up NFF as far as production goes. I want to explain a bit about the requirements for an unreleased film establishing notability. To put it bluntly, production starting is not a sign of notability. The guideline is basically that people should not even consider creating articles for unreleased films unless production has begun. If production has begun then an article might be doable, however the article creator(s) would still need to establish how the production is notable in and of itself. In other words, if the film were to be cancelled today and production ground to a complete and total halt, would the current amount and quality of sourcing be enough to establish notability in the here and now?

The reason this came about is because for a while there Wikipedia has a rather big issue with people creating pages for announced films. No production is guaranteed, so there were quite a few films that were stuck in development hell. Names and companies might be attached or some other level of pre-production done, but it never led to any actual production.

As far as coverage goes, keep in mind that there has to be quite a bit and it has to be in depth. This is where it gets tricky, because marketing companies will flood media outlets with what is essentially the same content over and over again. They may announce a single name or change, but ultimately it's all coming from the same press release or statement. Right now the article's production section is non-existent and the current sourcing in the article is pretty paltry. I'm not saying that the film is absolutely non-notable, just that right now it's not really super convincing that this passes NFILM. I'm just concerned that the arguments for keep here are arguing that production has commenced but aren't really backing it up with sourcing to show where the production is notable. I'll see what I can do to expand this, but this really needs more/better sourcing than what is in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it but I'm still a bit uneasy saying that this passes NFILM. Production is completed, but there really wasn't a lot of coverage of the actual production. Most of it was either pre-production announcements or a rehash of pre-production announcements, stating that filming had started. Nobody really talked about the production. Everyone was pretty close mouthed about this. If this were to be an indefinitely shelved film (meaning the actual film was never released and it was used as a tax write-off), then I'm not certain that the current amount of coverage is really enough to establish notability for the movie.

I'm not against the film having an article, so it's not like I'm saying all of this because I'm a deletionist. (I lean more towards inclusion.) It's just that I don't think that the current coverage puts this comfortably out of reach of deletion, if you look at this from the perspective of "if this never releases or gets more coverage". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I agree with Reader's analysis above. Completing production doesn't in and of itself show notability, it's just a reasonable indicator that information showing notability likely exists. Here, though, no one has been able to show that is the case, so deletion is warranted. I'm at weak delete since the article certainly is doing no harm; it's not excessively promotional and the essentials of the article clearly are accurate. But it's unreleased, and there's no objective basis to say whether it ever will be, and it's standalone notability is wanting. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rugby School Japan

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Japan, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rugby School. There is also a Rugby School Thailand which should really be considered together to avoid trainwrecks. Can that be added to this nomination? These are new ventures that purportedly are creating overseas campuses of Rugby school. Rugby is clearly notable, but the only thing making these other sites notable is the Rugby name, which is a clear case of WP:INHERITED. They are, per nom., too new to have gained any independent notability. They should, however, be discussed on the Rugby school page. There is mergeable content and the redirects would preserve former content and provide a pathway for readers to locate the relevant information in the relevant parent article. Spinout could occur if and when they become independenltly notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had redirected Rugby School Thailand too - having put brief details of both schools in the Rugby School article first - but that was also reverted. I had considered AfD for that too, but have not yet had time to carry out WP:BEFORE for that branch and it has been going longer (2017) so there may be more coverage, so was holding off on that. Happy for it to be bundled with this discussion though if people want. Tacyarg (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

It might look a bit messy and have some grammatically incorrect sentences or structures as I was writing that on a hurry. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid at AfD, although here it raises an interesting question. Is this school a campus of Rugby School itself, or is it an international school in the way the Oxford International Schools (or Harrow) international schools, where these are legally independent private schools that affiliate to and adopt the syllabus of the affiliating body (e.g the Oxford Education group)? What is the legal arrangement? The page as it stands reads as if this is a campus of Rugby (which is a reasonably common arrangement, more so for universities). But if it is not really part of Rugby at all, but a legally independent private school that is permitted to use the Rugby name then a lot of what is on the page would necessarily be deleted and it is likely (as for a the Oxford International Schools) that there would not be notability of r an article as it would fail WP:NORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your question, the legal arrangement is that Rugby School Japan is an independent private school, just like many other franchise schools. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the school was set up by Rugby School? Looking at RSJ's website, it says Rugby School Japan is proud to be part of the Rugby School Group, an international network of pupils, teachers and senior leaders. The website for the original Rugby School says Rugby is in the process of developing a family of Rugby schools around the world, following the successful establishment of Rugby School Thailand. So should there be an umbrella Rugby School Group article, if notability is met, and then if we don't find RSJ notable, it can be mentioned there and a redirect in place? Tacyarg (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby School Japan, or should we call it RSJ, was indeed established by Rugby School, but that doesn't mean RSJ is part of Rugby School's campuses. In contrast, Harrow International School Bangkok for example, was established by a British private school, but still has a Wikipedia page on its own, rather than being merged with Harrow School. The reason is simple; going back to the Rugby Schools Group, that is a brand of a school set up by Rugby School, though their schools are still independent. Another reason; many British private schools in Asia might have opened under the name of their original school in the UK, but the operator of the school in Asia are different. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this was not established by Rugby School at all. It is a venture of Clarence Education Asia [2], who seem to have funded the school and then partnered with Rugby School Group. This is a similar structure used by the Oxford Schools. The school is therefore not a campus of Rugby but an independent sister school that is licensed to use the Rugby name and branding, and follows a Rugby School Group curriculum. What this means is that it is a private for profit independent school. The appropriate notability guidelines are WP:NORG. My searches do not find independent sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH, so we are still not at a keep here. The question is only whether an appropriate merge target can be found. I think there is still a case for a merge with Rugby School under a section called either "sister schools" or "Rugby school group". The alternative is there could be a Rugby School Group article per Tacyarg, and that could then cover all such schools. Failing these alternatives, my view is that it should be deleted as it currently lacks independent notability, but my preference is merge somewhere, and Rugby School remains my preference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Rugby School Japan is an independent school, either if Rugby School established it or not. Any school can be made into an article, even if it's operated under the name of another institution, unless the whole building is a campus of Rugby School, for example. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Cold Ones (web series)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Internet. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beint

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nomination. Everyone who appeared in a Broadway show is not thereby notable. This article lacks WP:RS citations and is fails WP:GNG criterion. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: As You Like It only ran for 8 performances on Broadway.[3] It toured elsewhere, but this is the only review I can find with Beint mentioned -- which is really not sigcov of him as an actor -- and there's hardly any appearances of his name in the GNews archive[4] (though this is obviously a far from complete repository, particularly of The Times). Even if something approaching sigcov of his AYLI role could be found, we'd likely still need additional sigcov for his other acting. His IMDB listing shows guest and short recurring TV roles, and what looks like minor movie roles. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need clarification as to whether having a large body of professional work as a character actor counts for NACTOR. I see literally hundreds of hits in Google books and news about all his roles, including a few longer reviews like this. Many seem to be mere listings or a few blogs like this. Not sure what to do with marginal cases like this. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, since I got no response, please mark me as weak keep per WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR mentions "prolific" contributions as one of its criteria. Keep. There is coverage in reviews on various of his signficant theater roles and his numerous film/TV roles are verifiable (some can be considered significant, including the one in The Hi-Jackers or The Witchfinder General for example). His life can be sourced through things like https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/17310736.rodbourne-couple-celebrate-70-years-wedded-bliss/. -Mushy Yank. 08:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Not seeing subject having 1) significant roles in 2) multiple 3) notable productions, per WP:NACTOR. The source cited above is about Beint's marriage, with his body of work as a performance as an afterthought. Longhornsg (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tum, Ethiopia

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]