Wikipedia:XfD today

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all category closing speedy working manual
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide (Images) Administrator guidelines
v t e

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.

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      November 9 (Sat)      November 8 (Fri)      November 7 (Thu)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Sonoran University of Health Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

2010 Indiana earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

João Urbano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

Stolperstein of London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

File:Elliot Rodger manifesto.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shoot for the Stars (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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]

• Propose merging Category:Caves of Quebec to Category:Caves of Canada

Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles to justify, not useful for navigation. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

• 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]

• 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]