Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

16 November 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

< November 15	November 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. Most home video lines have already been deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination), etc.) --wooden superman 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; as for notability, the release of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay has historical value and a chronological list of those films helps document what has been recognized as a valuable contribution to the history and preservation of film: the page documents that in a clear way. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the label itself is notable, the list of films that they licensed for release is not. This is just a catalogue, and largely unreferenceable. It's not like they had any hand in the production of any of these films. Catalogues of way more notable reissue labels have already been deleted, see the linked discussion above and many more similar ones. This is just WP:FANCRUFT. --wooden superman 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but my point is precisely that the list itself has value. I could add references to every item and remove those ”unsourceable” if indeed there are any. Later maybe. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cyberpower7 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Note: Struck comment from blocked user. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; @Cyberpower7 you might want to elaborate if you wish that your !vote receives attention, though. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how encyclopedic is the listing of their 2003 DVD re-issue of The Railway Children for example? Sure, examples of their really notable releases can be and are approriately included at Anchor Bay Entertainment, but including their entire WP:CATALOG here is WP:LISTCRUFT. --wooden superman 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note the following other examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 88 Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Video USA Releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Film Institute releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. No reason to make an exception to WP:NOTCATALOG here. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete useless listcruft. This is not original releases, hence no lasting value. --Altenmann >talk 19:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This distributor simply does not produce any original content themselves. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must insist here: The history and timeline of the releases of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay is encyclopaedic and no "fancruft", whatever that word is supposed to mean. The fact that the films were obviously not original Anchor Bay productions is totally irrelevant! The timeline and scope are of historic value....https://deadline.com/2024/02/anchor-bay-entertainment-relaunched-1235827165/

new iteration of Anchor Bay Entertainment with the goal to curate a new library of films for distribution, projects that range from new release genre films, undiscovered treasures, cult classics, and remastered catalog releases.

(Bloody disgusting!: https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3800174/anchor-bay-entertainment-label-resurrects-with-new-horror/)

See list of articles in Variety; https://variety.com/t/anchor-bay-entertainment/

the company’s trademark to reboot it and release genre films and cult favorites, after Anchor Bay was included in Starz’s 2016 sale to Lionsgate.

(Variety; https://variety.com/2024/film/news/anchor-bay-entertainment-cursed-in-baja-1236078418/

The only thing that could be discussed imv is whether this can be merged back into the article, and I don't think that, sizewise, it should.

Also see GBooks where individual or grouped releases by AC as a project are covered; and open, New Blood: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Horror. (2021) University of Wales Press, p. 115.

Just having a brief look, seeing it's a list and dismiss it as "Listcruft" is certainly not enough. Yes, there's work to be done. But that's not a reason for deletion.Mushy Yank (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources seem to indicate the topic of the list was covered as a set, meeting Wikipedia:NLIST, by the way. Mushy Yank (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I must insist that this is textbook WP:NOTCATALOG. As I mention above, giving examples of individual notable releases in the main article is encyclopedic. Listing every release WP:INDISCRIMINATEly is not, as you can see from the large number of precedents in the other discussions I have mentioned. --wooden superman 12:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

giving examples of individual notable releases is not what I did (your question above, on the other hand, was about one particular film's release...). The large number of AfDs you listed may or may not be comparable with the present one; but that does not change the fact that my point is that this list is encyclopaedic in my view as offering a timeline of the history of the release of rediscovered film and the sources mentioned by me are meant to prove just that (the quotes are about the topic of the list as a set not about the individual entries and just read the page 115 of New Blood and other GBooks hits, please, thank you). I'm leaving it that that because I have the feeling that I am repeating myself here. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a more substantial rationale for why this doesn't meet WP:NLIST? I see we have a lot of precedent here, but that's mostly just people saying "WP:NOTCATALOG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Underground

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

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[1][2] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --wooden superman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is notable enough (though the article could use some sources that help establish this fact, like the ones my colleague above found).TH1980 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to meet NCORP, but could do a redirect to William Lustig as a compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Lustig as a viable ATD per nom. and KH-1. Fails WP:NCORP. WP:NOPAGE applies. Sal2100 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woolf College, Kent

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this college of the University of Kent, and added an independent reference confirming its establishment in 2008. I cannot see significant coverage in independent sources, however - the reference I have added has only one sentence of coverage - , and do not think it is notable independently of University of Kent. I originally tagged it with notability issues in 2022, and redirected it to University of Kent yesterday, but this has been reverted by another editor. Tacyarg (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Woolf College meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for educational institutions and should be kept as a separate article. A precedent for keeping articles on colleges of the University of Kent was set in the Turing College AfD discussion (2018), where the result was to keep the article. The discussion highlighted that Kent is a semi-collegiate university, and each of its colleges plays a unique role in student life, not merely as halls of residence, but with distinct functions such as administrative offices and college masters.

Specifically, the Turing College AfD concluded that, like other Kent colleges (such as Eliot, Rutherford, Keynes, and Darwin), Turing College warranted a separate article due to its role within the university and the broader context of collegiate universities in the UK, such as Lancaster and York, which also have articles for their individual colleges. The same reasoning should apply to Woolf College, as it too is a functioning residential and academic unit within the University of Kent.

Historical Precedent: Just as Turing College was retained as a standalone article despite concerns about notability, Woolf College should be given the same consideration. The semi-collegiate structure of the University of Kent supports the argument that each college has independent significance and contributes uniquely to the university.

Consistency with Other Colleges: There is a clear pattern of keeping separate articles for colleges at Kent, and merging them into a single article would risk losing the distinct identity and contributions of each college. The precedent established in the Turing College AfD discussion supports this approach.

Given these points and the Turing College precedent, I believe Woolf College should be kept as a separate article, consistent with the treatment of other Kent colleges. GreenALC (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I would like to expand on my initial points regarding Woolf College’s notability. While the college's primary role is to provide accommodation, it also hosts a variety of academic events, including international conferences and lectures focused on subjects related to Virginia Woolf and broader literary themes. These events contribute to the college’s unique identity within the University of Kent and enhance its cultural and academic significance.

As an example, in 2018, Woolf College hosted the 28th Annual International Conference on Virginia Woolf, which brought together scholars from around the world. More recently, in 2024, the college hosted a lecture by Professor Rachel Bowlby on the theme of Virginia Woolf and the Property Market, demonstrating its continuing academic engagement with the legacy of Woolf and her relevance in contemporary discourse.

This active role in hosting significant academic events contributes to the college’s function as an academic and cultural hub within the university, much like Turing College, Eliot College, and Darwin College, which have retained individual articles due to their distinct history, facilities, and contributions to the university’s structure. Woolf College, in the same vein, fulfills a comparable function and warrants the same consideration for a separate article.

I hope this additional information helps clarify why Woolf College meets the standards for notability and why it should be retained as a standalone article. GreenALC (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm terribly sorry about this, because I'd rather this were kept but it doesn't pass WP:GNG on the current sourcing and there's simply nothing out there to get it past WP:GNG - which is the standard we are asked to evaluate even degree-awarding institutions against. Presumed notability is less compelling an argument for a relatively new institution. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does it or doesn't it meet GNG? Can we get a source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Colombia–Nicaragua relations

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

Unnecessary split of Colombia–Nicaragua relations. In fact, I'm not familiar with any other timeline article on foreign relations. This page covers some incidents not mentioned on the parent article, yes, but there's no reason it couldn't be covered there instead — the parent article is not very long and would absolutely benefit from more context. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NLIST. We'd literally be deleting every timeline on wikipedia if we accepted the nominator's rationale as valid. Timelines are a valid secondary form of presenting content. Per NLIST they are not considered a duplicate or a content fork of an identical topic covered within a prose article. Given that the prose version of the article has lots of WP:SIGCOV sourcing; it would be an easy matter of using those sources to improve the sourcing on the timeline page.4meter4 (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iida Yoshitake

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

Article has remained unsourced for 18 years. No indication that sources exist or that this person is notable per guidelines. Original creator of this article was banned and confirmed to be a sock pocket. Wozal (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Japan. Wozal (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you search in google books under his Japanese name ("飯田義武") there are lots of scholarly Japanese language military history publications with hits. In just reading the text with the "Found Inside" snippet views, I think it is likely there is WP:SIGCOV of this person in those sources. Unfortunately, they are all snippet view books/journal articles. If an editor with access to Japanese language academic publications were to participate, I think it likely this would be a rescuable article.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1 (NYSPHSAA)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Wikipedia is not a directory. These are also largely redundant with lists such as List of high schools in New York (state) or categories like Category:High schools in Albany County, New York etc. I'd support moving this information to a category structure (High schools in NYSPHSAA class A, high schools in NYSPHSAA section whatever, etc.) but I don't think any individual section is notable enough to justify getting its own Wikipedia page. Apocheir (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sports. Apocheir (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to New York State Public High School Athletic Association per WP:ATD. The content is useful and that article is short. It could contain the content; particularly if we were to restructure the information so it doesn't take up so much space. It's also not outside of the scope of that topic.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]