Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

WP:AFD/USA

Note: This is a high level category for deletion sorting. Whenever possible, it is recommended for deletion discussions to be added to more specific categories, such as a state and/or relevant subject area. Please review the list of available deletion categories, and see this page's guidelines below for more information.

Page guidelines: This United States of America deletion sorting page may be used for the following types of articles:

AfD discussions about people, organizations, companies and other entities that are known for activity or have a presence on a national level in the United States can be listed on this page.
Topics and subjects that are U.S.-based, whereby the article does not provide a specific state of origin or where activity occurs.
Media such as films, television shows and books that have national distribution in the United States.
Products that have national distribution and a significant presence in the United States.
Multinational companies that have a significant presence in the United States, whereby the article does not provide specific state(s) of location.

Dear reader/writer of this WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America. The present page was above the template_include_limit. As a result, the bottom of the page was not displayed correctly. For this reason, the transclusion of the deletions sorted by US states has been moved to WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/sorted by State.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to United States of America. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|United States of America|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to United States of America.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

General[edit]

List of CBS Sports college basketball commentators[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, 506sports is a forum and collegehoopsnet is merely an announcment of a list of commentators, the other is a blogspot post; neither doing anything to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Basketball, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to College Basketball on CBS Sports#Commentators with only the most notable announcers on that list. This list does not meet WP:LISTN for this wiki, but for the fandom wiki, it's fine. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Segal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV by independent RS that justify an article in the 15 years that this article has existed. Per a WP:BEFORE, the only thing resembling any sort of coverage is this profile on an activist group's website. Longhornsg (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Progressive Democrats of America. Florificapis (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KUAM-LP[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources; could merge with KUAM-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Causey[edit]

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

This is WP:BLP1E. TarnishedPath^talk 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Crime, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and Texas. TarnishedPath^talk 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could maybe redirect to Enron scandal, maybe a section like § Trials. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not mentioned there. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are mentioned twice in that section, once in the first paragraph (last name only) and again in the fourth. I do take the point that it's hard to spot on a casual read though, I think it's the only reason I was hesitant about it in the first place. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was doing a ctrl-f on their full name. Just did a ctrl-f on their last name only. In that case I have no issue with a redirect to either Enron scandal#Timeline of downfall (first mention) or Enron scandal#Trials (second and third mention). TarnishedPath^talk 03:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Hockey[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The only reliable source I can find is this, but all the rest are just unreliable outlets. Toadette^Edit! 06:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, all I could find online about this proposed league is social media and blogs posts. This source, the only inline reference in the article at the moment, is a press release posted to Mega Marine Ship Machinery Parts in Gujarat, India, suggesting undisclosed paid editing. Wikishovel (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey, Canada, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all there is in a semi-RS [1], otherwise all I find is PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SPORTSKEEDA, that's "generally unreliable". Wikishovel (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been reported by many reputable sources in the hockey community, including Steve Dangle and Allan Walsh. https://twitter.com/walsha/status/1788751235085996514 Ericringo (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Mmhmm. For my part, any claim that some fly-by-night startup league could conceivably contemplate a salary cap of $30 million, or to pay each player an average of $2.1 m, not only makes this a GNG violation but bumps up hard against WP:BULLSHIT. This is just not credible, and I want a lot better proof of notice by "reputable sources in the hockey community" than a broken Twitter link. Ravenswing 00:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the subject does not meet the notability criteria; the amount of coverage isn't "significant". There's a single full-fledged report on the topic (the Dangle video, which has since been retracted); everything else is tweets by journalists. Furthermore, a claim as big as this warrants more reliable sources than a single report made by someone who is, respectfully, not a seasoned journalist. This plainly doesn't warrant an article. I don't think one can even recommend "draftify"; considering the paucity of sources, even the claim "not notable yet, but likely to become so in the near future" is generous. HeyArtemis (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Carlstrom (whistleblower)[edit]

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

Only sources are a column and two citations of a deprecated source. WP:BEFORE only returns similar, unreliable, sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sweden, and United States of America. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked through the main Swedish news archive to try to find good sources to save this article, but only found a press release. //Julle (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nothing that makes him notable in reliable sources. Sjö (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuno Miles[edit]

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

as much as i love yuno, the only reliable source that talks about him is this, which makes him not notable Authenyo (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i typed this crying knowing that big wikipedia will delete yuno miles Authenyo (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss. OJSimpsonLover (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC) User blocked for vandalism. Air on White (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a RS per Project Album [2], but that's all I can find for this person. No interviews or articles about him, was hoping something would show up. A lack of sourcing means !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a few sources - maybe look a little harder 2601:449:4100:DA80:E549:EA16:3F2E:1D57 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So... could you link them here? Tollens (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, they don't exist. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability guidelines. Plus, there’s already a draft article for him at draft:Yuno Miles. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 00:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/music/news-who-yuno-miles-fans-react-youtuber-releases-hilarious-drake-diss-response-metro-boomin-s-challenge	WP:RSP: user-generated		✘ No
https://www.rapreviews.com/2023/11/yuno-miles-yuno-i-cant-rap/			✔ Yes
https://www.sescoops.com/wwe/rapper-yuno-miles-releases-wwe-diss-track-im-beefing-with-the-wwe	Probably, website has multiple writers and this one has a degree		✔ Yes
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-age-of-shitpost-modernism/		One example with only one mention	✘ No
https://gizmodo.com/saga-bbl-drizzy-drake-kendrick-lamar-metro-boomin-1851470820		Only one mention as "The Meme Diss Track"; in the article's slides.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Here's a table. I don't think two is enough, is it? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most editors would consider two enough. Air on White (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SE Scoops is two videos and two quotes of his, with about 5 lines of text otherwise, might be a RS but that's hardly extensive coverage. Maybe 1/2 a source, being generous. I'd still like to see more than these two sources, neither of which is extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The entire article is about a diss track he released.
I do agree that two sources is a bit far from keeping, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he appears in two articles that count towards GNG, but there isn't enough notable articles at the moment for a stronger keep. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Fein[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV such as [[3]] and [[4]]. Let'srun (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Pennington[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Braakman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has some decent coverage at [[5]] and [[6]]. Not a ton here but probably enough to pass the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Nagle (figure skater)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 United States Senate election in New Hampshire[edit]

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

Creating an article for an election 2 years in advance is almost certainly too soon for a wikipedia article on the subject. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, and New Hampshire. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it's probably worth mentioning that 2026 United States Senate election in Georgia, 2026 United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2026 United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2026 United States Senate election in South Carolina and 2026 United States Senate election in Texas also exist. It may be worth nominating them for deletion as well. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I mean, this is the next senate election in that state and we're close enough to it that the incumbent has announced their intent to run again, doesn't seem too soon to me. WP:TOOSOON primarily applies to events so far in the future it's not possible to write anything except a stub stating that it will happen. BrigadierG (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the election is being discussed in reliable sources and candidates are declaring their candidacies, then it is not too soon for an article.--User:Namiba 19:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrigadierG and Nambia. Sal2100 (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. 'Nuff said.TH1980 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan Malakian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Originally deleted back in 2009, and no notability gained in the time since then. Only source is a YouTube link, and a Google search only turned up passing mentions, self-published fansites et al. Total failure of WP:N, and in particular problematic due to it being a WP:BLP article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only source is an interview, which is WP:PRIMARY. Since there are no reliable sources on the article or online, this immediately fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Iraq, Armenia, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A BEFORE search reveals things like messages on Reddit or Pintrest and other social media-type sites. I found nothing that is actually about him or his work other that the fact that his son is a known musician, however the father does not inherit notability through his child. I'm not finding anything like reviews, collections, notable exhibitions, articles about him, etc. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding any information to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Berlin (lawyer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources are either unreliable, not independent, or provide significant coverage. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and California. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, notwithstanding the "Top 100 Trial Lawyers" and "Super Lawyer" pseudo-awards. TJRC (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zashko Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Most of the press I find is a mention of the company in articles about films it was involved in, but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Possibly redirect to one of the films as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, United States of America, and Texas. CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Fasano[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to fall under the general notability guidelines, and does seem to be mostly promotional fluff. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Various biographies and routine business moves, nothing notable for this C-level exec. Even in Gnews, it's all PR items. Nothing for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Stew[edit]

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

The subject of the article doesn't appear to be notable. The article cites two sources, the first being Everything2 (a user-generated website, thus not reliable), and the second being an article on adobe.com. Other than that, I found a short Entertainment Weekly article from 1999, a Boston Globe article (also 1999), and a Boston Phoenix article (2009) with around 30 words about Computer Stew. Perhaps it could be merged to another John Hargrave project, Zug (website) (although I don't know if Zug itself is notable, but it did exist for significantly longer) or ZDNET. toweli (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. toweli (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictators supported by the United States[edit]

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

There is no way this page could ever satisfy WP:NPOV because terms like "dictator" and "support" can be subjectively debated, leaving this page in violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY. Whereas List of wars involving the United States can sort through the subjectivity of distinguishing skirmishes from wars by criteria like named military operations, the "support" for a dictatorship could easily range from diplomatic recognition to outright military and economic alliances. For example, why not include Kim Jong Un on the tenuous basis of Trump's visits providing North Korea's dictatorship with greater legitimacy? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments. Obviously it is controversial to some but that's no reason for deletion, this is a topic that gets a lot of coverage. Orange sticker (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestion! My issue with this list article is that the format suggests objective criteria for inclusion, but an article on this area US foreign policy seems appropriate. It looks like that article could benefit from some organization, such as Cold War alliances and War on Terror alliances. I will try improving that article with some of this one's content over the next few days, but I will leave this deletion discussion open in case others have more suggestions. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the table isn't appropriate here as it implies a list of identical things, and there's too much nuance and variation. A list with more narrative would be better. Orange sticker (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments, this topic is well documented, so making it a section on the topic's main article is just what makes sense. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does Trump really support dictator Kim Jong-un? While US presidents who support other dictators often show it directly or vaguely or conceal it, Trump does not have the above signs. Don't talk about Trump's visit to North Korea to speculate, or if you As an anti-Trump person, there is nothing to discuss. What I read is that the tabloids, or at least the opposing views, cannot place Kim Jong-un here, for the List of wars involving the United States, because it begins started before it was even founded, and support for dictatorship only started from the 1920s onwards, so this argument is not practically applicable, if you mean the term "state dictatorship", "support" is a violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY, this site does not even have anything to defame, affecting the honor and responsibility of the United States or the US government, what they do is their reputation. Their intention, purpose, and actions, they invaded other countries and bombed and burned. It's their fault, no one else's, this article is not even a propaganda thing or a "battlefield" as WP:NOTADVOCACY mentioned, if you read carefully, this is an informative article. complete, with correct sources. For merging with U.S. policy towards authoritarian governments, there are things that have not been mentioned (or literally missing) in this article, so it would be better to have a separate page. Geotubemedia (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Geotubemedia, it seems you started editing last month, so I want to clarify that merging is different from redirecting. As you note, each article contains some information not present in the other, so merging would involve combining the total sum of their information into the same article. I am not approaching this deletion discussion from a particular viewpoint, instead hoping to show that a list article is ripe for edit wars because this hypothetical anti-Trump editor could speculate about whether Trump supports Kim Jong Un. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 11:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments. A topic that gets a surprising amount of coverage (for example, this article from France 24), and clearly passes WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge towards U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments. The previous article already have great content, adding new list is not needed. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strathmeade Springs, Virginia[edit]

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

Insignificant neighborhood within Woodburn, Fairfax County, Virginia. WP:BEFORE yields nothing useful. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Virginia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Real estate agent spam. Central and Adams (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Housing development confirmed [7]James.folsom (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bierman[edit]

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

No evidence of notability I can see, seeking delete and redirect rather than just BLAR due to promotional nature and it being most likely UPE spam. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet GNG. 2409:40D0:1003:8EC1:B97B:BE02:1EED:D027 (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 08:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic UPE article non-notable ceo. A WP:BEFORE didn't find much. Several interviews in the context of the company. The references, again the first two blocks are more to do with company than him. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 08:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lane (actor)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to possess roles that adequately satisfy WP:NCREATIVE. Most sources currently present in the article say the same thing, in which subject is mentioned once to declare being a co-producer. I cannot find satisfactory GNG sourcing online. —Sirdog (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Sirdog (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NCREATIVE, and WP:NACTOR. I just removed a bizarre and hyperbolic uncited claim from this article after searching for verification online. The rest of the article is all either run-of-the-mill, uncited, or about items not yet aired or screened. The only coverage more than two words long is this Deadline article which seems to repeat Lane's own self-submitted PR self-description without even fact-checking. [8]. Persingo (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Sherman (climber)[edit]

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

A very long standing, since 2005, and short article supported only by the title character's own books. Nothing independent and nothing reliable. Undoubtedly well known in their specialist circle but no evidence of notability as understood by Wikipedia . Searches find his books and , many photos including beer drinking on a rock face and very many web pages with the Wikipedia text. Difficult to say which came firts and to determione whether this is simply 100% copy vio, but with a start date in 2005, it is likely that this is being mirrored (without acknowldgement) in many other places. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, United States of America, and Texas. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Photography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126[edit]

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

Not notable. Could be redirected to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is significant coverage of FMVSS 126 in a large number of sources in Google Scholar and Google Books, including at least three entire articles on this subject: [9] [10] [11]. James500 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG.Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG still does not mean it must have a standalone article; per WP:NOPAGE, it's more appropriate to cover the topic in context elsewhere. There are also sources on the European Union's regulation of electronic stability control, on Australia's regulation of electronic stability control, on Canada's regulation of electronic stability control, on Argentina's regulation of electronic stability control, etc.... I'm sure an additional source for each beyond those in the main article can be found to satisfy GNG but that doesn't mean a duplicative page is necessary for this. Reywas92^Talk 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be any duplication. The laws of one country are not the same thing as the laws of another. In any event, there comes a point where the sheer volume of coverage of a topic is so large that it cannot be stuffed into a single article; and in such cases the parent article needs to be split. Electronic stability control is such a topic. There are hundreds of articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about electronic stability control, to the point where the words "electronic stability control" actually appear verbatim in their titles. The article Electronic stability control is already 62kB long and does not need to be made longer. James500 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um no, page length is measured by prose text and it's only 25kb/4,000 words long, well under WP:LENGTH's guideline. Expansion of that article including its regulation section is absolutely more than welcome. But if you think it should be split, a single country's regulation of it is the wrong way to do so (a different section or a general Regulation of electronic stability control would be better if warranted). This US regulation page is so short, it is duplicated in its entirety by the main article's "The United States followed, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implementing FMVSS 126, which requires ESC for all passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds (4536 kg). The regulation phased in starting with 55% of 2009 models (effective 1 September 2008), 75% of 2010 models, 95% of 2011 models, and all 2012 and later models." This is unnecessary to be a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This regulation does not duplicate the regulations of other countries. The sources about this regulation do not duplicate the sources about the regulations of other countries. WP:ARTN says "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability". Accordingly, the fact that some of the content of this article is similar to the content of the parent article does not decrease the notability of the topic of this article. In any event, the article has now been expanded some new content that is not in the parent article, and more can be added. Likewise, the fact that this article is presently short is also irrelevant, because it can be expanded so as to make it much longer. In theory, this page could be moved to Regulation of electronic stability control, without prejudice to a future split, in order to speed up the creation of such an article, but this page should not be merged into another page (which would not have the page history of this page). James500 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation, where this is already discussed. The sources above would also be better in the main article than a separate page. Individual regulations rarely need their own articles and I don't see an exception here. Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Panoramic Photography - Apollo 14[edit]

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

I'm a bit conflicted about this nomination - while it's clear a lot of work was put into the article, it appears to fundamentally contradict WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTGALLERY as a mass gallery of images with no coverage in secondary sources. Perhaps this can be transwikied somewhere else? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and United States of America. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback. On the face of it, I would agree that the the article appears to be a gallery - in its current form... It's one of a series featuring the panoramas shot on Apollo and I've been focussed on getting the basics in place first so that I can return and enrich each of them later. I'm a day or so away from completing the Apollo 17 article, but I would stand up the "Lunar Panoramic Photography - Apollo 11" article as an example of the direction I intend to go in. Although that isn't complete either, at least it includes some of those added-value features, such as placing the panoramas in context through the use of maps, and providing commentary as to how the shots came about. (And after Apollo, there's all the panoramas from the automated missions that occurred before and after the manned missions.)

Naturally, having done the work, I think it's a worthy inclusion. If there is a more appropriate format for it to be presented in then I would be happy to transfer it, but, for now, I'd prefer to think of it as moving in the direction of being a 'Catalogue' rather than a 'Gallery'... Usedtoknoweverything (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This almost looks like it satisfies LIST, with some critical discussion about items in the list, a significant lead and a closing paragraph. This could be useful for someone looking at the photos for context of the larger lunar mission. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that there isn't even a single secondary source covering the topic. If there were, I wouldn't have brought this to AfD at all. The article appears compliant with policies, except for notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lya Stern[edit]

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

This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Whelan[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD for a game show winner lacking independent notability per WP:GNG and WP:BLP for two key reasons:

(1) On notability, in contrast to other reality television show winners with articles, there is no evidence in the article of other public aspects to Whelan that would justify their discussion beyond the appearance on the show: no post-appearance career, appearance on other media, other notable contributions. Whelan's other personal details in the coverage are not the reason she is notable and themselves would not give rise to an article.

(2) My view is that there is no content on this page that could not be better subject to a WP:MERGE on the page Squid Game: The Challenge. Even if Whelan is deemed notable due to the coverage of her appearance on the show, the four sentences about her, if the sum of information known about her, is hardly information that isn't simple to cover on the article for the one thing she primarily inherits her potential notability from.

As ever, open to views! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Vietnam, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We probably have enough for notability based on the game show win. [12] is also another source. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP1E, fails GNG and NBIO. Winning a game show does not make a subject notable, there is no indication this one event was notable, or that anything else related to the subject would meet GNG or NBIO. // Timothy :: talk 08:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook case of BLP1E, and the relevant event is not such as to confer any kind of lasting notability. --Cavarrone 15:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of college sports team nicknames in North America[edit]

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

Non-notable grouping that fails to meet the WP:NLIST due to a lack of WP:RS. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, Canada, United States of America, and North America. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think there's a corresponding article, but college teams' nicknames is certainly a notable topic discussed by a variety of sources. Sources include [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Reywas92^Talk 14:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In North America though? Let'srun (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, delete the ones in Canada and Mexico if you want a US-focused list. I don't see the point of that though. Reywas92^Talk 18:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have U Sports#Conferences and members and List of Mexican collegiate American football programs for Canada and Mexico respectively. I do not expect the remaining North American countries to have significantly notability, WP:LISTN, for navigational purposes. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So shorten this list to be the US ones. I think this is a valid navigational list for that at least. Reywas92^Talk 03:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of college team nicknames in the United States exists already. Conyo14 (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I had searched but didn't see that. I would support a merge, but I do like how this is sorted by type and with the length this is a rare instance that keeping separate (or even merging the alphabetical list to this one) would be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 15:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, U Sports#Conferences & members, List of Mexican collegiate American football programs and List of college team nicknames in the United States are sufficient. I couldn't find anything that discussed everything has a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Air Group SIX[edit]

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

No evidence that this formation meets the GNG. Of the currently-cited sources, 2, 3, and 5 are self-published, not independent, and not reliable (except for direct quotes from Navy documents in source 3). Source 1 [30] seems to list only establishment and disestablishment dates (not sigcov), which is more than I expected from a source supposedly covering "1910-1920" – it seems the citing editor made a typo, the citation should read "1910-2010". Source 4 [31] doesn't seem to mention this unit at all. In sum, there are 0 sources that count toward the GNG, and I couldn't find anything in a before search. Toadspike (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Toadspike (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This can also be redirected to List of United States Navy aircraft wings. Toadspike (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. WP:BEFORE seems to have overlooked Moroson, Lundstrom, Hammel, and books on the Battle of the Eastern Solomons or the Battle of Philippine Sea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to withdraw this nomination if you can properly cite those books in the article. With that information alone, it is very hard to know what books you are talking about. For example, I don't know how to find a book by "Moroson", and could not find one with such a name on either battle you mentioned. Toadspike (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA All-Star Game broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Also LISTCRUFT (or WP:CRUFT). The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are about the game itself, many of those are YouTube links and none of those assert notability to this list. I also advise them to start a Fandom page if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with sourcing from [32], [33] and [34]. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Less about WP:NOTTVGUIDE as it doesn't necessarily apply here, but since each broadcast and crew can be covered in each All Star Game, the collection in itself is not notable. Conyo14 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NBA All-Star Game is the National Basketball Association's big marquee annual event outside of the NBA Finals. Any further relevant information and sources always added to the article (such as through the aid of Google News Archives and what not) that can will help give it more notability. Also, the individual articles for each All-Star Game doesn't specifically specify or identify the exact role for each announcer like the play-by-play announcer, color commentator, sideline reporter, studio host, etc. This is where the lists in particular come into play as its presumably, a simpler and linear way to now about the television and radio broadcasting history and background. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above in case you didn't read, WP:USEFUL covers the point you made. Also, WP:ILIKEIT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, adding TV listings as sources will not support your argument. This isn't 2004 anymore. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @SpacedFarmer: I don't understand your own argument about how adding TV listings as sources will not support my argument. How can you argue that the list previously didn't have enough sources to assert its notability and yet, immediately discount newspaper articles from those exact time periods. To me you can't argue that something needs to be deleted if it's mostly unsourced per WP:RS and then say that said sources like TV listings. Many of the sources that I added thus far by the way, were not simply and just general TV listings (like bullet points), but paragraphed and fairly detailed articles. What does saying that "it isn't 2004 anymore" have to do with anything? I don't exactly get your point and argument there and why that's of any relevance. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Air Group TEN[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Citation 1, while reliable, contains nothing more than the dates during which this formation existed [35]. Citations 2-4 seem to be self-published blogs and thus not reliable. Citation 5 seems to be about a different unit entirely, and citation 6 is a dead link that isn't in the Internet Archive. While I don't doubt that this unit existed, there is no evidence that it deserves a standalone article. Toadspike (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This formation has an entry at List of United States Navy aircraft wings. I would support that page as a redirect target. Toadspike (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Owen× ☎ 20:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States Navy aircraft wings - Per Toadspike. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. WP:BEFORE seems to have overlooked Morison, Lundstrom, Hammel, and books on the Battle of Santa Cruz or the Battle of Philippine Sea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7 Same comment as at AfD Carrier Air Group SIX – you can't just drop some names and leave it at that. I am assuming in good faith that these books exist – you are, after all, an experienced and competent editor – but I would like to be able to verify that this Air Group receives significant coverage in those books you mentioned. Toadspike (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Carrier Air Wing Ten. All of the other WW2 era (with the exception of the Enterprise Air Group page) have their history in the pages of the Air Wings that succeeded them after that 1940s. Tdhla1 (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Air Wing Ten is not the same formation though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Hawkeye7 here, this is a different formation. Toadspike (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament Final Four broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with sourcing from [36], [37] and [38].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esolo5002 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources provided are about the ratings which can be a blurb in each Final Four article. However, media sections regarding which station, play-by-play, and color commentator is not necessarily notable to collegiate basketball (men's or women's). Conyo14 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WNBA Finals broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Entirely unsourced but a single one that is a TV listing, not asserting notability either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found these from 2023's: [39] and [40]. Conyo14 (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Awards broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid[edit]

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

Nominating based on User:AFC Vixen's edit summary. The bid has been withdrawn, thus failing WP:GNG any relevant information can be moved to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids LouisOrr27 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. LouisOrr27 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Mexico, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Redirect to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids is also valid. Svartner (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The same (withdrawn bid) appears to happen with South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Svartner (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid and South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid into 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids — ILoveSport2006 reverted my first attempt at merging these articles because they felt the Mexico–United States article was "very good and adds a lot of info that the paragraph on the bid page doesn't say",^[1] and that "[the South Africa] bid could've won had they not withdrawn and deserves to stay as an article."^[2] The first argument ignores how said info can fit comfortably in the bid article, and the second is an unsubstantiated claim. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia, even for previous Women's World Cups. To say this bid article isn't notable is ridiculous because it was an official bid, had its own bid book and gained a lot of media attention from many publications in and outside of the US and Mexico. The Mexico–United States section on the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page is bare and has a map that is terrible and lacks any detail, which makes it virtually useless since it doesn't even display what city and stadium it is talking about, it's just arrows. When you compare the map to the one on the Mexico–United States bid page, there's no comparison. Just type in Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid on Google and you will find a plethora of articles talking about it. It couldn't be more notable if you tried. That tiny paragraph and map does not give a bid that could have won justice.

AFC Vixen you have just criticised my opinion with an opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine, but the way you have written it is like you're saying my opinion isn't even valid.

What I hate on Wikipedia is when people essentially delete history and interesting facts. This is deleting history and facts. Do not be trigger happy when deleting articles that people have put effort in. Some article can be terrible but this article is pretty good. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia" is a textbook WP:WHATABOUT argument, and there are indeed city and stadium names on the interactive map; perhaps we could add a "Click the square to enlarge" or similar phrasing to the caption to make that clearer to readers. Again, there just isn't enough content here to justify a WP:SPINOUT from 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids, and it can easily fit there instead. I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of "deleting history and facts" either. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the map is slightly better than I thought, It's still way worst than the one on the Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid page. Also you took one part of my detailed reply which makes many valid points and think you have proven a point by only talking about one tiny aspect of my long reply. You didn't talk about my Google argument, the bid book argument or even the media attention argument. You talked about the only thing that you thought you could make an argument on. You are trying to invalidate my opinion by saying buzz words like unsubstantiated and put me down which I don't respect. This is a common practice on Wikipedia. Make arguments with absolutely no facts and put up links and write it like you are better than the other person.

Let's take the Budapest bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics for example, a withdrawn bid that is very notable.

You didn't say: "The reason why the withdrawn Budapest bid is notable and deserves to be an article but the Mexico–United States bid doesn't is because..." You are just throwing a WP:WHATABOUT argument on me and calling it a day. But that's not an argument. In my opinion, it's really unhelpful.

I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of deleting history and facts either Personally, I think they are substantiated to an extent because you did delete info from the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page under the guise of Cleaning the article up and massively cut down on fluff, but you can do both. You seemingly can't take my opinion without putting me down. I can take your opinion, but what I can't take is people fobbing me off with Wiki links with no proper facts or points behind their argument. You have no moral high ground if you put me down. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you feel very passionately about this, but can you stop pretending like I made personal attacks on you? I merely refuted your arguments with my own, which yes, they are opinions. That is what a discussion is. — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate that you realise that I'm very passionate about this, because it's 100% true, but I never said you made a personal attack, because you haven't. All I'm saying is that I hate when I make valid arguments and people throw a WP:WHATABOUT on me because that isn't an argument and it's a cheap throwaway comment that is disguised as an argument. Also, I felt like you were putting me down. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not putting you down, I just genuinely think arguing this article should exist because others like it exist doesn't speak to what makes the page itself merit its existence in its own right, and you're probably better off just leaving those kinds of arguments out next time. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I did give you evidence. That's my point. My argument wasn't just "well other articles exist like it", I gave numerous points about how the article deserves to stay on its on own merit and all you did was throw a WP:WHATABOUT on me. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Mexico–United States 2031 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Given that the same bid is just being moved to a later edition, it makes more sense to just keep the same article and modify it as needed. Note that the 2027 bid was withdrawn very very late in the process, so there would have been enough coverage for it to have a separate article at some point. Sounder Bruce 22:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This idea is something that I have thought about as well. This could work too. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per SounderBruce. Everything still seems relevant and notable, just pushed back. -2pou (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above per Svartner. Giant Snowman 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is all over the map. I don't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Just looking at references in the article, I don't see the sources that justify keeping a separate article. WP:BEFORE shows a lot of articles relaying (generally with a limited amount of re-writing) a press release by the US Soccer Federation on April 29th 2024 announcing that they have withdrawn the bid for 2027 and will bid together for 2031. Similarly, there are a good number of articles relaying the announcement of the bid by US Soccer on Dec 8th 2023 and April 19th 2024. Excluding these however does not reveal many sources. One I did find is by the Washington Post : Why FIFA should look past U.S.-Mexico bid to host 2026 women's World Cup, but I would be interested in what WP:THREE sources clearly establish notability.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2017/11/7/16616540/us-soccer-president-candidates-saying-women-uswnt		? Blog published by SBNation, unknown if Stephanie Yang is a reliable matter expert	Passing mention that Carlos Cordeiro believes the US should host the 2027 world cup	✘ No
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/13/2026-world-cup-usa-mexico-canada/			Passing mention that the US Soccer federation is planning to bid for the 2027 world cup	✘ No
https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/us-soccer-now-considers-bidding-for-2031-womens-world-cup/	~ Paywalled article - appears independent, but unclear as the content is not available	? Seems to have never been addressed in the reliable sources noticeboard	? Paywalled article - the primary content based on title & lead is a tentative bid for the 2031 world cup	? Unknown
https://justwomenssports.com/ussf-bid-host-2027-2031-womens-world-cup/		? Not in the reliable sources noticeboards	Very article basically relaying multiple times a short quote from USSF president Cindy parlow Cone	✘ No
https://www.infobae.com/america/deportes/2022/06/21/mexico-buscara-ser-sede-de-la-copa-mundial-de-la-fifa-femenil/			~ Really stretching to include it as significant, at best there are two paragraphs (137 words total) that are related to a potential 2027 bid	~ Partial
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2023/04/us-soccer-and-mexican-football-federation-will-launch-joint-bid-to-cohost-2027-fifa-womens-world-cup	US Soccer Federation website			✘ No
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2023/12/us-soccer-mexican-football-federation-submit-bid-right-to-host-2027-fifa-womens-world-cup	US Soccer Federation website			✘ No
https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/390c06917bd0f7a2/original/New-Heights-WWC27-Bid-Book-USA-Mexico.pdf	Publication by the US & Mexico Soccer Federations, hosted by FIFA			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Blind Woman (song)[edit]

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

Does not establish notability. The references in the article appear to be either primary sources or cannot be considered reliable due to the lack of editorial oversight within their staff. A quick check before the nomination showed no better sources that could be included, nor any other indicators of notability like a chart appearance. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zarah: Found no coverage myself. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Americans killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

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

Mainly due to lack of notability, WP:NOTNEWS, and the obvious bias issue in having this list. In addition the list contained original research listing the Telegram channel 'TrackANaziMerc' as a source since February. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic.... would have never searched for it on my own. There seems to be substantial sourcing for this if it wants to be improved no? Moxy🍁 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are the only two sources I could find that treat the topic as a group: [41] (paywalled so can't review) and [42], and this latter source isn't very in depth about it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to read the Washington Post link thanks to a gift I was sent: I don't believe the Washington Post is dealing with solely Americans having been killed in the war, but rather the idea and reasons behind Americans serving overseas in Ukraine - the Washington Post article is more suited for foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian War rather than this list. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, I got a proposal to change the topic to "List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War" , which @EkoGraf, the creator of the list, doesn't oppose to it, maybe we could change the topic first before we nominate to delete?

PoisonHK _{Sapiens dominabitur astris} 14:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title/period isn't the issue with the list. Also speedy keep cannot apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, also article is incomplete and need expantion. If the title is changed to List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War we should include American killed during the War in Donbas 2014-2021.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it pass notability and WP:RS with sources as The Guardian, Politico and Yahoo News. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But do they deal with the topic as a group like this? Routine news coverage doesn't establish notability of the topic as a list. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replace "Routine news" with better sources, it pass clearly notability. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator, notability established as mentioned by RS, also agree to article expansion to include those from the Donbas War. EkoGraf (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Regarding lack of notability, NOTNEWS, and bias, I disagree with all three. I think it's pretty notable and informative for Americans and others to known how many died in a war they heavily funded. NOTNEWS I think is exempt in a list. To achieve completeness a list often must exhaust news coverage. And bias, I agree and disagree, but don't believe it's a problem. Making a list of Americans killed only shows coverage bias, similar to how there are so many pages and information about alleged Russian war crimes and negative stuff about Russia but very few covering the other side, Ukraine. That's mostly because most editors show more interest in writing about negative Russian things and because most sources that cover the alleged Ukrainian crimes are suppressed in Wikipedia. In such cases, I think the better solution is simply to also write about the other side, not remove the favored side. Thus, a list of other foreign nationals killed would also be important. Btw, doesn't such global list exist? If it does, then the American-only list should be merged in it and not stick out.

Regarding the alleged WP:OR, I haven't checked. If there are problems, then they should be solved, but I don't think deleting the page just because of it is ideal. I'm not following this thread, so ping me if you want a reply. Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 21:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's the exact same routine coverage of non-American foreign civilians/soldiers killed in Ukraine during the current Russo-Ukraine war.

The only similar article I could find was list of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which includes people with Wikipedia articles, for the few that don't have one they appear to be important politicians or military officials. @Alexiscoutinho Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍. Regarding the other list being of people with articles, I think it would be unfair to omit people without articles or military career (here). 🤔 Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 15:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's to have a US specific list about a war being fought in Eastern Europe by two European countries. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Serves an informative purpose, seems to have decent coverage Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others, particularly Alexis Coutinho. Needs some improvement but shouldn't be deleted Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article serves a historical purpose Salfanto (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Keep votes above sum up to ILIKEIT, ITSUSEFUL, and THEREMUSTBESOURCES. None give an actual policy-based reason to keep. Per nominator, there is no coverage of this topic as a group, only individual instances. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also say that there are several other lists for other countries that should likely also be deleted unless good sources are found for those countries. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. The fact this is simply a list, not an in-depth article, also hobbles this entry.TH1980 (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NLIST, sources do not show there is WP:SIRS discussing this as a group. List contains only non-notable entries (one exception), serves no purpose per WP:CLN. Keep votes above are ILIKEIT and provide no sources showing this had been discussed as a group or guidelines showing why the should be kept. // Timothy :: talk 19:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It seems like there is a lack of policy-based reasons on both sides of this discussion. ITSUSEFUL isn't a strong defense but neither is the proposition of bias because we don't have articles on soldiers who have been killed from other countries. There are always other articles that have yet to be written.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NLIST, and as a content fork of List of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I agree with Liz that there is not a lot of policy-based rationale on either side here. Conyo14 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not WP:LISTCRUFT, has enough RS, and serves a historical purpose. Florificapis (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Freston[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. likely an autobiography. ltb d l (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. ltb d l (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please note that Tfreston (talk · contribs), who purports to be the subject, began to edit the article in July 2016 and has virtually stripped out all of the sources; this is the last edit before they became involved, and this edit from several months ago was the last before the subject stripped out all sources, including about basic biographical information such as children and marriage. This may be a case where COI has to be flagged and the mentioned editor may have to be blocked from editing their own article, which had proper sources before then. @Ltbdl:, can you let me know what you think of what I presented? Nate • (chatter) 18:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Good Lord, they really have removed all of the sources in the article. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 19:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restore to pre-COI'd state. With profiles in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and CNBC, he's clearly notable, we just have to keep him from trying to write an autobiography. Jfire (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antarapata[edit]

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

None of the three sources on the page are reliable as they all fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE was also unable to find anything better than a few mentions and announcements. CNMall41 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and United States of America. CNMall41 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: With some update with reviews and more sources other than pre-release publicity ones, this probably would be notable. Based on the actions of the article creator, moving this to draft will probably need the draft move protected and redirect created here pointing to Colors Kannada that would need to be protected. Ravensfire (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would always recommend draftify as an WP:ATD. The issue is that when that happens we have to deal with the bludgeoning of redirects and submissions without improvements from socks, IPs and UPEs. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Flynn (businessman)[edit]

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

Most news seems to be about his company Flynn Group and its restaurants/ acquisitions rather than him. He was briefly in the news regarding the California minimum wage issues and seems to be only known for that. Shinadamina (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Shinadamina (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is substantial coverage out there about Flynn. The article just has to be expanded. Thriley (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator, most of the articles are about his company or are primary with quotations. The Forbes article and QSR Magazine seem to be the best coverage, but they both contain lot's of quotations and based on primary info. Hkkingg (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2016/08/24/the-super-sizer-how-greg-flynn-became-americas-largest-restaurant-franchisee-with-1-9b-revenues/ shows ample coverage just about him. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/how-restaurateur-navigating-pandemic talks about him. Dream Focus 18:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes article is OK, but Stanford is an interview. Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this. https://www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/greg-flynn-owns-1245-restaurants-and-makes-2-billion-a/333187 Lot of detail about him. Dream Focus 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Entrepreneur article is almost entirely based on quotations, so it is the same as interview and considered unreliable. Rustypenguin (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty written about him, it not just quotes. And interviews are fine for confirming notability. A reliable source thought the person notable enough to write about and/or interview. Interviews are only not seen as reliable for content in an article because they are a primary source. Dream Focus 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share where you have seen that policy that states interviews are fine for notability? I saw someone making this same argument once before, but all participating editors/admins decided there was not such a policy. Rustypenguin (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Primary sources are excluded for WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, so unless it verifies a claim in the additional criteria (ANYBIO, ENT, SPORTS, etc) I don't see how that would work. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are usable for content in an article though, for straightforward statements of fact, without undue weight, and with caution if basing longer passages on them. If we had to make a simple statement one way or another (as we loathe to do) PAG is basically the exact other way around. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Forbes articles looks OK. Stanford is an interview. Most other sources are about the company. Notability is not inherited. We should consider making a page for his company The Flynn Group. Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company this individual founded, not the founder himself, is what is notable here. A review of the citations here only shows there are few that provide in-depth coverage of this individual. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 1 source is in-depth which is Forbes. The rest are interviews or passing mentions. I vote to delete. Rustypenguin (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above editors. Although there is some news coverage, they are not the right type of coverage. They are mostly interviews, quotations and primary. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Greg-Flynn-Owns-1-245-Restaurants-and-Makes-2-13900429.php SFGate gives significant coverage about him and his accomplishments. Dream Focus 18:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SFGate Article also contains many quotations and appears to be based on an interview. It is unfortunate that wiki policies do not count interviews towards notability, but we must follow the policies. Rustypenguin (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. I don't see anywhere against interviews being used to determine notability. Coverage is coverage. A reliable source thought they notable enough to cover, then that counts. Dream Focus 01:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So, the sources are really obvious and are already in the article. I was planning on adding these really in depth and obvious indicators of notability to the article, but they were already there, leaving me perplexed.

These sources are entirely about his life. Yes, they're also going to talk about the company he founded that literally is named after him. The fact that he founded such a successful business is what makes him notable. And, yes, news articles about people are going to include quotes from them. That doesn't make them interview articles. An interview is an article that is entirely just question and response. None of these are that. The claims made by those above would be equivalent to saying Jeff Bezos isn't notable because any article about him is also going to discuss Amazon. It's nonsense. That's not how notability works. Silver seren^C 23:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough of the sources have in depth coverage of Greg Flynn. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Forbes might be OK, I guess, the first few paragraphs look fine, and given it's written by staff it's RS. QSR, I can't see any sign of independent thought. I'm skeptical it even counts as an RS tbh, WTWH seems to be a brand marketing company? Editorial process? Random Entrepreneur contributors are similarly not even RS, at least the Forbes article was written by bylined staff. Even if we pretend both are RS, what's independent isn't significant, and what's significant isn't independent, they're entirely unusable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Weather Service Weather forecast offices[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Let'srun (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A nice referenced list to have. However, how is it kept up to date? — Maile (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – While I have my thoughts on this which I will try to add later, this article isn't very watched (fewer than 30 watchers), so recommend including discussion links elsewhere to encourage discussion. Master of Time (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Christian75 (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Silvestri[edit]

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

Not notable - no significant coverage of the subject and possibly promotional Pprsmv (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, United States of America, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a strong keep, but there appears to be sufficient notability - The sources in the article currently are not useful due to being interviews or dead links, but there are some reviews of his work that can be found with minimal effort that tend to indicate notability (Exclaim, The Diamondback, Vulture) - There are also interviews, Q&As and other sources, but generally they are not as strong as the 3 reviews above to establish notoriety. Shazback (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta[edit]

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

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Taiwan, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a defacto consulate, and not the same level as an embassy. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles regarding the Taiwanese offices in Ho Chi Minh City and also São Paulo. Would those also fall under this blanket reason? Toadboy123 (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if they fail GNG, yes. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toadboy123 embassies, consulates and other diplomatic offices must meet WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to merge? Also of course ATD is only part of the deletion policy. The eighth point at WP:DEL-REASON which describes valid criteria for deletion, states "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is a valid reason to delete. AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect gives editors like Toadboy123 (talk · contribs), the article's creator, the option of doing a selective merge of content to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions. Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta discusses the subject's location; how it was established on 1 March 1979, the day after the signing of this communiqué; what its former name was; what states it represents; and the cultural center it oversees. Some of this content could be merged to the target article. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham, Inc.[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Found only one independent source with in-depth coverage: https://archives.lib.duke.edu/catalog/gothaminc. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and United States of America. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Impure Reason[edit]

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

Fails WP:BOOK, only 5 citations in google scholar, none of which are reviews and 3 of which are by the author himself. Appears to be a vanity page. Psychastes (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Psychastes (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I can find is a few citations and a mention in a bibliography of work on Kant. The best is this which mainly focuses on another of Bartlett's books and notes "This is not my field and I haven’t tried to tackle the book, but have exchanged ideas with Steven about promoting it. You see, he has had an extremely difficult time trying to find anyone to review the book." Shapeyness (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any reviews of the book besides user reviews and a few brief mentions here and there. As it stands, it appears the book is not adequately covered from independent pubs failing WP:BOOKCRIT. X (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. As a graduate student in philosophy, I hope Wikipedia will keep this article. It is of great value to me and my seminar group members. This philosopher's book is important. It is very long and complex, so this well-researched article is very useful. It can benefit a lot of students.

50.78.191.225 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For these reasons:

The notability of the book has been confirmed by world-famous philosophers, including: (a) Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker [43], one of Germany's leading philosophers of science and physicist, who contributed the book's strongly endorsing Foreword; (b) renowned American philosopher Nicholas Rescher, who praised the book: "I admire its range of philosophical vision"; and (c) celebrated German philosopher Gerhard Preyer [44], who commended the book as "an impressive, bold, and ambitious work. Careful scholarship is balanced by original analyses".
As Brian Martin mentioned, it is difficult to find book reviewers willing to review a 900-page book. However, Wikipedia's standards for a book's notability admit exceptions. One of these is: A book that "is included in Project Gutenberg or an analogous project does not need to meet threshold standards" (Wikipedia:Notability (books)). The book was peer reviewed and included in the University of Pittsburgh's PhilSci-Archive [45], which offers "a stable, openly accessible repository in which scholarly articles and monographs may find a permanent home," analogous to Project Gutenberg.
The book is not a vanity publication. By the author's choice, the book was published as a benefit to the public at cost by a nonprofit publisher to make the nearly 900-page printed edition of the book affordable [46]. The book is also made freely available as an eBook through several archives, including PhilPapers, where since the book's publication 3 years ago, more than 2,500 copies have been downloaded [47].
Since the book's Wikipedia article was posted 12/2021, the article has had more than 5,800 pageviews, indicating the article's utility to Wikipedia users.
The article documents the evolution of the book over the course of previous publications by Bartlett spanning a period of more than 50 years. This information is found nowhere else and is valuable to professionals in philosophy.
Further supporting the book's notability, major research libraries in the U.S. and Europe have acquired copies of the printed edition, including Harvard, Wesleyan, Fordham, University of Illinois, Northwestern, Stanford, University of Washington, Utrecht University, Leipzig University, and University of Paris [48].
A translation into Spanish of the book's Introduction has been published, indicating growing international recognition of the book's importance [49].

Toh59 (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any of these points address the requirements of NBOOK. (Toh59, you might find it helpful to read WP:ATA.)

The quoted endorsements are not, as far as I can work out, from reviews. These opinions need to be published somewhere (not as WP:UGC) to "count" here.
It is not typically hard to find reviewers for academic monographs, since relevant academic journals often review them as a matter of course. Also, the threshold standards that are waived for Project Gutenberg books have to do with requirements like "it has an ISBN", not the notability standards we discuss here. The inclusion in PhilSci-Archive is not relevant to notability.
This has nothing to do with wiki-notability, i.e., coverage in secondary sources.
This has nothing to do with wiki-notability, i.e., coverage in secondary sources.
This has nothing to do with wiki-notability, i.e., coverage in secondary sources.
Being collected by libraries is a threshold standard (i.e., if it wasn't collected by libraries, we'd be much more confident it was not notable), but not a notability indicator in itself.
Being translated is not direct proof of notability, though it is usually the sort of thing that results in the generation of reviews (which are proof of notability)

Despite the poor argument above, I am open to the idea that this book may be notable. I have not done a search myself for sources, and there may be reviews in paywalled academic journals.

More intriguingly, the IP editor's mention of a "seminar group" suggests that this book might satisfy NBOOK#4, The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs. Toh59, 50.78.191.225, if you are able to provide syllabi or course listings of classes at multiple schools which have used this book, that would provide a rationale to keep the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked OpenSyllabus and there are two books listed there with this title, but they're by other authors, so it's not this book. Psychastes (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. The limitation insisted on here, that a book's endorsements must come solely and exclusively from reviews, is unreasonably restrictive. When a published book has a Foreword or Introduction written by a world-famous scientist or philosopher, as in the case of C. F. von Weizsäcker, by industry-wide standards this constitutes a major endorsement of a book. Secondly, a book's commendations that are published as an integral part of a book, for example, on the book's cover, back cover, or inside pages, qualify by those same standards as recognized endorsements of a book. Von Weizsäcker's very strongly commending Foreword, along with the commendations made by celebrated philosophers Nicholas Rescher and Gerhard Preyer, are all recognized without question as endorsements of the book.

1. You wrote, "These opinions need to be published somewhere (not as WP:UGC) to "count" here." User-generated content as understood by Wikipedia means "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated." The endorsements listed under (1) are by no means "user-generated": they do not comprise content from websites, but are, as required, published endorsements (in both the printed and the eBook editions). They were clearly not generated by Bartlett or content from websites, but were contributed by widely recognized scholars. To verify these published non-user-generated, endorsements, a copy of the published book containing von Weizsäcker's Foreword can be downloaded here [[50]], and a copy of commendations published as the book's back cover is available from [[51]], p. 849.
2. The threshold standards that are waived for Project Gutenberg books – like possessing an ISBN (the book possesses ISBN 978-0-578-88646-6) – can justifiably be said to apply to the book in question since the objectives of the PhilSci-Archive are analogous to PG's. Since the threshold standards do not apply to PG books, they would not apply to Bartlett's book in the PhilSci-Archive as an analogous repository.
This is simply not the case when it comes to 900-page books, as recognized by Brian Martin, and attested to by Bartlett himself: "to interest philosophy journal editors to review such a long book can be challenging. When the author asked the world-renowned Review of Metaphysics to consider reviewing the printed edition of Critique of Impure Reason, the editor responded by saying that it would not be possible to find a reviewer willing to read and review such a long book. If published for the first time today, Kant’s own Critique of Pure Reason would have a hard time finding willing reviewers" [[52]], p. 17.
Was not intended as a response to wiki-notability, but as evidence that the book is not a "vanity publication." It was published for the benefit of the public, with no financial benefit to the publisher or author. The eBook edition alone shows that, especially for a book with this large number of pages, it has a significant audience. Wikipedia's commitment to serving the public good and to provide a useful educational resource is relevant.
Has the same intent as 3.
Has the same intent as 3.
I agree, this meets an additional threshold standard, one that we ought not to ignore, especially since all of the universities that have added the book to their collections are known as major research institutions (and are not, for example, small public libraries).
Educators and scholars would definitely disagree with this claim: Being translated is a sign that a work is recognized as sufficiently notable and important to merit translation. Again, (2) applies here: Reviewers of extremely long technical works, even when translated, can be very hard to find.

Toh59 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: An additional and central reason, not previously mentioned in this discussion:

Much of Bartlett's notability is due to his many publications. Of his publications, the massive Critique of Impure Reason has been recognized as the culmination of Bartlett's work: "a great book, the fruit of a lifetime of research" in the words of American philosopher Martin X. Moleski [[53]], p. 849. The present article documents the importance of the book as the end-result of Bartlett's research over a period of more than 50 years. The importance, complexity, and length of this major work warrant and call for this separate article. Toh59 (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion (delete) is unchanged by Toh59's rebuttals, which continue to misunderstand wiki-notability and WP:NBOOK. Note that Toh59 already provided a bolded keep !vote before the relisting, so the above should not be counted a second time.

(To engage a bit with Toh59's arguments: The forewords etc are indeed published but they are not independent: for a source to show notability it must be all three of wp:reliable, wp:independent, and wp:sigcov. Moreover, we don't actually care what people say, just that people have said a lot of things, so praise of the book is not relevant if it isn't from a review or other form of reliable, independent sigcov. The quote from Martin X. Moleski is also from within the book itself, and not independent. Toh59, it seems like you are putting your energy in the wrong places: if you can provide 2 book reviews or proof that 2 different schools have taught this book, the article can be kept.)

As far as I can work out, zero sources have provided for notability, and the investigation of NBOOK#4 was also a bust. There is no policy-based rationale for a keep. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You state, apparently without misgiving, the following policy: "we don't actually care what people say, just that people have said a lot of things, so praise of the book is not relevant if it isn't from a review or other form of reliable, independent sigcov." If what you state here is a guiding principle in Wikipedia, then this reduces a book's notability to a simple standard of how many heads we can count who are talking about a book, and dismisses whether a book has been endorsed in its Foreword by a physicist and philosopher with a reputation in same ball club as a Heisenberg, Jauch, Bohr, or Einstein. The counting policy would in this case give more weight and credibility to head-counting regardless of qualification, while dismissing the judgment of those best qualified to form an opinion.

WP:NBOOK advocates a rational policy: "The criteria provided by this guideline are rough criteria. They are not exhaustive. Accordingly, a book may be notable, and merit an article, for reasons not particularized in this or any other notability guideline….

Regarding academic and technical books, which the book under discussion clearly is, Wikipedia's policy is also reasonable: "Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail.

—It is just this – common sense – that is needed in the exclusionist push for the article's deletion. For academic books, the WP:NBOOK policy goes on to state: "In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, … whether one or more translations of the book have been published…." –And, as has been pointed out, since Bartlett's book appeared in 2021, one translation has already been published.

Given the weight placed on reviews, you've also stated: "It is not typically hard to find reviewers for academic monographs, since relevant academic journals often review them as a matter of course." As Brian Martin and Bartlett have both noted, what you've said is simply untrue: Some disciplines offer many outlets for books to be reviewed. A book in physics, for example, has many more review opportunities than a book in philosophy.

Since you want quantitative data, here is a time-consuming test that I've made, and hope you are open-minded and willing to make it yourself: I've searched for reviews of any books in philosophy, books that meet the following criteria: (1) published within the same time-frame as Bartlett's Critique of Impure Reason (i.e., since the Fall of 2021), (2) containing a minimum of 800 pages, and (3) representing new work by a single author -- that is, excluding reprinted editions of long classical works and edited collections of papers by multiple authors.

I was not able to find a single work that meets these criteria by having been reviewed at least once. If this is indeed a fact about reality, then to require of Bartlett's book that it meet a standard that is simply not met by any comparable book in the real world, is to impose an unrealistic and unreasonable demand.

The article that is facing cancellation has already served more than 5,800 readers (how, we of course cannot know), an average of more than 4 pageviews a day. For a book whose title is far from sexy, but evidently "intellectual and technical," we may reasonably conjecture that the article possesses some interest or some value to a surprising number of people. Since the information found in the article is to be found nowhere else, bringing together in a single documented discussion of Bartlett's work over a 50-year period, pressing the delete button ends this. What is the public benefit served by deleting it, weighed against the potential value to Wikipedia users of keeping it? Toh59 (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure if the article we have is a genuine work of WP:OR or just a result of a newbie editor not fully understanding how citation works on wikipedia, but this article is not a neutral summary of the book and its reception or academic legacy - all of the citations that aren't to the book aren't actually to sources that directly support the information in the article. For example, in the background section, we have Bartlett's doctoral dissertation A Relativistic Theory of Phenomenological Constitution: A Self-referential, Transcendental Approach to Conceptual Pathology. This work presents within a phenomenological framework a logically compelling method that makes it possible to identify and correct conceptual transgressions that are self-undermining. This is the first work in which Bartlett describes the project of a "critique of impure reason." There are two footnotes here - both to the dissertation itself. There is no secondary source linking the dissertation to the book that is the subject of the article; the article isn't even citing Critique of Impuree Reason itself for the idea that this book grew out of these sources. Much of the rest of the article is only sourced to the book itself, and has strongly non-npov phrases like the book proposes a new and revisionary philosophical understanding. The entire last section appears to be back-cover blurbs and other marketing material - these are not acceptable for wikipedia articles on books.

All of this is to say that even if the book is found to be notable, I think we're looking at a WP:TNT delete. But is it a notable book? Well... half of the citations to the book are by the author himself. I found a review that looked promising - but it's also by the author. It seems like there has been a concerted but ineffective effort by this scholar to promote his book. I'm not saying our article is one such attempt... but I'm not not saying that either. Delete. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asilvering, you wrote: "the article isn't even citing Critique of Impure Reason itself for the idea that this book grew out of these sources."

You'll find a detailed description of the direct evolution of the book from Bartlett's doctoral dissertation on the first two pages of the book's Preface (pp. xxix-xxx). Toh59 (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Albert[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage, though his company Design Projects is an extremely generic name. No possible redirect as his company does not have an article. He seems to have worked mostly on B movies. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Advertising, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Design Projects Incorporated was formed on February 10, 1978 in California, (see https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business) and was closed on June 1, 1994.

Design Projects first client was Universal Pictures, and also did advertising, design and packaging for 20th Century Fox, Warner Home Video, Columbia Pictures, as well as international distributors, starting with Best International Films and Producers Sales Organizations, and including Goldcrest and ad campaigns for Sanrio Films while they had a Los Angeles branch office.

It also created ad campaigns for many independent film distributors, such as Group One, New World, Film Ventures International. We also

Prior to 1978, I worked as a freelance designer for Universal Pictures, Filmways, as well as Universal Music.

Richard Albert RLA2024 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with zero evidence of notability. Promotional article created by a single-purpose/COI account with no viable coverage at all (search turned up mostly an architectural firm with a similar name). Heck, the only source cited therein doesn't even mention the subject nor his company. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 18:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of the United States, Surabaya[edit]

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

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Indonesia, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4 of the 6 sources are primary. Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indonesia–United_States_relations#Diplomatic_missions. Reywas92^Talk 14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Micro-denomination of three churches with no reliable sources to establish notability via significant coverage. All existing sources fail to establish notability:

Link - Primary Source
Link - Appears to be a reliable source with coverage on page 15, but note on page 2 that the author of the coverage on page 15 is/was a senior leader within the subject of the article and thus this source is not independent.
Link. Self-published source of questionable reliability, not updated for a decade.
Link Primary source
Link - Erroneously cited and fails verification. The citation describes as "Doctrines of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church"; the actual title of the paper is different.
Link - Fails verification for notability; does not reference subject.
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages. Fails verification for notability.
Link - Primary source

Editors arguing for "Keep" in the 2022 non-consensus AfD discussion depended heavily on 2 and 5; however, as I've shown here, 2 is not an independent source for notability, and 5 fails verification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct micro-denomination that existed for less than 10 years. It is not included in any of the authoritative encyclopedic sources (e.g. Melton). Can find no sources to establish notability under GNG or NORG. Existing sources in the article are unreliable or unverifiable. My analysis follows:

Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages
Link - Primary source
Banner of Truth magazine. This magazine is not available online (see here) and thus this citation is unverifiable.
British Church Newspaper. Likewise unavailable online and thus unverifiable.
Link - Primary source
Link - Discussion board; user-generated content.
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - Self-published primary source

During the 2006 AfD, which resulted in no consensus, those arguing for "keep" tended not to make policy-based arguments. Additionally, they specifically pointed to the British Church Newspaper and Banner of Truth Magazine citations as proving notability. After 18 years, however, these publications remain unavailable online (including in the Internet Archive) and thus cannot be verified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Invalid reasoning. A source that is not online remains verifiable by a trip to a library. Dead-tree sources are perfectly legitimate. And a denomination being defunct really doesn't matter. If it was notable once, it remains notabvle. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the 2006 discussion, this is the full text in one of the dead-tree sources: "On January 13-14, 2006, a new Presbyterian denomination was formed. During delegate meetings in Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted the name Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS). The founding churches came together because of perceived equivocation towards important biblical doctines and because of tolerance of excesses in contemporary worship in other Presbyterian denominations." Sounds like WP:TRIVIALMENTION to me. I've made every effort to verify its existence; however, the comprehensive Banner of Truth magazine archive does not include this citation (see page 99, where no such article is referenced in the April 2006 issue). The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who added the material to add a verifiable, reliable source, and this isn't. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources and no in-depth coverage available. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Ivory Coast, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Babcock-Macomb House, its location. The fact that it is now the embassy is stated there. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

146th Air Support Operations Squadron[edit]

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

It exists but there is limited coverage (article currently unreferenced, with some possible sources which could be added). I couldn't see that it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG in its own right, or a suitable merge target. Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick WP:BEFORE shows plenty of sources exist. [54][55][56][57][58] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources are really independent of the subject. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hawkeye7, though this page does need some cleanup Claire 26 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to review sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Redirect to 137th Special Operations Wing is cheap and keeps the entire page history intact. We don't conclude keep on an article which has no reliable independent sourcing, no matter how many bolded keep assertions are made. I assert redirect to the parent unit's page until direct detailing in multiple and diverse reliable sources is presented and inserted. BusterD (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Siraj Akbar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This BLP, created by a SPA Jarisful (talk · contribs), appears to have been authored by the subject themselves, as he's an experienced editor. This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Internet, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP but the article needs to be improved by removing unsourced and primary sources. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:JOURNALIST so what's the point of cleaning up BLP ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - subject passes WP:JOURNALIST as he is widely cited and interviewed by International and Pakistani media. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you voting twice? While it's clear he's a journalist and may be frequently cited or even invited on TV talk shows, but having a WP BLP requires meeting WP:GNG criteria. Whether he meets that is unclear to me, so if you think he does, you'll need to provide evidence of coverage right here. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging @Mar4d: as they stood with strong sourcing in first AfD. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ethical to invite those who previously voted "keep"? It could be considered canvassing. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not unethical as they earlier hammered by strong sourcing. You too can invite, it's no wrong man. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided by Mar4d weren't particularly robust. Mar4d presented 04 references. Let's assess each of them. The Diplomat and [DW sources consist of interviews but they don't directly discuss the subject. While Al Jazeera only mentions him in passing. Only the BBC story offers some coverage of the subject, but it alone isn't sufficient to establish WP:N because it lacks significant depth.

And no, I don't feel the need to invite anyone here because I generally try to steer clear of such actions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion needs more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just wanted to point out that although @Twinkle1990 voted to keep the BLP, they only cited WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:JUSTAPOLICY and didn't provided solid reasons backing their stance. In my last comment above, I've thoroughly evaluated each and every reference cited on the BLP and none of them passes WP:SIRS. I'm mentioning this because sometimes AfDs are closed with no consensus due to lack of participation, leaving the BLP on WP unnecessarily which is a bit frustrating. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - This is an exchange program through the US State Department. Granted, the article needs work, and needs better sourcing. But this is a very impressive program. It would be a shame to write this off. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some valuable links to YouTube info created by the Fellowship program. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on whe wording and sourcing. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Do Not Delete - Work in Progress: This was inadvertently and prematurely deleted yesterday for copyright errors. I am currently reworking this article in my personal user space, to avoid misunderstandings over sourcing, etc. This is an important article that needs work. Please have patience, and I'll get the article in better shape. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see you say that I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article could benefit from a through revision, the subject itself is notable enough. TH1980 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just did an edit update of this article. The lead is now more informative about how this program originated, complete with sources. And I've done a sample list of US and foreign universities which act as hosts. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just went through and reviewed the edits made by Maile. Not a single source supports notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are primary sources (e.g. the authorizing legislation), or they are not independent (State Department webpages or the webpages of Humphrey Fellowship sponsoring institutions), or the coverage is trivial (single references to someone in the article being a Humphrey Fellow). The MPR News source fails verification. My BEFORE search turns up nothing else useful for establishing notability. (One potential source is here, but it is published by a Humphrey Fellowship sponsor institution and I don't have access to the actual text to validate whether it is independent.) Failing the unearthing of significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources, this doesn't clear the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This feels like PROMO for a US gov't program... Sourcing is solely to universities around the world, or the US gov't. I tried a Gscholar search, but anything not published by the US gov't is very hard to find. One mention of funding in a medical study, but I don't see any critical discussion of the program. I'm amazed it's been around for 40 yrs or so and there is no analysis of this fellowship. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [59] but it's on the ed.gov web domain, I'm not sure if it's independent of the gov't or not. This [60] in a Malaysian journal... Jstor has nothing, using the Wikipedia Library link only brings up the case study listed in my first link. There just doesn't seem to be anything about this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reviewing additional feedback, I continue to find the rationales for keep insufficiently policy-based ("this is an impressive program," "the subject is notable enough"), while the sources (both in the article and beyond) simply don't support notability according to policy. The sources added by one of the editors arguing for keep are primary or trivial, and the Youtube links are promotional. I encourage the closer to review the sources! Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Micro-denomination with perhaps nine churches as of 2014, per a self-published source (citing other self-published sources) that is no longer available online. Citations are exclusively to primary sources, to self-published sources, or to outdated sources of questionable independence and reliability. Participants in the 2022 AfD discussion did not delve deeply into the validity of the sources cited as applied to WP:NORG, which I will do here:

[1]. Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.
[2]. Self-published book; does not illuminate notability of subject, just reference one of its views and its existence.
[3]. Blog/opinion post; does not meet reliable source criteria for establishing notability.
[4]. Dead link with no archived version.
[5]. Book published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.
[6]. Portuguese-language source; cannot tell if it is self-published. Regardless, it is not significant coverage and merely notes the existence of the subject.
[7]. OPC General Assembly minutes and thus disqualified as primary source.
[8]. Personal blog; self-published source.
[9] Newsletter published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.

I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An editor has updated the link in footnote 4 to a live link. It's here -- it appears self-published but has no author listed. It appears impossible to validate its reliability, and moreover it only mentions the subject of the article in a single trivial mention on page 96. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pretty much fails notability as shown above in the source analysis; primary sources, blogs or un-RS. I don't find anything about this particular outfit. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Childs[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no WP:SIGCOV; most recently edited by someone with an offensive username. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, United States of America, and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find much information about him, beyond the fact that he's a theatre director. There is a passing mention in a brief Playbill article, which states that he is directing the play, but that was the only source I could find about the Casey Childs that matched the article's description. The other sources were about various different people named Casey Childs. Bandit Heeler (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I object to the fact that the majority of the nom relates to the fact that one of the edits to this article was by User:USAstinks ("most recently edited by someone with an offensive username"). That is an argument to avoid. The user did not create this article, and in fact they made only one of the 65 edits to this article over the last 16+ years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. While I do believe that the article fails notability, I don't think the fact that one of the (not main) contributors to the article has an offensive name is a relevant point in a deletion discussion. Bandit Heeler (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is not very relevant, but i do agree with the point that there is not enough information about him. Kasphero (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Primary Stages. There appears to be a painter called Casey Childs who is more notable per the online coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

Sorted by State[edit]

Due to overflow, this part has been moved to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/sorted by state