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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to United States of America. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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

NASCAR Inside The Playoffs

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no results aside from the IMDb result, which is not reliable. Conyo14 (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete or Redirect to NASCAR on TNT. There isn't even a press release from TruTV announcing the existence of this show. This is a case where I would have done a bold move to Draft before taking it to AFD. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Motorsport, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Plumb

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with no major credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dorell Anthony

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

Contested PROD, article about a non-notable actor and filmmaker. Don't it satisfies criteria for WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG, possible WP:COI. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find much of anything for coverage, one article confirming the person joined Days of our Lives [1], but that's not enough for build an article or to prove notability. What's used now in the article isn't helpful, imdb and a local newspaper. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lestz

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

There does not appear to be significant independent coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing:

Guardian article isn't significant coverage
Southern Illinoisian article is *about* a partnership that's not independent (he gave them the books about him to read), but the article itself is indepdent, reliable, and significant
The "Steer Your Business Magazine" article seems very likely non-independent
MoneyMarketing doesn't really cover *him*
BusinessInsider is mostly him saying "I got rich by saving", may or may not be significant coverage, definitely independent
OutsourcingAngel is non-reliable
HillSong is just an event invite + non-independent
His autobiography & other book are non-independent

I am also unable to find any other sources, other than what is already in the article, on a quick look. His claims to fame seem to be (a) being a millionaire who was once homeless and (b) owning Genistar. But the S.Ill. + Bus.Insider don't really make enough coverage for (a), and (b) would be better in its own article. Therefore, Delete, lacking any sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per thebiguglyalien's comments. Fails WP: General notability guidelines and there's no significant coverage on this author since he wasn't involved in any major events. Galaxybeing (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Rahm (scientist)

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

The article doesn't show notability. fails GNG. ANTCrowd439 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, and United States of America. ANTCrowd439 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only RS source I find talking about her is from CBS42 Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her bestseller is self-published, and I cannot find any significant reviews that verify the claim that it is a best seller. Fails notability as an academic and author, and some of the claims are peacock. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article doesn't include any reliable secondary sources. Four of the references are for International Science Nutrition Society, of which the subject is the founder. Potential RS sources I found include an article from May 5, 2024 about one of her books in the Idaho Statesman (via Newspapers.com - also published in other newspapers around the country) and a passing mention for sponsoring a documentary that won award at NYC film festival. There may be potential for an article but for now does not pass WP:GNG. Also needs to be written in WP:NPOV. Nnev66 (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Uzac

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Routine coverage of court visits. No other coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Crime, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Scott (video game developer)

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

The sources provided are WP:PASSINGMENTION quick google search reveals no info about him entirely which make this article fails WP:NBIO Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he is not like giving interviews. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell Galindo

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

~~Fails WP:NBASIC, I cannot find any article talking about him alone. The sources uses a datebase and a primary source Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Sports, American football, and United States of America. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: lots of coverage out there (e.g., chron.com, Sports Business Journal, The State). Also [2][3]. C F A 💬 17:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note The time between when I created the article and when the article was marked for deletion was six hours and 12 minutes. Per WP:BEFORE, section C.2 states that, if an article was recently created, then time should be allowed to contributors to add to and expand the article. Considering that CFA easily found more articles that have coverage of the subject, I do not understand if @Miminity: has simply not read through the AfD guidelines prior to marking this article for deletion, or whether he did not do a thorough enough search through the internet before the deletion marking. Keep by default as I am article's creator. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 16:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources already presented in the article show that this subject meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, Idk why, I didn't know those sources are RS. Oops

Aurora Colorado apartment takeover

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

This feels like a violation of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Colorado. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the most RS I can find is Fox News saying it's a fanciful interpretation of events [4] and the usual non-RS [5] trying to push a certain viewpoint, so I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete feels like NOTNEWS for now, but I've seen a ton of contradictory reporting on this and suspect we will see more coverage (of the coverage most likely). But for now I think we are at delete. Hobit (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill news story without secondary coverage Traumnovelle (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. This fails WP:NEVENT. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Mountain (film)

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

Article about a film, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and instead films must show WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in third-party reliable sources -- but this is referenced entirely to the filmmaker's own self-published content about it, and makes absolutely no notability claim (awards, etc.) above and beyond "film that exists". And even on a WP:BEFORE search, I mostly found more primary sources -- all I found for GNG-worthy reliable source coverage was two hits in the local media of the city where the director was living at the time, of the "local man tries to make film" and "local man screens film locally" varieties, which is not enough by itself in the absence of any wider attention. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Nepal, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tibetan-language films: a list that needs expansion and update (it stops in 2007 and the entry should be added); other sources exist to allow verification. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xenos Books

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

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the company in reliable sources. The only source in the article is a database listing. The article was created by someone who described themselves as "one of the editors at Xenos Books". toweli (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Borgo Press, of which this was an associated imprint. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Democratic National Convention

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

I am unsure as to whether there are enough sources to justify the existence of this article at this juncture. PlateOfToast (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A case of WP:TOOSOON. What's the point of having an article filled with "TBD" and routine media speculation about potential bids? AusLondonder (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is already a planned bid from Nashville, and the "media speculation" from Chicago comes from a direct quote by Governor JB Pritzker (who was a major player in selecting the 2024 convention). The event is essentially guaranteed to happen, more media coverage will roll in as the date approaches Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. All the article contains at the moment is speculation about cities that might bid. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Democratic National Convention. This is WP:TOOSOON but at some point in the next couple of years there will be enough sources. Any verifiable information about the 2028 convention could be added to the general Democratic National Convention page. --Enos733 (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect would be the best path forward here. PlateOfToast (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Ganzel

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

Can only find one news source and the book sources appear to have minimal depth. The only reason I'm not CSDing this is that there exists one source covering him. Allan Nonymous (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO the easier to meet notability requirement. It does not get close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Ednabrenze (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage on his projects as a television screenwriter nor producer. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fresno

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

Tagged uncited for more than 15 years and only the 2 high schools have articles Chidgk1 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Religion, Lists, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two notable high school entries to Roman Catholic Diocese of Fresno#Schools. Left guide (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringepedia

AfDs for this article:

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

I was going to BLAR this article to Fringe (TV series), but saw that it was previously kept at AfD (albeit in 2011), so I'm erring on the side of caution. This fan wiki fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. The site lacks sustained, significant coverage in reliable sources. All of the sources were published between 2008 and 2011. Source evaluation:

Ref 1 is a direct link to the site.
Ref 2 states, regarding the wiki, in full: "Meanwhile, fans of the show have set up the mandatory, unofficial databank, Fringepedia. Same rules apply for entries there as with any wiki site."
Ref 3 states, regarding the wiki, in full: "War over edits to Astrid's page: Have an hour or six to waste? You might want to dig into Fringepedia. Take a dip in the pool of collective knowledge. Help figure out what the images that lead into or out of each commercial break denote. Meticulously catalog every narcotic Walter professes to take. Or just spell-check every instance of 'Fibonacci Sequence.' It's fun for everyone."
Ref 4 appears to have a couple of brief mentions of Fringepedia that note that it's a wiki for the show, but without much more than that.

I have been unable to find additional reliable sources providing significant coverage.

Note that I am in the process of creating List of fan wikis (currently a draft in my userspace), but the WP:LISTCRIT is WP:CSC #1 (all entries meet WP:GNG; the intention is to prevent list cruft and an entry for every single fan wiki on Fandom), so merging would not be appropriate. Additionally, I don't think that merging to Fringe (TV series) would be due. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Popular culture, Internet, Websites, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-reasoned argument by nominator. The LA Times and Wired mentions provide verifiability for maybe a line about Fringepedia in the Fringe (TV series) article, but aren't the significant coverage necessary for independent notability. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Saturday Night Live (1975–1980)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/History of Saturday Night Live (1975–1980) (2nd nomination)

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

I am also nominating the other pages in this SNL history series:

These articles are rife with original research, unsourced and poorly sourced statements, useless cast trivia, and redundant cast lists that are already located in their respective season articles. Most of the pages segment everything by season anyway and are not the broader look at the show history that they are supposed to be. Several of them have had cleanup tags for almost a decade. They are rarely edited. And they are arbitrarily segmented by five year increments for no specific reason; this appears to be a random decision made 20 years ago in 2004 that nobody has questioned since then.

Myself and another editor have been working on a successor for these pages; it's currently at Draft:History of Saturday Night Live. It functions as the broader look at show history that these nine pages were supposed to be. It is not just redundant of the existing season pages; it makes extensive use of reliable sources and is the broader look at show history. I propose that this new page replace these existing pages. There are many benefits to this: consolidating editor efforts on one page, ditching the arbitrary separation, less maintenance effort required across multiple pages, etc.

I have already merged any non-duplicate info from these old pages into the appropriate SNL season articles. There will be nothing lost by deleting/redirecting them to the new page. I announced this plan about a week ago on the SNL talk page and have received no opposition at this point. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Saturday Night Live, until they can be merged to the upcoming article about SNL history. Far too much original research has been inserted into SNL topics in general. Looking forward to the fix. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you for your reply, just a note that I've already gone through and merged anything noteworthy to specific season articles that's not covered in the new history article; happy to redirect if someone wants to independently verify this though. May also potentially be useful to preserve the page histories too. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to History of Saturday Night Live assuming the merged draft article is moved to mainspace. Two comments:

the current status of the draft vs. the mainspace article is confusing - is the draft article a copy of the existing article that got edited?
the draft is extremely long now, over 127K but the draft currently seems manageable because of headings/subheadings

Oblivy (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The draft started as a copy of the existing history on the main SNL page and was then expanded, and portions of some other articles were used in some cases, remixed, and condensed (per summary style) attempting to give credit in edit summaries where possible. Regarding the length, it is long, but it is a lot to cover and consideration has been given to give equal weight to different eras without breaching the rules of thumb on WP:LENGTH. Parts of the article may still be able to be optimised to further reduce size, but I'd argue that it's an appropriate size for the amount of time that it's covering. StewdioMACK (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative close 1) To the extent that text has been used from these articles in a draft, we cannot delete these without deleting that draft, per WP:CWW. 2) The draft is apparently not ready for prime time, and a redirect from these articles to draft space would be an impermissible cross-namespace redirect. 3) There should be no waiting period per WP:RENOM to redirect these to the draft once it is mainspaced. That is, this is a bit premature, although the final solution is obvious and probably not controversial enough to even need an AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To clarify, the article is ready for primetime; every part of the article is a significant improvement over its predecessors that I've nominated, and I've just made some further edits today. Apologies if this is seen as a misuse of AfD but I believed it was consenus to use AfD for potentially contentious significant moves like this. I've just attempted to mainspace the new article but ran into technical issues as there's an existing redirect at the new address (History of Saturday Night Live); if it's the preferred course of action, maybe I can take this to requested moves, boldly redirect the old articles (to preserve page histories), and we can close this AfD. StewdioMACK (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the corresponding sections of the full History article or the History article itself once the draft is moved to mainspace. (To clarify, I am one of the contributors to the draft.) If it were me, I would have moved the draft to mainspace first because it's already of decent quality, then AfD the articles, or even boldly redirect them. I would move it right now, but not until I get StewdioMACK's input, and the AfD is already ongoing, anyways. And as a note to other contributors, there are plans to develop the article to cut out cruft plus possibly sending it to PR for a check, so no worries on any problems currently existing with the draft. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before anyone asks: StewdioMACK did say that they were going to AfD the articles here, but I misread it as AfC (Articles for Creation; I interpreted it as letting the draft go through the AfC process, which I had no objections with). Spinixster (trout me!) 02:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Moved the draft to mainspace (History of Saturday Night Live) per WT:AFD. C F A 💬 15:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airalo

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

Can't see that the sources establish notability. I am always most suspicious of articles with little or no content & citing beyond the raising of funds, which are almost invariably run of the mill stuff. TheLongTone (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Technology, Software, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Wired article covers both the concept of an eSIM and in-depth instructions on how to use the software. Source 6 devotes a few paragraphs, and the WiT article (and the lesser-known Silicon Canals thing, which I'll AGF) is entirely about the software, thus satisfying significant coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The service is active in over 200 countries and regions. Also, multiple significant sources in various languages support the article's notability, with several having sigcov. Additionally, some sources discuss the use of its software. And in this case that is rather good. DontLickTheFrozenStone (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Widely-recommended service, with significant coverage in worldwide sources. Because the company offers referral commissions, it's sometimes hard to separate the real coverage from affiliate marketing chum, but I think that the company is generally notable. White 720 (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Silver Eagle mintage figures

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTSTATS. It is not clear why we have these statistics. Not all facts make good encyclopedia articles, no attempt is made to explain why these figures are of enough importance to give them a separate page. Fram (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is cite-able and notable as world bullion repository currency. -MJ (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into American Silver Eagle - This article was WP:BOLDly split without discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Committee on National Security Systems

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Non-notable intergovernmental committee. Fleeting mentions and routine coverage that doesn't establish independent notability. Redirect to Department of Defense. Longhornsg (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Technology, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The committee (under different names) is 70+ years old. Multiple sources exist. Dimawik (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfird WP:GNG. No idea why WP:NOTDICTIONARY would be applicable here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep a review of the sources confirms that most of the coverage is indeed fleeting or routine. However, I support keeping government organizations with this level of sourcing. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kandiss Taylor

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Non-notable. Came in third in a primary. Per the policy, notability is based on "a politician has receiving "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Coverage is related to routine campaign developments or controversial things she's said over the course of her political career. Non-notable politician. Longhornsg (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Longhornsg (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So, she's a failed political candidate that got mocked about being a flat-earther (nor not, depending on who you believe); regardless, I don't see notability. Running for office isn't notable, career looks routine otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed political candidate, only reason she's attracted some passing coverage is bizarre comments accusing people of being Satanists. That's not how we build a BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, and the fact that she bobs back up to the surface of the news cycle every once in a while for saying stupid stuff is not in and of itself a reason why her unsuccessful candidacy would be more special than everybody else's unsuccessful candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler campaign

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

This is a coat rack for partisan criticism of political candidates outside of the two major parties in the United States. User:Namiba 17:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. User:Namiba 17:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a defined term that needs its own article separate from the more academic spoiler effect page
Updating to merge to spoiler effect - believe we have consensus and can close the discussion Superb Owl (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to spoiler effect. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Agree that this is a case of WP:COATRACK. Sal2100 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to spoiler effect Changing from previous !vote of "delete", per comments of Dclemens1971 below. Agree that there is enough RS-based coverage to warrant recognition but not enough to warrant a standalone page, per WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to spoiler effect; it passes WP:GNG on the sourcing test, but fails the WP:NOPAGE test as a WP:CONTENTFORK (and, as the nominator notes, a coat rack in its current construction). Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a merge, we will need to be very cautious not to merge the partisanship which is still in the article.--User:Namiba 19:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with merging - mostly did not want to do the overhaul needed on Spoiler effect but have started that process in anticipation of a merge.
As for partisanship, it would be helpful if you could flag inline the specific aspects you find to be partisan. Superb Owl (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Funcrunch (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to spoiler effect but would support a keep. I removed the most obvious evidence of a coat rack, the see also to Jill Stein's campaign, and I think the sourcing is good enough to pass WP:GNG. But I also agree with Dclemens1971 that there is no reason for a split in this case. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to spoiler effect per Dclemens1971. NLeeuw (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to spoiler effect per Dclemens1971 and Redirect. --Enos733 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States Virgin Islands women's national under-18 softball team

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

Unable to find the requisite WP:SIGCOV for this team to meet the WP:NTEAM, WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or NTEAM. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nu Breed Music Group

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

Fails WP:CORP with no WP:RS. I can't find anything that even mentions this specific company and not the rap group (NuBreed). The official website doesn't even work. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Borderline A7. Seems to be an old attempt to promote that was never caught. No sign of notability. I also nominated Tryfle for deletion. C F A 💬 23:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I searched Google, the Internet Archive, and Newspapers.com without finding anything of note. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC's sense of an important record label - has no notable artists, no significant cultural impact that I can discern. Chubbles (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be part of a walled garden of NN music pages. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tryfle, etc. We are not a free web host for a for-profit music company and its non-notable musicians. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign congressional endorsements

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

This article is a copy of a few sections from List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign endorsements, except that it already deviates from that article in content and has several referencing errors. There's no reason to have two copies of this information. Note that there's no discussion of a split of the primary article, therefore no concensus for such an action. mikeblas (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unclear why User:RayneVanDunem (notifying here since I don't see a talk message) copied the content to a new page but did not complete a split. If you want to do a bold WP:SPLIT without discussion, whatever, but you have to actually complete the job so there's not inconsistencies and duplication. Reywas92^Talk 15:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oop! I was adding a notification and then got distracted and I guess I didn't save it. Published now! -- mikeblas (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete does not apply here? A split may be useful as List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign endorsements is fairly long. C F A 💬 18:05, 26 August 2024 UTC)
Delete The split text should not be removed from the article because it can't be replaced by a concise summary. An article duplicating part of the list is not useful. Ben Azura (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bradley J. Bondi

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

None of the references in this article about a lawyer show significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found references to add; I have removed two existing references which did not mention him. Article has been tagged as orphan for six years, notability and advert for two years, and was recently tagged with possible CoI. It was also recently cut down by another editor from a longer version with no sources, but the quality of those sources is not better than the existing ones. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I looked at this I thought it would be a straightforward senior-lawyer vanity page. I tend to agree that on his career alone, he gets nowhere towards WP:GNG despite having been prominent. There are a few borderline articles like this and this talking about him taking on clients and a court judgment relating to conflict of interest. But nothing that profiles him in the way this article does that doesn't seem to be relying on a press release and CV. Note that the article doesn't mention he's Pam Bondi's brother but that's not inherited. He also got coverage for endowing a scholarship.
Where there is substantial coverage about him is this WSJ article about his 330 acre property and graveyard (someone else's family, also interviewed). The story is also here credited to WSJ.
Cumulatively does this get him across the line? I'm doubtful but would be interested to see further views. Oblivy (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To improve the reliability of sources, it's essential to move beyond press releases, biographies/resumes, and articles drafted by the subject. The apparent CoI editing may be the most problematic. If the subject met WP:GNG, none of the above would be needed. Regarding the WSJ article about the property, the subject is a self-described contributor to WSJ. 2601:18E:C47E:CA30:28D2:4D3:69FF:69B0 (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional evaluation of the sources brought up here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siebel Scholars

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

Insufficient referencing to demonstrate notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. CptViraj (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Organizations, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - First, there are several websites with text almost identical to this article, but I can't tell whether the WP article is WP:COPYVIO or a case of citogenesis: (1), (2), (3).

The article needs to be revised to resolve the possible copyvio problem.

Second, there are sources that could be used in an overhaul effort for this article:

Third, there are multiple listings by college, annually, naming scholarship awardees at the various institutions, with descriptions of the award, which colud provide in depth, reliable sources to revise the article.

Last, perhaps the best solution to the problem of potential copyvio might be to draftify this article, and rebuild it from secondary, reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A copyvio is unlikely. Looking through the article's history, the current version developed slowly over time. Here is the copyvio comparison for your link no. 1. It's blatantly obvious (and also kinda funny) that they just copied text from Wikipedia and made some minor changes to disguise it ("29" -> "various", "selected" -> "chosen", "on the basis of" -> "based on"). The comparison tool doesn't work for the other two links, but they're dated so we can look at the latest revision before they were published. For both no. 2 and no. 3, the text was already there. So the copyright concerns are baseless and the article should definitely not be draftified. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the sources flagged here are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a list of potential sources here, though it seems they are all from universities involved with the programme. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas Siebel#Philanthropy. I looked for sources and all I could find were press releases and content promoting the scholars on the websites of their colleges and universities; none of these are independent coverage. It's a WP:GNG fail, but as an AtD we can redirect to the discussion of the founding donor's philanthropy in his bio. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection given the other sources brought up in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomas Siebel or Improve. There are pages about the scholars at the websites of colleges and universities, and contrary to comments above I do consider these as RS. There is a burden on universities to be honest, so if something is published then they consider it at least slightly notable. That so many have relevant press releases says a lot. I will oppose a redirect as the section Thomas Siebel#Philanthropy does not cover this largish program. Improve is my preference, I think the editor missed what is needed for notability, and maybe nobody helped. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The press releases and official publications of universities of scholarship awardees cannot be considered "independent". Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with that statement. If universities publish misinformation on their webpages there are serious consequences. Hence what they publish is much, much more rigorously curated than many newspapers. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is reliable. But it is not independent. The question is not whether what they write is true, it is why they publish it. However a books search shows mention of Siebel Scholars in multiple books. Some are primary sources, yet the mention of Siebel Scholars in, e.g., [6]^: 132 amounts to secondary information in a primary source. Some are just passing [7] and some are not independent [8] but I think it would be worth looking at those a little more closely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found reliable, in-depth sources on newspapers.com and ProQuest, and added content that is evidence of GNG. (Note: to access the ProQuest sources, first login to Wikimedia Commons, then login to Wikipeia Library, then scroll down and open the ProQuest link. Finally, click on the ProQuest ID link in each citation.) The article's sections, "Participating Schools", and the "Conference Topics & Speakers" are still completely un-referenced, and should probably be deleted or references provided. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential firsts

AfDs for this article:

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

There's some standing consensus that these lists are not encyclopedic because they lack a SELCRIT and so therefore must always be definitionally WP:SYNTH.

The previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_presidential_firsts is well worth a read as it was a massive back and forth that ended in no consensus. Since then, other articles have narrowly ended in deletion:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Indian_prime_ministerial_firsts Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Mexican_presidential_firsts Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Philippine_presidential_firsts

I'm of the view that this kind of article can never ever, in any circumstances, be a good article because it will always be a pile of random information.

BrigadierG (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have no policy based decisions for or against keeping this page, but this being the only one kept and the rest deleted reeks of the Americentrism problems on this website. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@1ctinus:
If this is kept, it may be because more source material is available

If this is kept, perhaps the other closes should be revisited, in part because some of them had very little participation
_pbp 17:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I have seen book entries and magazine articles organized on this topic. Furthermore, this has been kept before and I am not convinced of the need to abandon that consensus _pbp 14:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: There's never going to be 100% agreement on any article, and the editors do a good job of deleting pure trivia. The presidency has evolved over the years and this article shows how. Bkatcher (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. American writers have listed and will no doubt continue to list presidential achievements (though I am rather dubious about having a section for George Washington: everything he did was a first!). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Any list (and especially lists of "firsts") should be discussed in reliable sources as a topic AND the criteria must not be indiscriminate. (see this recent discussion). So, this fails NLIST and WP:TRIVIA. Any relevant "firsts" can be mentioned or described on the page of the president. (And as an aside, there is lots of trivial entries on the list "Washington was the first president to have a First Lady older in age.") --Enos733 (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources have published list of firsts, though... _pbp 15:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles that got deleted had few participates, one of them had no one but the nominator there. Anyway, reliable sources believe its a notable accomplish worth covering to be the first US president to do something, and every item has a reference. Dream Focus 05:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I believe this article has a purpose to cover up unique facts about the presidents of the United States and the main concern to delete this article would be of having too long-processed facts. But this article does a fantastic job of keeping specific and unique facts, that are basic and straightforward. Like for example, James K. Polk being the first president not to have a pet, JQ Adams being the first president to have his photo taken, Woodrow Wilson being the first to have a PhD.HockeyFanNHL (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
deletion and Move to the article of each person individually. It is more useful this way Pallikari (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, the keep !votes outnumber the deletes, but the deletes make a more policy-based case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should not have been relisted, it should've been closed as kept. Relisting it smacks of fishing for a certain outcome _pbp 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm persuaded by Bkatcher. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 21:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendem to my keep vote. It satisfies WP:NLIST: Sources include the article "Presidential Firsts" in The Journal of Education, the New York Times article "Presidential Firsts, Mosts and Almosts; ...", the Newsweek article "Trump's Historic Conviction: Test Yourself on Other Presidential Firsts", the USA Today article "The greatest presidential 'firsts' in history", the Complete Book of Historic Presidential Firsts: With Fascinating Details & Factual Tid-Bits, etc. etc. Murica is the center of the universe, and the president is the center of Murica (just ask any USian). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shwa Losben

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

The only coverage of the subject in reliable sources that I was able to find is this 2009 NBC Philadelphia article. toweli (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, California, and Washington, D.C.. toweli (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to non-notability. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources found. The award listed is non-notable award-giving body. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversies of recent U.S. Presidents

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

Very sparse article with a strange criteria (why only recent presidents?) and quite frankly, is only substantive for Trump (where it's a list of people who worked under him who now consider him to be incompetent). No substantive content besides the list of scandalous Trump politicians, which are covered elsewhere. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand substantially further back in time, and provide some refined guidelines for what constitutes a "controversy". An "impeachments" section that does not mention the impeachment of Bill Clinton is lacking, to begin with. While there are periods that historians would deem the cutoff for "modern" presidencies, I would think that this would go at least as far back as Nixon, and possibly as far back as Kennedy. BD2412 T 02:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: For one definition, see Stephen Hess and James P. Pfiffner, Organizing the Presidency, Third Edition (2020), stating "The modern presidency began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his leadership of the United States through the Great Depression and World War II". BD2412 T 03:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I went ahead and expanded it back to Reagan since that was as far back as the Brookings analysis went on turnover by administration Superb Owl (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I chose 2 presidents from each party for starters to try and keep it balanced. I will not object if other editors want to expand it. Do not see any reason for deletion. Superb Owl (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NLIST. High Crimes and Controversy: Noteworthy Presidential Scandals, Presidential scandals throughout history, Among 160 years of presidential scandals, Trump stands alone; What Was the Biggest Political Scandal in American History? 7 Historians Make Their Picks. Given the scope of this topic, reasonable to apply WP:LISTCRIT to limit to particular era. There are some problems: not convinced that "recent" is useful since it dates immediately, splitting by centuries might be useful; also, the table skates close to WP:OR - what source identifies scandals using that typology? Nevertheless, these are content issues, not notability issues. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fine as long as only notable controversies are included. Dympies (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicated information that is found at List of federal political scandals in the United States. I don't think a redirect would be helpful. --Enos733 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412, @Goldsztajn, @Dympies, does the presence of List of federal political scandals in the United States change your analysis? - Enos733 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the differences between the two. The List of federal political scandals in the United States is difficult to read, includes legislators who are not associated with presidents, and is impossible to compare across presidencies. That article also does not categorize scandals by type and excludes Criticism from former allies, excludes turnover comparison, and excludes family members category. Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not suggest there are no differences - but the way List of controversies of recent U.S. Presidents is presented (to me), is very confusing and there is no information about the "controversy" and does not address the very real content concerns raised by BD2412, Goldsztajn, and Dympies. Looking at the list in the article, I do not know what "Major criticism of the President" means - does that mean the individual listed expressed concerns about the president? Also, I should be able to know at a glance why Eric Lander was part of a Biden administration scandal. I was about to say this should be TNT'd, but then I found a much more comprehensive article already written. - Enos733 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive in some areas but not in others. There is a real lack of discussion of presidential scandals in Wikipedia. I think given the growing power of the presidency, that we need a more coherent article to summarize the performance of presidents along these lines that is not bogged down with a massive list of congressman and judges and others that are not part of the executive branch Superb Owl (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there is a need for an article substantively focused on the performance of presidential administrations in this area (not just general occurrences in other branches coinciding with the timing of a presidential administration), and that what constitutes a "scandal" or "controversy" should be well-defined for inclusion. The latter is something missing from this article, but readily fixable within its scope. BD2412 T 20:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Superb Owl - the only consideration is reliable sourcing - our own perceptions of the changing status of the US Presidency can't inform this discussion. @Enos733 - thanks for the ping and drawing my attention to the other article. I'm looking at this purerly from a sourcing (ie notability) perspective. For this list, I find sourcing that satisfies this specific class, but which does not statisfy a general list of federal political scandals. Looking at the federal list, notwithstanding WP:NEXIST, I do not see sourcing present in that article which satisfies that specific class. Given the prominance in the sourcing assocated with Presidents, this list, at least on first glance, has a stronger founding in sourcing and thus a stronger claim for notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost duplicate of List of federal political scandals in the United States. We need only one article on this topic. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States. This is a WP:COATRACK and unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Merging would be unnecessary since the content is a bit of a disaster, but regardless of the condition there's a policy basis for redirection. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States, per Dclemens1971. Bothsidesism has destroyed many once reliable sources, and forks about controversies have wrecked parts of Wikipedia. A controversy about email servers versus hundreds of crimes and scandals is what has gotten us into this fine ness. No thank you. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The table tries to distinguish between scandals, indictments and felonies, unlike the List of federal political scandals in the United States. I reorganized based on the most serious first and removed Hillary Clinton (which was a borderline case that is not in the List of federal political scandals) Superb Owl (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between editors advocating Keep, Delete and Redirect. No one has mentioned this in the discussion but the article being discussed is very weighted towards the Trump administration and lighter on other administrations, does that impact the outcome participants are seeking?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to something like "Personnel scandals of President Donald Trump." The table can largely remain as a comparision to other recent presidents without worrying as much about where to stop adding the lists and redundancy with the other list of scandals. Trump takes up much of the focus of the article anyway. Superb Owl (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is a clear cut case of WP:COATRACK. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States. "Recent U.S. Presidents" is arbitrary and will change, and thus fails WP:NLIST. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can live with a redirect. --Enos733 (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger D. Nelson

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

I'm having trouble finding secondary sources independent of this subject. WP:FRINGE is also a concern here. 0xchase (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might pass AUTHOR with book reviews [9], [10], but I wonder if those are about the same person; wiki article is about a parapsychologist, this seems to be about a more mainstream psychologist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The first review you list is in Journal of Scientific Exploration, which (searching WP:FRINGEN archives) appears not to be considered reliable. The second is from the Society for Psychical Research, also of dubious reliability. Per WP:FRINGE, we need mainstream coverage of this material, not affirmations from other believers. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AUTHOR is just passing book reviews, no matter how good or bad they are. I suppose they aren't RS? Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they're positive or negative is not so important, but whether they're reliable is important. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe publications aren't a reliable source of information, regardless of the valence of the review 0xchase (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this and improve it. It is the way of the future; the Global Consciousness Project is now in it second phase and is set to be a vital source of information about the interaction of consciousness with the material world. Those who cling to materialism are a dying breed. 197.88.230.219 (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant the notability or lack of sources here Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, for articles on fringe subjects, we must base them on reliably-published mainstream sources, we have no independent sources at all in our article, I don't think the two reviews listed above are mainstream, and I could not find better in my searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of usable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the nonsense his work is, there does appear to be coverage of Nelson and his work over the course of multiple years. Some examples:

So Just What Makes the Earth Move? by JD Reed - The New York Times
The day the world got smaller by Claudia Smith Brinson (Page 2) - The State
Far out: The Global Mind by Mark Pilkington - The Guardian
When all earth grieves: Science finds astonishing consequences of our pain by Sarah Gibb - The Vancouver Sun
Shared tragedies breeding global consciousness: study - The StarPhoenix
Cambridge Institute Delves Into Paranormal Phenomena by Kenneth Chang - The Tampa Tribune
Roger Nelson’s “Global Consciousness” Does Not Exist by Dominique J. Persoons - European Journal of Theology and Philosophy

The exact sort of paranormal work he does appears to be the kind that gets the clicks and notice from the news media. Silver seren^C 23:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most or any of these pass both WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV

Some of these uncritically embrace the paranormal stuff and clearly aren't mainstream
Most of these sources are primarily covering the Global Consciousness Project and only make passing mention of Nelson. The GCP already has its own article, and Nelson doesn't get inherited notability.

0xchase (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming mainstream major newspapers aren't "mainstream" just because they are uncritical? Whether they embrace a fringe topic or criticize it is irrelevant. It is significant coverage regardless. And it is coverage of his research, which is relevant for coverage toward him, since while he's fringe, this still falls under notability for academics. And, for this fringe field, he is clearly both a discussed and noted expert that has received significant news focus. Silver seren^C 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion --Altenmann >talk 21:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC) delete The refs listed by Silver screen above are sensationalist blurbs and other not very reliable sources. In topics like this an encyclopedia needs references from mainstream experts. --Altenmann >talk 17:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your opinion on "topics like this" is irrelevant toward notability, including for those of academics, fringe or not. Are you seriously claiming entire multi-page articles in major newspapers are "sensationalist blurbs"? Please explain how significant coverage for notability works in your view, Altenmann. Silverseren^C 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didnt pay attention that some texts are really long. Reclusing for now; lazy to do research. --Altenmann >talk 21:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps we should redirect to Global Consciousness Project?. 0xchase (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read the assessment of my sources above, if they aren't RS, we don't have much of anything left for notability. I don't think a redirect would help, I question the notability of the Project as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What assessment? I'm seeing none above and no actual discussion of the sources I presented. Especially if you're claiming that large page news articles don't count toward even notability of the project in question. How exactly are you determining notability, Oaktree b? Silver seren^C 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Epstein commented on the two sources directly below my first comment to !keep, which I've since changed. I was talking about my first vote. I've not reviewed the other, newer ones identified further down. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might take a look at them later, I have no time to do so now. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global Consciousness Project. The NY Times, Vancouver Sun, and Guardian are good sources, however their articles are primarily about the project, not him. A few sentences (maybe a paragraph) introducing him using those sources found by Silver Seren would actually enhance that article. That would fill in his educational background (a short list of degrees) and perhaps something about his beliefs/goals. But for him I don't see SIGCOV for a separate article. Lamona (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global Consciousness Project, in order for him to get coverage, we would need WP:DEPTH, which we don't have here.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Silverseren’s sources. He seems to have received SIGCOV and sources that debunk his views. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources only have WP:DEPTH for the Global Consciousness Project, not Nelson himself. 0xchase (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Non-notable fringe. Merge Change my mind. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global Consciousness Project. The reliable sources that have been identified have WP:DEPTH about the project, not Nelson. 0xchase (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States SailGP Team

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

Nominated as there is nothing here to assert notability. The four WP:RS are too little to establish notability.

The NTY source is difficult to read through a paywall and do not seem to focus heavily on the team to establish notability. sailsporttalk only focuses on one of the sailors with a tiny part on the team. Both sources in sail-world only talks about the team's performance in the series. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for taking the time to review this page. I agree and take your point regarding this page relying heavily on WP:PRIMARY and currently only having two WP:RS. This risks the page failing to meet notability standard based on Wikipedia:Common_sourcing_mistakes_(notability). However, there exists plenty of notable and reliable secondary sources that would address the concern regarding WP:GNG. I am advocating that this page is not deleted but rather has a template appended giving editors opportunity and time to remedy the concerns raised and improve the article. Proposing addition of template

{{Multiple issues|{{one source|date=August 2024}} {{primary source|date=August 2024}} {{Notability|Sports|date=August 2024}} {{Citations needed|template|date=August 2024}}}}

Vonkiegr8 (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to add that this page has already been identified by two different WikiProjects for improvement, see Talk:United States SailGP Team . These project teams should be given the opportunity to do so. Vonkiegr8 (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The sources on the article are indeed primary sources. There are possible new sources (See: [[[11]]], [[[12]]], [[[13]]], [[[14]]]). However, these may not be enough to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've add a few newspaper articles include three or four from AP. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It is a notable team in a notable league. It reaches the threshold of WP:notability. Dermoid (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Jane

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [15][16][17][18] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, source 8 above is a brief album review in Billboard (fine I guess), the rest are about the season of Big Brother and mention this person in relation to the others on the show. Not exactly significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Big Brother season? Seems to have survived long enough on the show, but I'm not sure they're notable outside of that context. Doesn't seem to meet musical notability requirements either. The Billboard review is fine, but it's used for musical notability, then we go onto the TV show sources; you have to pick one sort of notability, you can't stack them. Being almost notable as a DJ and almost notable as a TV personality don't add up to an article here. I'm not fussed if this gets !deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we'll see more participation. Also, to the nominator, in the future, please provide a more comprehensive deletion rationale that demonstrates BEFORE has been done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources I added.

Sources:

Gorman, Brigid O (23 April 2013). "Barrister's a secret singing sensation". Lawyers Weekly. Retrieved 1 September 2024.
"Meet Bowie Jane". VoyageLA (Interview). 5 April 2021.
Doreian, Robyn (25 August 2013). "All out, all change". Lifestyle. The Sun-Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media. p. 12. Retrieved 1 September 2024. While studying law and commerce at Deakin University, she played covers at restaurants in an acoustic duo. Once qualified, the flip side to courtrooms was laser-lit gigs at venues like Transport, at Melbourne's Federation Square, where she blasted her energetic originals. And in 2013, she sang at the Australian Open tennis tournament. The moniker Bowie Jane came from her nickname - ever since she was a child, she's worn glittery bows in her hair. It was also how she kept her alter ego hidden from colleagues and clients. ... In March, she shelved four years of law practice and moved to London to become a star.

Bad Boy

"Dance Club Songs". Billboard. 13 October 2018. Retrieved 1 September 2024.

I also found this unreliable law profile source, with her real name:

"Miranda Ball". Meldrum's List. Retrieved 1 September 2024. The law profile notes: "Miranda's experience is extensive having run high profile White Collar Crime Litigations as both a Partner then Barrister. Her recent work includes the Bernie Madoff litigations in Bermuda & the UK, Operation Wickenby, Australian Crime Commission investigations and examinations, Special Leave Applications to the High Court of Australia, Legal Professional Privilege Claims, Constitutional Challenges, Children's Court hearings, Australian Taxation Office litigations/investigations and Coronial Inquests."

There is sufficient coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, plus the sources identified by @Ednabrenze to allow the subject to pass the general notability guideline, requiring "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 06:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wang

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

A WP:BEFORE did not reveal that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV. PROD was declined. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United States of America. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, California, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional. No SIGCOV or GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft I support moving the article to draft where it can be incubated and sources that indicated notability are added. There is little coverage for series leed they lauched, Also the article can be rewritten from a more neutral point of viewTesleemah 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there anyone willing to take on rewriting a 14 year-old article in Draft space? Because otherwise, Draftification can just mean a CSD G13 in six months.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a quick crack at it in about an hour. But if I can't find anything solid then I'll come back and vote for deletion. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr vulpes. It's nice to see you back in AFDLand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've updated with multiple sources, removed all the unsourced material and any content that I couldn't find proper sources for. This was a fun clean up. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review the article since it has been improved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is good enough to pass WP:NBIO. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The improved article is sufficient to show notability. Meters (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

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