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]

American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution[edit]

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

Original research and WP:POVFORK, including fringe content. Any notable content can be merged into existing articles. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Ukraine, and United States of America. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable subject with WP:RS to back it up.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you identify sources currently used in the article that establish notability for the topic, quoting from them if they are not available online? --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the article had 114 citations and 5 works cited. Are you really claiming that all most every single one of those citations are meaningless in establishing notability? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions will get us an article worth deleting. I tried to assess the article and this is the impression I got: Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#c-Manyareasexpert-20240602172700-Rsk6400-20240602093400 and Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#Neutrality, quality, sources . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add to my original comment before you came in, that I do agree that there is WP:SYN in at least some of the article. I just made an offer to remove some of it Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN here. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not RS but fringe, as Rsk6400 has mentioned. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is based on non-mainstream sources and supports the fringe theory that the Revolution of Dignity was in some way engineered by the West / the U.S. / the CIA. Reliable historians like Andreas Kappeler, Timothy Snyder, and Serhii Plokhy don't even mention the subject of the article (and are not used by the author of that article). Rsk6400 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POVFORK. This is not even an encyclopedia article, nor a personal essay. It looks like content removed haphazardly out of a larger article, and some aspects of it suggest AI-written content. If the topic is notable, a total rewrite would be required. --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sweetser[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Education, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've ben able to locate a few sources on Sweetser. Per this book, Sweetser's (1888-1968) was a journalist and League of Nations' staff member whose dense and global relations almost completely escaped historians' attention, so it seems like he was an important figure but just hasn't been written about too much. I was also able to find some biographical coverage in a few different pages of this book. Additionally, this contemporary journal article provides coverage of him and one of his books. If this article is kept, this brief note contains biographical info which can be used to source it. There are around 2,000 mentions of him on newspapers.com for the period between 1915 and 1945; I haven't gone through all of them of course, but [1][2][3] were some big mentions that came up. Additionally, his obituaries ([4][5]) provide further biographical information which can be used to source the article if it is kept. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo D'Agostini[edit]

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

This feels like a prime example of WP:TOOSOON, so I would suggest draftification. There was some coverage of him in Italian press upon his move to Lazio's youth system in 2023, but nothing but match reports appear since then. Anwegmann (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Italy, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 14:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sullo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Purely written for promotion. Article's author also wrote Nikto (vulnerability scanner) - subject closely related to the article in nomination. (Note: The author (User:Root exploit) also self-describes themselves as "Security Researcher" on their userpage). --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rockower Award[edit]

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

Merge into American Jewish Press Association. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, no WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Judaism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree with the proposal. Simon Rockower should be merged into American Jewish Press Association, and then converted into a redirect.
Eric Schucht (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Asia, Pakistan, Middle East, Europe, and United States of America. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: detailed article about a notable network: see WP:SPLITLIST. If a merge into the main article was an improvement, I would not be opposed but it would be an issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....

For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like "a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NLIST applies without any special exception and that in general lists of programs, where needed, can be handled within the article about the channel, and don't generally merit a stand-alone list article, unless such a list would pass the scrutiny per WP:NLIST. WP is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY nor WP:NOTTVGUIDE —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum TV as WP:ATD. 2A00:23C6:139B:A101:78CA:7B5:3148:9172 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I suggest to Keep the Article. As it a large number of notable program's are listed on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 (talk • contribs)

One WP:ATA is WP:NOTINHERITED. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Burns[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a voice actor and singer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or singers. As always, neither actors nor singers are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but this is very heavily reference bombed to primary sources that are not support for notability (songs sourced to Spotify or YouTube or their own lyrics on Genius, acting credits sourced to IMDb, YouTube "interviews" where he's talking about himself, Facebook posts, etc.), with virtually no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him shown at all.
This is different enough in form from the prior versions that I wouldn't feel comfortable speedying it as a recreation of deleted content without a new discussion, but it hasn't built any stronger case for the subject passing any notability criteria than the prior versions did. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the late response, been busy. i believe that Griffin's article does fall under notability due to him being cast in multiple significant roles in noteworthy projects (tartaglia in genshin, nate adams from yokai watch, Mule from berserk). Minmarion (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayatollah Khamenei's letter to students at U.S. universities[edit]

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

Does not need to be a separate article and not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but article requires significant improvement.

Coverage that is at least potentially RS (not necessarily complete) which is not currently included in the article:

FortunateSons (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS Ladsgroup^overleg 09:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subjects passes the WP:GNG criteria certainly. Besides the sources listed by FortunateSons there are other reliable sources like Newsweek (another article by Newsweek), the hill, and Fox News. Moreover, the supreme leader is considered notable enough so his letters sparks significant coverage by the sources. Btw, I created the page. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:56, 31 May 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 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Education, Iran, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this does seem to fail WP:NOTNEWS at the moment, needs sustained coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Khamenei's letter went out on May 30, and you say on May 31 that there is not "sustained coverage"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ayatollah Khamenei. The letter is a work of a notable person, not a notable work. BD2412 T 01:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it passes WP:GNG. As more news comes in, it can be improved to pass the enduring notability as well. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS Hosseinronaghi (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep ofcourse https://search.brave.com/search?q=khamenei+letter+american+student&source=android many sources have written Baratiiman (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Fawiki [6] Baratiiman (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS This article is not important enough to be on Wikipedia (Encyclopaedia's article). It's more like propaganda. Déjà vu • ✉ 00:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For those who point to WP:NOTNEWS; The letter was issued on 30 May 2024 with a handful of reliable sources covering it deeply (listed by me and FortunateSons) hence establishing the WP:Notability. Now let's see if NOTNEWS is even applicable here:
Original reporting: Easily rebutted. The current article is written based on secondary reliable sources, so there is no original reporting.

News reports: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I wonder how users realized, less than 24 hours [7] after the official publication of the letter, that the subject does not have an "enduring notability"! This is while some sources are published after 48 hours ago [8], let alone those published some hours ago [9].

Who's who and Celebrity gossip and diary: Easily rebutted. The current article is not even about an individual.
WP:GNG is passed and the enduring notability assessment requires more time to pass. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: Multiple users are coming from Fa wiki with some having their first AFD !vote here. There seems to be an attempt aimed at defecting the consensus building process here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice this one please. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ayatollah Khamenei No idea why this is a standalone article, if it's so notable just add it to the existing biography. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Such interactions by the head of state of a theocracy to a significant section of Western society is quite rare. As a comment it would be nice to have this in Wikisource if applicable. Borgenland (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge about one sentence into Ayatollah Khamenei, where it missing, as an unjustified SPINOUT. No objection to delete either. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Ali Khamenei is already ~10,000 words in prose. According to WP:SIZERULE it is somewhere between "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed" and "Probably should be divided or trimmed". So merging an article there would not be advisable.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Khamanei's previous such letter (To the Youth in Europe and North America in 2015) turned out to be an enduring article. His current letter has not just been covered in the US and Iran, but also India, Australia, Tanzania, Israel, Turkey etc. Since the letter was only published 3 days ago, coverage at this stage will obviously be only news articles.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentencing of Donald Trump in New York[edit]

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

This poorly referenced substub should be redirected to the small but better referenced section at Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Sentencing. Right now, we don't know what this will be, so we are crystall-balling stuff. No prejudice to this being restored as an article when the section grows, but there is no need for this to remain as a stand-alone article in the current form. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 31 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider either putting it in my draftspace for incubation/protection. Currently im choosing to keep it up.

If i do put it in my draftspace, I will readd it to the wiki in 1 or 2 weeks before that.

~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 12:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snipertron12: you shouldn't unilaterally move an article while an AfD is open. And if you wait for the AfD to close, and it closes as delete, there won't be anything to draftify as deletion follows closure usually pretty promptly.

Also, your intention to publish this again 1-2 weeks before sentencing is not materially different to where we are now, in that it will still be about an uncertain future event. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no way of telling as of now if his sentencing will be independently notable from his prosecution & conviction, so it's best to leave it all in one article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason for an article on a future event; the Prosecution article has a sentencing section. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An ongoing current event might or might not warrant an article in Wikipedia. But starting a new article for every development turns Wikipedia into a forum for news bulletins, which it is not. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom 2601:441:8284:1CC0:2CC7:8112:D93C:9FB3 (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Everything in this article is covered and better sourced in the main article, so this is just a dupe. ruth Bader yinzburg (talk) ★

Delete. There is no reason to split this from the main article at this point in time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's WP:CONTENTFORK at this point. Prosecution, conviction and sentencing can all be covered in one place. Keivan.f^Talk 17:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MacGregor (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker with an unsourced BLP Niafied (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Spain, and United States of America. sig
Keep: Unsourced? Yes. Rewrite? Needed. But I don't think the subject person is non-notable. He was listed as the cinematographer for several big productions in the article, including Vivarium, Fall, Kandahar, and A Thousand Suns, as well as a documentary film The Mauritania Railway: Backbone of the Sahara credited with his real name Miguel de Olaso. For each one I found sources to back it. (The Jewish Chronicle and Screen Daily for Vivarium[10][11], Empire and The Austin Chronicle for Fall[12][13], The Hindu and IBC for Kandahar[14]&[15], Inverse for A Thousand Suns[16], and The Atlantic for The Mauritania Railway [17]) So this already fulfills the third criterion of WP:FILMMAKER, where a person has to play a major role in co-creating a well-known work with multiple reliable sources to cover or review it. I also found an interview of the subject person with Red Shark News[18], which covered his early life in detail, but I'm not sure about the reliability of this source and whether it can be considered as demonstrating notability. Nonetheless, I think fulfilling WP:FILMMAKER would already be sufficient for me to vote Keep. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:03, 31 May 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 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Prince of Erebor. I can see why it would attract a deletion nomination though. He was interviewed by Red Shark News and there are a couple other good articles to use. He's picked up some good awards. I can't understand why though with this much work, there are no refs. I had a quick look in the history and there were some a while back. But they're gone. Rather than draft or redirect, a bold tag to improve this article is a must. Karl Twist (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Schulz[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler with no sources in the article Niafied (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling, United States of America, and Germany. sig
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 31 May 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 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric K. Little[edit]

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

I tagged this for speedy deletion as an attack page, which was declined. Nevertheless it is not evident to me that the subject is really notable, and the purpose of the article appears to me to be to memorialise his misconduct. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 30 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. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sexual assault in the United States military: Seems to be the logical redirect, there is some coverage [19], but it's more about the scandal than the person here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. A US Major general removed due to sexism is significant. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article was added with the intent that it demonstrates the issues that have come with US military confronting systemic issues that are prevalent within their ranks. Skuzbucket (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the article creator for this explanation. Please see WP:RGW. We don’t create biographies of living people to highlight broader issues. An article on the broader issue would be absolutely fine, but personalising it isn’t what we’re here for. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus Life[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP - coverage seems to be routine at best with a few promotional pieces thrown in. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United States of America, and Florida. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of True Crime[edit]

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

No actual reviews, has been tagged for notability since 2016 (it was accidentally placed on the talk page until yesterday, which I fixed). The one "review" contains no analytical content and is a straightforward non interpretive summary of the book (and is also an unarchived dead link). There's another similar summary in Reference & Research Book News. Oct2012, Vol. 27 Issue 5, p106-109, which says basically nothing about the book other than what it is about and that it is exists. Other than that, nothing. There's the Portland review in external links but that website has a note about "sponsored" reviews that makes me unsure of its independence. I don't think either of these sources is enough to build an article on. Redirect to author R. Barri Flowers? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also a Midwest Book Review review but that publication has, since 2011, also accepted paid reviews, so that's not useful here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No book reviews that I can find, only hits on versions of the title/phrasing. not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion on redirect? The author's article mentions the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Jewish Camp[edit]

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

Delete or merge into Jewish summer camp. The page was originally created 15 years ago by a COI account, and since then per WP:BEFORE, no WP:SIGCOV found on this organization (beyond fleeting media mentions) that would establish WP:NORG and justify a standalone article. Longhornsg (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Judaism. Longhornsg (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jewish summer camp. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DFH Network[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Turkey. Kadı Message 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 19:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Music company[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a defunct instrument company that didn't make much of an impact. The only sources are a Youtube video, a product catalog PDF, and a fan forum - and that's after a user contested my PROD and looked for sources. Google News returns nothing. A search of Guitar World also comes up empty. A search for one of their guitars only returns some sales listings. Seems non-notable. Mbinebri (talk) 18:59, 29 May 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 ☎ ✎ 19:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Zanahary (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this instrument maker. Being defunct, I doubt we'll find much of anything at this point in time; what's used in the article for sourcing isn't sufficient. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry, there was a deletion tag on the Switch Music company page that explicitly stated that : "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."

So, I have edited the article, removed the deletion tag, so how come it's up for deletion again although this was explicitly discouraged in the deletion tag?

I have also expressed reasons to retain (Keep) this article in the article's talk page, which I'll reiterate here: "Hi, I think that the subject of this article is relevant and interesting as Switch was one of the few companies using plastic rather than wood on a guitar body, equally it was manufactured by injection molding rather than carpentry. Although this was successful in terms of acoustic quality, and although the instruments were attractively priced, the company failed commercially. We can't link to the company website as it has ceased to exist. On the other hand this also means that this article can't be intended as marketing or to build company credibility. The information here is referenced by the creators best as we can given that there isn't much in the way of academic literature, which kinda comes with the territory. I have also added some inline references as requested by the deletion-proposer."

I'm saddened that an improper shotgun policy is being used where the article will be brought up for deletion multiple times until it finally is deleted. Maikel (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States vice presidential firsts[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN, seems to fall afoul of WP:NOTTRIVIA as well. I'm not seeing any corresponding content at Vice President of the United States that would make retarget or merge appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, and United States of America. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see an excuse of this WP:OR WP:LISTCRUFT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You can always find weird, arbitrary firsts for just about anything, but there's no reason to dump them here. For example, Daniel D. Tompkins is the only vice president to have served two terms in the 1800s and first to die within a year of leaving office. First bald VP? First left-handed VP? First VP over 5' 10" tall? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Lists of firsts shows a lot of these types articles exist. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts was kept, an argument made that the media covers that. So I searched for "First vice president to" [20] and found news coverage of various things. The media covers the first vice president to do anything. Individual things listed can be searched for as well. Any history book about a vice president, will mention what they were the first to do. Dream Focus 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Selecting what goes onto this list is always going to be an exercise in original research. Also contravenes WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just list things that a reliable source in the news media or a history book or a government website mentioned was a notable achievement. I added some references earlier, quote easy to find. Dream Focus 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Hakeem Olajuwon[edit]

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

WP:NOTSTATS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE - there is already significant consensus that these big lists of stats are not encyclopedic - several other discussions of this type are listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Shaquille O'Neal BrigadierG (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and United States of America. BrigadierG (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate, trivial stats minutiae. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. The basic stats are already at Hakeem Olajuwon § Career statistics. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing As most of this page is unsourced, there's no opportunity to merge either.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Waldron[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER. The majority of sources either aren't independent or provide only a passing mention. I found two sources that may contribute to notability ([21][22]). I am not 100% sure about the reliability of the latter source. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think his work on Dear White People alone meets WP:FILMMAKER, his contributions are mentioned in independent reviews [23][24]. While these [25][26] might count as promo, they discuss his work in some depth. Orange sticker (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Variety piece is more of an interview with the subject than an article about him. Rest is rather non-helpful for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Not only Dear White People, the four films under his belt are all notable and significant productions, and for each one I found RS that provide reviews or even interviews with him. For instance, there are Variety[27] and Screen Daily[28] reviews for The Dynamiter, Washington Post,[29] and The Hollywood Reporter[30] reviews for You Hurt My Feelings, an interview with Variety[31] and a review from New York Times[32] on his participation in Transpecos, and multiple interviews with Screen Rant,[33] Comic Book Resources,[34] and NPR Illinois [35] on the Disney film Haunted Mansion. He was also nominated for numerous awards, including an Emmy and an Independent Spirit Award. These clearly fulfill WP:FILMMAKER#3 (subject person playing a major role in co-creating a significant work) and #4 (subject person winning critical attention for their works). Passing not only one but two criteria of NBLP is quite an obvious keep. @Oaktree b: Please take a look at the sources and rationales I presented. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel & Co.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not satisfied with the reliability of sources. I could not find anything else online either. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Lebanon, United States of America, and New York. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mackay Radio[edit]

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. The link http://www.mackayhistory.com/ doesn’t exist anymore. Wikilover3509 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original editor was blocked with a mile-long talk page of warnings; this seems to be an article about stations in Mackay, Queensland, but this article seems to have been both pay-to-play from a sockmaster who never visited Australia, and completely unintelligible (it previously also had a duplicative entry about Clarence Mackay). No redirect. Nate • (chatter) 17:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not entirely sure whether this article, such as it is, is about an American company or about Australian radio stations… and I'm not sure the article knows either. This has been tagged as a potential WP:CORP failure since July 2021 (only a month after creation); if there is any solution to this that doesn't involve deletion, I'm not seeing it. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links (it took me a while to catch that, despite my earlier comment here). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without even going into suspect bona fides of the page’s author, and putting best spin on page’s intent, which is to serve as a list of Mackay Radio stations, then still fails WP:STANDALONE. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Polly[edit]

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

Contested G11. This appears to have been written by a UPE and reads like an advertisement. All of the coverage I can find is run of the mill. Even if notable, G11 is appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Australia, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Various blogs or reports of a store opening are all I can see for coverage. The Forbes source used is a contributor, so non-reliable. I don't find any coverage we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like ad. The best I could find is Fashionunited: https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/princess-polly-partners-with-true-fit-for-size-and-fit-recommendations/2024031174529 which talks about the brand's partnership with AI platform True Fit, which fails GNG. Forbes here is just a contributor work by Mark Faithfull which has minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable as it was not written by the Forbes Staff, See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes.com contributors about Forbes' contributor work.- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's the only way to be sure. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per voorts. Irredeemable. JSFarman (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure the brand will meet N eventually, but certainly not with convoluted ad copy like '(the) brand is recognized as the sixth favorite shopping website for upper-income teens in the United States, according to the Piper Sandler Taking Stock With Teens 2023 survey'...that's some stretching that'll break an ankle. Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reviewed and accepted this draft in AfC as I felt that the company itself met WP:NCORP and was able to find suitable coverage online. Not going to vote formally as I already had a chance to review the article but several voters are claiming there's not enough sources that can be used to establish notability when I found multiple: Business Insider Sydney Morning Herald Australian Financial Review ~Liance^talk 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of those, I think only the BI story provides significant coverage. The SMH story is a run-of-the-mill announcement about the parent company's IPO, with a brief mention about this brand, and the AFR story is a one sentence announcement. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of notable references to this company that could be included in this page as it meets the WP:NCORP. Including the sources noted by Liance, Ragtrader which speaks to both positive and negative market fluctuations of the parent company, IT News discussing a data breach, and BBC article with Lori Loughlin scandal. Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience. Wikiguru777 (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ragtrader has no clear editorial policy, the article you've cited is run-of-the-mill reporting about stores opening, and trade journals generally don't satisfy NCORP. IT News is likewise a run-of-the-mill data breach story in a trade publication, and does not establish that the company is notable. The BBC article contains only this brief mention of the brand: "The social media influencer has launched a clothing collection with women's online fashion boutique Princess Polly and a make-up palette with cosmetics chain Sephora." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

plenty of notable references to this company: for a company to be notable under NCORP, there needs to be more than "references"; there needs to be several sources, each of which must be secondary, independent, and reliable, and contain significant coverage of the company.

Regarding: Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience. Wikipedia's readers are not an audience for advertising to. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "trade journals generally don't satisfy NCORP" I can see that featured trade stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear. Reporting on net revenue decrease and factual store openings is unbiased, independent information. Sydney Morning Herald is a notable article and speaks to the brand multiple times throughout the article.

In addition, I've also found the BBB review / complaints for the company (where reviews must be independent secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject).

Another article with substantial, reliable, and independent coverage from a secondary source relating to news article exploring sustainability of the company - Greenmatters - https://www.greenmatters.com/p/is-princess-polly-good-quality

Agree that the BBC article I previously referenced does not meet the criteria for notable source. Wikiguru777 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBB complaints are user-generated content and thus not reliable.
Greenmatters appears to be reliable and its critique of the company's claims of being ethical while sourcing from "countries with extreme risk of label abuse" indicates this definitely isn't a sponsored post.
Sydney Morning Herald is a notable article and speaks to the brand multiple times throughout the article. References or mentions are not enough to establish notability. The article also isn't about this company; it's about the parent company's IPO.

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed significant, reliable, independent sources

Business insider

Green matters

I believe IT news should also be considered a source as it is “featured trade stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear.”

I’ve also found Goon On You which questions Princess Polly’s ethical standards. This source is reliable & independent

The above is enough to satisfy NCORP as “significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.”

This is my first publishing so I'm learning more about the rules here and I appreciate your previous feedback to help discern what is appropriate. I believe the above should be suitable to comply with NCORP. Wikiguru777 (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IT News is not a "leading trade magazine" in fashion. It's a run-of-the-mill news story that focuses on the data breach, not significant coverage about the company itself. Greenmatters is basically secondary source coverage of Good on You, which is a primary source since it's a report made by an advocacy group. So, we still only have two sources that meet WP:SIRS, Green Matters and BI, which isn't enough under NCORP. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree BI is ok though I'm not so sure Green Matters is sufficient for ORGDEPTH. IT news would also fail ORGIND given its like, 90% quotes from the company, and does not appear to have any secondary analysis, very far from being a featured story, so I'd agree there also. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the United States National Park System official units[edit]

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

Wikipedia already has a well-made and featured list at List of areas in the United States National Park System for units in the National Park Service. Much of the text from this list proposed for deletion is copied verbatim in the featured list linked. Thus, this list should be deleted as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Zkidwiki (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While similar to the list of areas, this list only includes the official units, excluding former sites, redesignated sites, certain combination sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, non-unit rivers, non-unit parkways, non-unit trails, cemetaries, and groupings of sites. It also has the benefit of listing all units in a single list to allow for full alphabetical sorting and sorting by state. While there is duplication, I believe this this subarticle is warranted as a distinct subset. Some sources include [36][37][38][39][40]. Reywas92^Talk 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to consider your point, but the list proposed for deletion does not have almost anything you mentioned, including: former sites, redesignated sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, or cemeteries. I do not know why you would propose to keep an inferior list that has none of the content you desire to see. Zkidwiki (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the official unit list isn't supposed to have any of those because they're not the same list. This is not an inferior list, it's a complementary list that only has the official units presented together, without the areas that are not units. What if I don't desire to see all of that? Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't have a different list for every potential way to sort a list of items. Even if I were to agree with you, this list is just a directory that repeats any given excel sheet you can acquire from the park service. It is unnecessary to main the accuracy of two separate lists, one of which provides no information other than a state (even the type of unit is not sortable). Also, the list is far too long to read--there are over 400 units. It is ineffective other than to serve as a stand-in for an excel sheet when the featured list provides a digestible series of information. Zkidwiki (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a column for type of unit is something I've thought would be useful for quite some time. Further improvements would be welcome. Reywas92^Talk 21:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems like a useful list, navigation-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think this is useful. It's incomplete and has less information, and I don't see what two lists is getting us. It would make more sense to concentrate on the usability of the other, complete listing. Mangoe (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The list is extremely useful for those that want to see the entire list of NPS official units uninterrupted by descriptions of the types of units, former units, etc. It's not too long to read for those that are, for lack of a better term, fans of the NPS. I have used it doing research more than the List of Areas page. OneEarDrummer (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete National_Park_Service#Nomenclature already has this information, and the fold out templates link to the various list articles that have things in them. List of national monuments of the United States, List_of_areas_in_the_United_States_National_Park_System#National_historical_parks, List of national lakeshores and seashores of the United States, etc. Dream Focus 11:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dream Focus and Mangoe. Simply being useful is not enough to justify this redundant fork. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' @OneEarDrummer, Reywas92, and Oaktree b: if this sortable list is useful, why can't it go into the main article? If it needs to be separate because it's directly duplicating content in the main article, that feels like a reason to delete it. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the main article a bit long in my opinion. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venery of Samantha Bird[edit]

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

I would argue that this fails the notability criteria: since the article is based on routine press coverage, and there's not much more mentions in reliable sources after the show did not move forward in September 2023. Maybe the specific guideline is WP:NOTNEWS, but I've seen most unaired television/film articles that do not have extensive coverage beyond cancellation be draftified, so maybe draftifying is the best option? I'm open to other options, though. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 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. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Simes[edit]

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

No indication of notoriety per either WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. I couldn't independently find awards or significant coverage by specialized, independent sources. Rkieferbaum (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Argentina, and United States of America. Rkieferbaum (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rkieferbaum: Hi! Posting here as well - I have a compiled list of awards and coverage from good sources that will be relevant here. I will update this page with them as soon as I can. Please hold. LocusXovier (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LocusXovier: hi there! By all means. Normally deletion discussions are open for a week and they can be relisted. I'll be sure to watch the page and gladly give my input. Feel free to ping me if you don't hear from me. Cheers! Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:36, 28 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!} 22:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is listed at the Center for Book Arts and there is a discussion of his work in text and images as homage to Jorge Luis Borges, but this is not enough to consider him a notable artist. WP:TOOSOON.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off Road with Gul Panag[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:57, 25 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. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:57, 25 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!} 07:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divide Pictures[edit]

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

Exists but doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG / WP:ORG. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 25 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!} 07:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Contreras[edit]

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

I found mentions of the subject in reliable sources, but I didn't find significant coverage. The single reference in the article only verifies that Contreras worked with Current 93 and Baby Dee. toweli (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. toweli (talk) 17:06, 24 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) 18:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Amin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP of an activist, deleted at AfD in January and immediately recreated. Notability is not evident to me at all, as the article is a collection of activities which are run of the mill. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Egypt, and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with small potential Wikipedia:CONFLICT) as I said in previous discussion. The recreated article removed non-notable information and sources to address previous reasons for deletion, so "it was deleted before" is insufficient reason: this is a new article that should be judged on its own merits, but I still believe the subject has established notability due especially to articles about her in non-English sources. There is a danger of underrepresentation due to Wikipedia:Systemic bias if we insist on more notable English-language sources without recognising the Egyptian coverage as notable. Also, the previous deletion occurred just 8 hours after a single extra delete vote was placed after 3 relistings, so I believed that immediately recreating the article in a form that addressed the reasons for deletion was justified. With regard to Jana's activities being "run of the mill", correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability is that it's not up to us editors to judge whether or not a subject's activities are extraordinary in their own right, but merely to summarise what sources are saying if the sources meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and notability. Hence the question should not be "did Jana do something worthy of a Wikipedia article" but "are sources giving Jana coverage that is worthy of a Wikipedia article". (My possibly-biased opinion happens to be that the answer to both questions is "yes" but if we're supposed to focus on the second then no need to argue about the first.) Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m not suggesting we need English language sources. We need in depth coverage in independent sources in any language. The piece in Elle is an interview where she talks about herself, as is the piece in Marie Claire. Two other sources are authored by her. Now This News is a passing mention. Some of the others have a strong whiff of PR placements. They tell us she works for an NGO, did a TED talk, and attended a lecture by Malala Yousefzai. She hasn’t received a well-known and significant award or honor, or been nominated for such an award several times; or made a widely recognized contribution in a specific field, and isn’t in a Dictionary of National Biography. So what exactly is notable about her? Mccapra (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is interviewed by a source, then the fact that the source decided to interview the person might in itself confer notability if that source does not interview just anybody. So I don't think we should dismiss interviews just because they are interviews without also asking the question: how difficult is it to get an interview in that publication? I'm imagining it's not that easy to get into Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia for example. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 07:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the one interview isn't in Arabic, English, or French, all of which are spoken in Egypt, so I'm not sure what using an Italian source has to do with Egypt... Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't commenting on the Italian source. I was commenting on the Egyptian Streets article and the Marie Claire Arabia article, which are in English and Arabic respectively. Whether these articles also count as "interviews" depends on exactly how you define an "interview", but either way my point was that getting published in Egyptian Streets and in Marie Claire Arabia seems notable to me. My point is wrong if it can be shown that these publications have a low acceptance standard of what they document, but I don't think that's the case. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:35, 30 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!} 21:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Again? Same sources as last time, a TED talk and an interview don't make you notable here... As for the systemic bias, you're actually hurting the standards by using such low quality sources, thereby contributing ot the bias (oh, we'll give this one a "pass"). Still having a lack of sources and nothing we can use to create the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, I believe it's not that easy to get into Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia. And not exactly the same sources as last time: I deleted some of the weaker ones and added in a couple more. That's why I think it should be re-evaluated on its merits in its current state. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Redwine[edit]

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

Current sources don't show sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG and film/tv credits don't pass WP:NACTOR. A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up in-depth sources which showed notability. Suonii180 (talk) 16:34, 22 May 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. Suonii180 (talk) 16:34, 22 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!} 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrell Hines[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:SIGCOV. In the article, sources are greatly lacking, and the ones seems unreliable. Applicable to WP:INTERVIEW. Maybe per WP:ATD, It do be redirected to List of American musicians. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [41], [42], [43], [and [44] doesn't make up WP:NSONG. Apart from one or two being an interview is not a criteria for inclusion. Then musician hasn't meet any of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC, but this few mentions shows there is possibility of being notable in the future. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as well as the above-mentioned sources, there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306, but [I]t doesn't mean the article is notable. That as why I said "may be notable in the future." Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand Safari Scribe's thinking here. First, a redirect to List of American musicians isn't feasible because that's a redirect in itself. Then, an Allmusic staff bio is found and Safari Scribe replies that the artist may be notable in the future. But the source doesn't show up some time in the future, it exists now. Geschichte (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this interview has a lot of non-interview, editorial paragraphs, it's a weak keep from me as well. Geschichte (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's true that List of American musicians is a Redirect so it's not an appropriate target page. There are handy scripts you can install that show articles, redirects and pages nominated for deletion in different font colors but you should always check the target page before proposing it so that you can see if it is a suitable target. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Spoon of Chocolate[edit]

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

Article about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
There's a common, but erroneous, belief that the WP:NFF section of WP:NFILM grants an automatic presumption of notability to every film that enters the production pipeline the moment shooting has started on it, even if that's basically the only notability claim the article contains -- but what NFF actually says is that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
That is, "notable once principal photography has commenced" is a special criterion that applies to very high-profile films (such as Marvel or Star Wars films) that get such a depth and range production coverage that they'd probably still remain notable even if they failed to ever see release at all, while the bar that most normal films actually have to clear is that they've actually been released and reviewed by film critics.
But what we have for referencing here is one casting announcement and one glancing mention that the idea was in the works 12 years ago in an article about the director's prior film, which isn't nearly enough coverage to get the NFF treatment.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when the film finally sees release, but simply single-sourcing that production has commenced isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are 2 reliable sources that are not blogs discussing the film, The New York Times a newspaper company that exists since 1851 and The Hollywood Reporter, the biggest Hollywood trade in the business. So no the sources aren't unreliable, so your argument about deleting the page are invalid.KingArti (talk) KingArti (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also I provided a 3rd source that filming is actually happening as we speak. KingArti (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, the base notability bar for films is not that production has started; the base notability bar for films is that they have been released to the public and garnered reviews from film critics. And as I noted above, one of the two footnotes that were in this article at the time of nomination was not coverage about this film, but a glancing mention that the basic idea for this film was in the germination stage 12 years ago in an article about a different film, and thus it does not support the notability of this film at all.

The potential exception to the regular notability criteria is for films that can be shown as special cases of much greater notability than the norm, and just two hits of coverage is not enough to get there. Nobody said anything about the sources being unreliable — what I said was that there isn't enough sourcing to exempt this from the normal notability criteria for films. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Existing significant coverage in reliable sources includes the articles quoted in the article + (1st page of a one-click search.....) :

etc. So this meets the general requirements for notability imv.

A redirect to RZA#Filmmaking should have obviously been considered anyway......-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable, it is stating that they do not show a notable production period, i.e. since April 2024. All sources published before that do not contribute to satisfying WP:NFF as that was development or pre-production. The question comes down to this: If the film were cancelled tomorrow and never released, what can we say about the production of the film? I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. I'm fairly inclusionist, and I consider this one pretty close, but I think we could easily wait for slightly more coverage. Draftification is a better WP:ATD option than a redirect in my opinion because I feel it's easier to add new content there than getting lost in a redirect history. KingArti is also very active in Draft space, so I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion. -2pou (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable? OK. Good, then, let's keep this. Sources published before filming started are absolutely as relevant as those published recently! I don't understand what notable production period means. A film is judged notable or not. And sources back the claim that it is notable, or not. Time has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia happens to consider films whose filming started are more likely to be notable (or simply to exist at all as films) than those whose filming hasn't started. It makes sense but that does not invalidate sources from before the moment filming started, when filming does indeed start!!! I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. Do you consider the cast, genre, premise and production history of a film non-significant? I don't. Finally, I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion, maybe not, but you feel it's a risk worth mentioning here, though. I concur it's as easy for users who know the draft exists, to edit it, as it is to edit a section dedicated to the film, in the article about the director. But not for newcomers. And if facilitating new contributions concerning the film is a concern (and a fair one, in terms of Wikipedia's raison d'être), a Keep seems the best solution (not to mention the possibility of good faith creations of articles such as OSoC (upcoming film) or OSoC (RZA), etc.). Anyway, thank you for your input, and sorry if this was too long and inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The permanent notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline is not established by showing a couple of hits of casting or production announcements — every single film that ever entered the production pipeline at all can always pass that test. Even films that never get completed or released at all, in order to actually pass the primary notability criteria for films, would pass that loose a reading of NFF and have to be kept forever — so no film would ever be subject to the main notability criteria for films at all if just a small handful of production coverage were enough to bump a film from "regular criteria" to "NFF criteria", because no film that enters production ever fails to generate that small handful.

So "the production is itself notable" is not passed by every film that can show one or two hits of casting or production coverage — it's passed only by films that get Marvel/Star Wars volumes of production coverage, to the point that even if the film were to collapse and never come out at all it would probably still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. The Batgirl remake that got shelved last year is an example of that level of production coverage; most films which just get run of the mill coverage are not. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: With all due respect, but if the standard is that only major blockbusters like Disney films can have articles retained, then approximately 80% of current unreleased film articles would need to be deleted. This would be quite confusing for editors, as it raises questions about where exactly the notability bar should be set. Do only Marvel films count as notable? What about DC? What about blockbusters of other big companies like Paramount's Mission Impossible 8 or Universal's Gladiator 2? And what about art house films? Should all of them not be allowed to create independent articles until they are released? These types of questions could go on endlessly. The thing is, not all editors have the same keen judgment when it comes to determining notability. In reality, it can be a highly subjective assessment that varies from person to person. The original purpose of NFF was to provide clear criteria to help prevent these kinds of disputes. As long as a film has checked the boxes, it should be allowed to create an article. I'm concerned that adopting such a restrictive notability standard through this AFD could set a bad precedent. It could lead to many controversial deletions of articles about major film projects, simply because some editors don't find the coverage "significant" enough. Therefore, I think as long as an article meets NFF, it should be retained. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I beg to differ, as I believe the nominator has misinterpreted WP:NFF. The nominator cited the third paragraph in NFF to argue that despite a film having begun shooting, with confirmations from reliable sources, the article should not exist. But if we review the guideline carefully, it states that a film (although it has begun filming) should generally not have an article unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. So this is where the reliable sources' confirmation mentioned in the first paragraph comes into play. If films have been confirmed by sources as having begun filming, it can be considered as fulfilling the notability guidelines (in other words, GNG), and be allowed to have its own article. The sentence the nominator cited is more likely to refer to a film that has already begun filming, but the production isn't covered by any independent, secondary, reliable sources - in such cases, the film should not have an article as it fails the notability guidelines. There could be various reasons for this, such as the film not being notable enough for secondary sources to cover, or the production companies concealing details for marketing purposes. Regardless of the reason, these films no doubt fail to meet the requirements of NFF and should not have an article, even though the commencement of filming has already begun in reality and may be supported by primary sources. As long as a film has been confirmed by multiple RS, having completed pre-production and moved on to shooting, it should be allowed to have an independent article as it has ticked the boxes. I understand the concern about Wikipedia being flooded with pre-mature film articles poorly sourced with media articles that only have passing mentions merely about a film's commencement of filming. But in this case, the film has numerous secondary sources providing SIGCOV on the production details and filming plans (as provided by Mushy Yank), as well as additional coverage about the film being conceptualized by RZA years ago. This makes it not one of the marginal cases we were concerned about, and it is safe to cite WP:NFF exactly as the reason why the film should be kept.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as any film that ever enters production without being able to show at least one or two hits of coverage — casting annoucements can always be found somewhere, at least one hit of verification that photography has started can always be found somewhere, for every single film that has ever entered the production pipeline regardless of whether it ever came out the other end as a finished film or not. So if that were the distinction between regular criteria and NFF, then every film that entered the production pipeline would always pass NFF, and no film would ever actually have to meet the regular criteria at all anymore.

So the test is not passed by a film showing a handful of production coverage, and requires a film to show significantly more production coverage than films in production are routinely expected to get — as in, so much coverage that even if the film collapsed and never came out it would probably remain permanently notable as a failed production anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: That is not necessarily true. A recent example that comes to mind is the Hong Kong film The Dream, the Bubble and the Shadow, for which a trailer was presented at an exhibition of the production company with a projected release date of 2024, so it is most likely that the film has already finished production (if not, at least filming has already started), but every detail was concealed for marketing purposes, not even with the main cast revealed. So in this case, the film should not have its article until it has been officially released. (Despite there being numerous media articles reporting on the trailer, and some primary sources, like the filming plans of the production companies may support the fact that the film has already begun shooting) Also, I have actually voted Redirect in another AFD of an article written by the same editor, because in that case, the film literally only has two sources merely covering the commencement of filming and the composition of cast and crew. In that case, I think it does not demonstrate enough notability. But in this case, from the sources Mushy Yank presented, there are actually quite a lot more coverage on the production other than the original announcement. For instance, RZA has conceptualized the project 13 years ago, covered by Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and Black Film and TV, and there have been additional casting choices recently in May, see Deadline Hollywood and The Hindu. I really share your thoughts on barring pre-mature film articles from flooding Wikipedia, but I have reservations on whether this is really a marginal case that we were concerned about. It can still be filed for deletion if the film was scrapped, it is never too late. I agree to disagree, but I think there is enough to fulfill NFF at this point and this article should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on ABC commentators[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, one being about one of its commentators and announcements, some being more deserving in an article about the coverage but not this list; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found this [[45]] (1/3), [[46]] (2/3), [[47]] (3/3), but it appears to just republishing a press release. Probably should be a delete unless better sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are being added at this very moment. Thus, far sources for the 1976 Summer Olympics, the 1964 Winter Olympics, and the list of hosts that ABC utilized have been added. Also, a lead section has finally been added. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main ABC Olympic broadcasts as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the new source: some of those are about the announcers, some are about the games itself, one is links to YouTube videos. In short, not helping much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there is a book on the subject within the ABC Olympic broadcasts article. Willing to change my !vote if sources from the time period are found. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on ABC on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. All this is, is a list of who presented who, so WP:LISTCRUFT applies. A merger would be better. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 55 sources added since nomination, WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 23 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!} 22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ABC Olympic broadcasts: Subject does not have the needed coverage from secondary sources as a grouping to meet the WP:NLIST. Merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced; besides being minimal, none of the two are extant, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would have to have been from a while ago, so sources could exist on newspapers.com. However, this article stands as WP:LISTCRUFT and mainly consists of WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have agreed with the previous AfDs directed at lists of broadcasters of various college bowl games and conference championship games, but there is room in the encyclopedia for a list when it is about the biggest game of the year. In recent history, that's the Super Bowl, and nobody has questioned the notability of List of Super Bowl broadcasters. The Super Bowl is not only the pinnacle of careers on the field but also in the broadcast booth. The best of the best are tabbed to broadcast the Super Bowl, and a list of its broadcasters serves a valid purpose as a navigational list. In the pre-Super Bowl era, the NFC Championship Game was the pinnacle, and the same rationale applies. Cbl62 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

My take: There is room for these lists in a legitimate encyclopedia if limited to top-level events. E.g., List of Super Bowl broadcasters, List of World Series broadcasters, List of NBA Finals broadcasters, List of Wimbledon broadcasters, List of Indianapolis 500 broadcasters, List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters. Being the broadcaster at such an event is the pinnacle for sports broadcasters, and the lists serve a useful navigational function in tracking sports broacasting history at the highest level. It is when we allow these things to creep to the middle and lower levels that we risk dippig into fancruft. Cbl62 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Super Bowl though. I'd be willing to change my !vote if sources are found regarding these specific game(s)' broadcasting crews. Conyo14 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL Championship Game was the top championship game in pro football during its time. The Super Bowl is that today. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can doubt that. The can't be said for the one about the FA Cup final, Moto GP, Ligue 1, Serie A, Bundesliga and the French Open (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination)) SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cbl62, being what was at the time the biggest American football game of the year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can all agree with that. This is not intended to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I wish people stop using "the biggest sporting event of the year" as an excuse to keep. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: You wish people would stop referencing the fact that a list is based on a notable event, and the notability of said event, as a reason/relevant point when voting to keep something? That's a silly concept and definitely not an "excuse". Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reliable sources discussing the broadcasters for this game as a group seemingly do not exist, and as such, this article fails to meet WP:LISTN. Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. Let'srun (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list can serve valid navigational purpose and not have sources discussing all entries as a group. In any event, here (link) is a piece by the Pro Football Researchers Association that does exactly what you ask. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good start, but I'd need to see at least one more source like that before I'd be inclined to switch my vote. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this functions as a navigational list such that we don't need sources dealing with all entries as a group (even though such a source has been found). This was the top pro football game in the world in the years prior to the Super Bowl (where nobody questions the validity of the List of Super Bowl broadcasters) and has equal historical value. Cbl62 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Cbl62. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 23 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!} 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the problem with this article is that it only gives a list format of who did play-by-play, color commentating, and also on-field reporting. The notes section is actually much more reliable as a History of the NFL championship broadcasts article startup than maintaining it as a list. However, with only one good source from Cbl62, it doesn't seem like this article maintains WP:LISTN. Saying, "it was the biggest event of the time, surely sources exist...", please provide more and I will change my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is 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 besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The events are covered in other articles, for example 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series and so forth for every year following that. Those lists are sufficient enough to present what is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 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!} 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 23 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!} 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure this will close as "no consensus" but I am not seeing a point in keeping this collection on Wikipedia. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Keep: Sources such as newspaper articles dating as far back as the early 1980s can easily be found and later added over a relatively short matter of time with the aid of Google News Archives as well as places like Awful Announcing for more "current" or up to date sources. There's also presumably, official press releases from CBS Sports itself. I would estimate, that sources can be filled up in roughly a day and a half. Also, who would fall under the criteria of being "the most notable announcers" among this particular list? Are we only referring to current announcers for CBS as of 2024, are we referring to announcers who only worked the March Madness tournament? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: There are secondary sources discussing these announcers as a group particularly for March Madness, as seen with [[48]], [[49]], [[50]], [[51] and [[52]] being found relatively quickly. I wouldn't oppose possibly reducing this to just the March Madness crews but sourcing does appear to show that the WP:LISTN is met. Again, this isn't a broadcasters schedule so I'm not sure how this is a WP:NOTTVGUIDE and I'm unsure which part of NOTDATABASE the nom thinks this violates. Let'srun (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 19 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!} 07:22, 27 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 [[53]] and [[54]]. Not a ton here but probably enough to pass the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:01, 11 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!} 03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 18 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!} 02:37, 24 May 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 31 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An obit here, as well as coverage in the New York Times here and here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 18 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!} 02:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per source presented by Beanie fan. I think it's unusual nominating articles because they are short. WP:NSKATE is an additional Wikipedia policy. If per the sources they the articles won those awards, then he meets WP:ANYBIO and sources per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. please do run WP:BEFORE and not bypass it. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:02, 24 May 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 31 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]

Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, have struck my vote and comment. In my defence the erroneous AllMusic bio is the first reference in the article but I should have noticed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverifiable claims of notability. doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:20, 31 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