Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:39, 7 July 2019

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.

Shortcut

WP:AFD/USA

Page guidelines

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

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.

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

General

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

The result was keep. If there are BLP or NPOV problems, they should be discussed and addressed through editing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump derangement syndrome

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

Appears to be a opinion article and non encyclopedic and also might be a BLP violation and also a NOTOPINION violation Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article appears to be well-sourced with multiple reliable, verifiable source that establish notability. I don't think this violates WP:NOTOPINION at all; the term itself is a loaded one, for sure, but I think the article describes it accurately and without violating WP:NPOV. In fact, it appears the article describes how the term has been used and defined by both sides of the political aisle, both by pro-Trump writers to critics of Trump, and by anti-Trump commentators who say it is used by the GOP to discredit criticisms of Trump's actions. Given the subject matter, I think this is a very balanced and well-written article, and a clear Keep vote for me. — Hun ter Ka hn 12:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously notable term that has received ample media coverage. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a notable term with easy compliance with WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a ridiculous term, which is very clearly used in an effort to shut down any criticism of Trump by challenging the critic's sanity in an ad hominem attack without actually engaging the actual substance of the criticism — but it's clearly a notable term nonetheless, and this is a very well-balanced and well-referenced article about it. Our WP:NPOV rules govern the way we write about our article topics, and do not concern themselves with assessments of whether the subject is itself an inherently "neutral" or "biased" thing — NOTOPINION means that we aren't allowed to express our own political opinions in our own editorial voice, and does not mean that we're not allowed to write neutral and well-sourced and balanced articles about the notable opinions of other people. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article was nominated for deletion in May 2018, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump Derangement Syndrome. The system didn't pick up the previous nomination because the capitalization was different then. The result of that discussion was no consensus. --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If its notable but don't like how it's written, then why not rewrite it? Deletion is the only solution? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is ridiculous and the article is a patrolling nightmare. On the other hand, the proposed deletion reasons appear invalid. More importantly, it's (unfortunately) notable enough to have an article. —Paleo Neonate – 18:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fully expect numeration in DSM6. ThatLawStudent (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Striking !vote by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issues brought up by the person that suggested the deletion make no sense. It's not opinion. It's statements of various people using the terms from a wide variety of backgrounds and sources. It's just more activism and an attempt to suppress speech. Sad! JimmyPiersall (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely a thing, just like Bush derangement syndrome and Obama derangement syndrome.[1] StonyBrook (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although these don't have articles. Well, a merge discussion about this article may eventually happen too despite the AfD... —Paleo Neonate – 07:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously meets WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources that significantly cover this, so definitely meets WP:GNG. Disagree with WP:NOTOPINION as this article is not merely expressing disapproval of Trump, but rather explaining this term. William2001^(talk) 17:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I disagree with the concept, but it has been covered widely and deeply. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. No basis in policy to delete. There may be an over-reliance on opinion content, but the article cites a number of reliable sources. Clearly notable. R2 (bleep) 23:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - Goodness, whether it's the Los Angeles Times, Psychology Today, or even CNN, this is a discussed topic/malady that has plenty of sources and people afflicted. I just have to open my unfiltered facebook page to see it in action. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems well-covered as a meme or slur, not an actual psychological thing. As long as the focus remains on the former, it is a good article to have. Pendragon0 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not nearly notable enough50.202.229.150 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Excepting the IP !vote above, this is obviously a speedy keep. Regardless of consensus, the material is encyclopedic, well-sourced, and it’s inherent notability renders WP:Neologism moot. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Just to pile on... article is clearly very well sourced and meets notability requirements.LM2000 (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Progressive Party presidential tickets

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

The relevant tickets are covered at List of United States major third party and independent presidential tickets. Additionally, the article covers three separate parties and their conflation as the "Progressive Party" risks confusing readers.

Delete as nominator Orser67 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is in fact about three separate parties that shared a name. Accordingly it should be a dab-article, with the content merged to the articles on the three successive parties. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article inexcusably unites three entirely separate American "Progressive" political movements that are NOT linked to one another, merely they all use of common English adjective. And, by the by, none are linked with the contemporary American "progressive" movement, except by that adjective.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we already have a disambig page Progressive Party#United States.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per SIGCOV found. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Rusch

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

No evidence of any notability. Not a single independent source and searches only reveal the usual crop of social media, YouTube etc but does include mentions by Cycling web-sites, Garmin etc but these all seem to be promotional/ sponsorship connections. The article has not been helped by relentless COI editing but even in its stripped down state, there is nothing here that gets close to WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I found the GNG, she plays the lead role in some movie that was a bit popular. No justification for all this though. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)comment by blocked user removed by Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 12:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as it stands now does present as not notable, but there do appear to be reliable sources which talk about her as a known athlete: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. There is enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to show that this woman is notable. What has happened is that the sources used so far have simply been from her own website, which gives the wrong impression. SilkTork (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a niche sport, and some of the news coverage brought by SilkTork is in niche/special interest publications, but it is SIGCOV and I can see mainstream coverage including [Endurance athlete's unique source of income, Ruibal, Sal. USA TODAY; McLean, Va. [McLean, Va]21 Sep 2010: C.3. "Rebecca Rusch is one of the world's best endurance athletes, a three-time World 24-hour solo mountain bike race champion and the recent winner of the infamously difficult Leadville Trail 100 race, a feat she accomplished in record-breaking time. ... Thanks to a compensation formula introduced by her HuckNRoll.com adventure sports team, Rusch can add her social-media skills as a source of income... Under the HuckNRoll.com plan, its top athletes get a salary that is augmented by payments for their skill at getting fans to read their media offerings and also make purchases from the HuckNRoll.com retail website. "My career is absolutely a business and I have a degree in marketing," says Rusch, who is also sponsored by Specialized Bicycles. "There is more to my job than just training and racing. I am constantly looking for opportunities for myself and my sponsors to increase exposure and value."") and additional INDEPTH I can see in new archive searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well done to SilkTork for finding significant coverage. This article definitely needs gutted and rewritten, but at least there's something. I'll tag it for some repairs and copy SilkTork's sources to the talk page as can be used to improve the article, but it looks to be a subject worth covering. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Camacho

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

There is no presumption of notability for US appeals court cases, nor is there an SNG for them to help guide our assessment. Therefore we must rely on GNG to determine whether this case is notable enough to require a standalone article.

I can't find any indication that this is an especially notable case. I've checked GScholar, GBooks, JSTOR, Newspapers.com, HeinOnline (via Google since it requires login to search), Questia, and basically found no substantial discussion of this case. The hits are muddied by two other cases, an 11th circuit case from 2001 also called United States v Camacho and a 6th circuit case from 2010 called United States v. Camacho-Arellano. Even adding +2004 to the search didn't turn up anything more substantial.

Given the lack of later references to the case and/or critical commentary about it, I don't think this meets our standard for encyclopedic notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Also checked WP:NEVENTS to make sure. William2001^(talk) 19:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is an appeals case, I suggest changing the name to reflect exactly that circuit and/or year. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeluvr613, I've noticed you making a significant number of comments on AfD discussions within the last hour, and it seems like you may be going a bit fast and not properly reading the nominations. As I specifically called out in my nomination, appeals court cases are not inherently considered notable, so the simple fact of being an appeals case is not in itself a reason to keep. The name of the article has nothing to do about whether or not it ought to be kept as a topic. Can I gently suggest slowing down and familiarizing yourself with our policies and practices, perhaps making some edits to articles, before continuing to speed-vote on other nominations? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos This is a 250 word stub that checks out on open jurist and is written in neutral tone. There's no advertising, no promotion, no links to someone's website. Obviously it's of importance to someone. If it went on and on then I'd say that you're making an issue more notable than it is. But it's only 250 works, which is smaller than this discussion, it is 100% factual, and written in a neutral tone. So what is the point of removing it? It makes our encyclopedia better. And yes I move fast, if you drink some coffee you might move faster too. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we are not an indiscriminate collection of all possible information. We rely on independent secondary sources for information, and if there are none (and I'm reasonably confident that there aren't), then the subject isn't notable and we have no business maintaining an article about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find three scholarly mentions of the case, one in Thomas K. Clancy, "2008 Fourth Amendment Symposium-The Fourth Amendment at the International Border", 78 Mississipi Law Journal (2008-2009), another in Yule Kim, Protecting the U.S. Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment (2010), p. 16, and another in "Investigations and Police Practices: Warrantless Searches and Seizures", 40 Annual Review of Criminal Procedure 44 (2011). All of these mentions are fairly brief. The case has also been cited as a precedent in a dozen other court opinions. bd2412 T 03:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY if and only if all the sources found by BD2412 are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that I would say that the sources I found demonstrate notability. Each is a passing mention, and these three, collectively, are the only mentions that I could find for the case. Perhaps a better solution would be to merge this into a broader article on the application of the Fourth Amendment to border searches. bd2412 T 23:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - A merge to Border search exception might be suitable? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that the redirect recommendation by PMCspades above might be smart, but I will try and add some references to the page before we determine one way or the other. Looks notable enough for a mention elsewhere, even if on the brink for its own location. OhioShmyo (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the references to the page, giving it at least enough oompf for placement on a related topic with a useful redirect, which I endorse maintaining. My failure to secure more coverage makes me unsure it passes WP:GNG, if the mentions are relatively short like mentioned above. OhioShmyo (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Innovation $1 Coin Program Design - Obverse

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

I don't believe that the rejected obverse designs of the American Innovation $1 Coin Program are notable enough for their own article. ZLEA _T\^C 11:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with combining the pages so we have a record of the options the government considered, and what changes were made from the final design to the finished product. That being said, I don't think the sub-page meets any of the criteria for deletion.Iceman0426 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too am fine with merging, but a table of the proposed designs might be a little too much. I think we should mention that twelve design proposals were made, and compare the chosen design drawing to the eventual coin design. Having a table of proposed designs might lead to people questioning why there isn't a similar table for each reverse design. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The committee's mandate is to do this process for all of the coins. So we will be able to do the same thing for all 57 coins in the program. I think adding the winning design to the main page is a good idea. I realize that the design pages will be smaller than the main pages, but I don't see a problem with having them. Iceman0426 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would encourage a link the in the main article to the Mint's website with rejected designs, but we should not have a separate article just to memorialize failed alternatives in a gallery - these are simply not notable and do not receive substantive tertiary coverage. This doesn't even belong in the main article but should be limited to a brief mention per ZLEA. Do NOT do this for every coin reverse design – not even the individual coins in the series are notable, much less what didn't actually get minted. Reywas92^Talk 07:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that the designs are not notable. In addition to being on the usmint.gov and the ccac.gov, here are some places where the designs also receive attention: mintnewsblog.com, new.coinupdate.com, thepatrioticmint.com, numismaticnews.net, coinworld.com, usstatequarters.com. This demonstrates that there is interest in the designs and the process. I mentioned to ZLEA a few different options to make everybody happy. I redid the table and put a sample at the bottom of the obverse page as an example that could be used for any of the ideas so that it would take up much less room. First, with the smaller format we could put it on the main page. Second, the page could be renamed (something like "American Innovation $1 Coin Program Proposed Designs), and all designs put on a single page. Finally, they could be put on under the CCAC's page. Iceman0426 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the designs are on a government website and recieve attention from websites that track progress of CCAC design eliminations, that does not mean they are notable. If you think the rejected designs are notable enough to be included in a separate article or even in the main article despite the lack of secondary sources, then you should be able to tell us why they are significant. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, only sources official, and blog/fan sites. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It seems like the article needs some reworking to clarify that the subject is the stage musical and the film is an adaptation of that, but given that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP the discussion indicates there is enough coverage to support notability for the play. RL0919 (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday's Warrior

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM. Has had COI and neutrality templates for 3.5 years. Citations needed for 3 years. The article also states, "Saturday's Warrior is not well known outside the Mormon community." PROD removed. by fellow editor. Orville^talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. --Nahal^(T) 01:40, 03 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article years ago. It definitely has COI, notability and neutrality issues. I wouldn't mind if the topic was just mentioned on Wikipedia in a short paragraph or list item in another article. I feel like I need to point out, though, that other stuff exists and is listed at the Mormon cinema article. Tea and crumpets (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have add multiple articles covering this wide ranging work. To be clear, this is not a film. It is a stage production, that as such managed to permeate the culture of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. True, it is most often reacted to as either a very simplistic work, or a doctrinally wrong work. However it is present in doscourse, and its musical numbers are of great power. The film is not the thing, but the stage production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just keep finding more sources. Still, Saturday's Warrior is a work of the 1970s, reflecting the culture of the 1970s, so probably some of the best sources are not easy to locate on the internet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The very first source in the article states it's a film. The infobox lists a director, actors, a release date, and a distributor. That all describes a film as do the sources. Is your argument that this article is about something else? Orville^talk 05:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was a stage musical long before it was a film. Many of the sources are about both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is notable with reviews in multiple reliable sources that have been added to the article so that it passes WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ample WP:SIGCOV. Including some I just added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Silliman Belknap Humphrey

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

This seems to be a bit of somebody's family history. There's really no indication here at all of notability by our standards. Most of the material is unsourced, and most of the rest of it is not supported by the sources cited – she is not mentioned in either this source or this one, for example. She appears to have been born, to have married, and to have died – but neither her date of birth nor her date of death is sourced; there's no source even for the name used as the page title. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article really suggests rising to more than temporary, local significance. A search for sources reveals almost nothing beyond a passing mention in a book about art. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find plenty of coverage on Newspapers.com - of social occasions, holidays, returns from holidays, weddings, etc. There are sources which confirm that she donated works to the Speed Museum, and one mention of an exhibition of her own art works - in the social section, not a review of the art. There is also an obituary - "Old Post Editor's Widow, 88, Dies". None of this coverage establishes notability, though. If she were notable, then such sources could confirm her date of death, parents, places of residence, that she was a graduate of Vassar, etc - but I don't see any evidence that she meets any WP:SNG, and there is not enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC. I also note that the article was created by someone with the same surname, so I suspect a WP:COI in its creation (and the same person created the articles Edward William Cornelius Humphrey, Humphrey-McMeekin House, Lewis Craig Humphrey, William Richardson Belknap, Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company, W. B. Belknap, Morris Burke Belknap (the elder), Morris B. Belknap, Edward Porter Humphrey, Alexander Pope Humphrey - possibly all are notable, possibly not). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) Subject fails WP:GNG. Mitzi.humphrey, who has been using Wikipedia for her own genealogical vanity projects for years, has cited primary sources many of which are created by dilettantes and stuffed into archives. Imagine if my descendants donated print-outs of every Wikipedia talk page I edited to some storehouse and then used URLs from that to make me notable. It's ludicrous. As pointed out, even the sources provided are often mere mentions or routine newspaper clippings, like the announcement of a wedding. Mitzi's Smithsonian source seems to be a donated portrait, which Mitzi has used to prop up an entire section of three paragraphs glowing about her relative. The only reason Mitzi hasn't been banned from Wikipedia for CoI editing is that she isn't writing for a business. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created almost 4 years ago, the page has fought the good fight but it's time for it to go. WP:BASIC MaskedSinger (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Perhaps a summary of this information can be merged into the Humphrey-McMeekin House article. Its inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places is significant, and the article is stub/start class. Also, Louise Mead Tricard's book American Women's Track and Field may be a good reference for improving Women in sports articles, but Eleanor may not be notable enough to mention. Tea and crumpets (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Member of the community at that time but not really much else. Address is there. scope_creep^Talk 22:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability in one's community is not enough to pass Wikipedia's notability standards. There are other, more appropriate, places to publish one's family history. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hotlist

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

Apparently short lived defunct website that lasted all of a couple of years. Given the user name of the original author, the article is basically a COI ad written by one of the company's founders. Not much left in the article after cutting out the worst of it, some click bait garbage really. The sources out there are mostly PR junk you would expect for any tech startup: a few fluff interviews, routine coverage about seed funding, and then darn the luck, turns out this wasn't the next big thing after all, and it seems to have quietly died without so much as a whimper. GMG ^talk 14:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:41, 02 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:GNG and never made it as such it will probably not get any more coverage...ever--Dom from Paris (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine promotionalism in intent. Asfor having ceased, Once notable always notable , but the notability was very borderline to begin with. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of the Storm Records

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:01, 02 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biggest claim to fame appears to have been being sued by Converse, which unsurprisingly doesn't get a mention in this promo article. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP by a mile. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Article completely lacks third-party sources.TH1980 (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search for reliable, independent sources turned up nothing. Fails of GNG. No notable releases, no notable artists signed, therefore I can't think of any other criteria which would indicate the topic merits inclusion here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Mitani

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

This article is about an author and editor who apparently has an Emmy, but has very little to back up these claims. I cannot find any proof that he, the show or the network named has actually ever won an Emmy. His Job as an author seems to not meet the minimum of WP:GNG nor does his time as a editor of the magazine. I have found a few mentions of him as an opinion but nothing in depth on him. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete By virtue of not having a single reference, shouldn't be here. Case Closed MaskedSinger (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one reference does not add up to notability. This article is an extreme in figuring out a way to make everyone seem notable as a first, first significant role of an Asian American as an automotive journalist. That is a bridge too far.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom McMatter talk - MA Javadi (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails [WP:AUTHOR]] for lack of sources found in my searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Creeps

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

Article about a band, which is not an improvement in either substance or sourcing over the version that got deleted in 2016. There still isn't any notability claim being made here that would pass WP:NMUSIC, and there still aren't nearly enough reliable sources being cited — six of the seven footnotes here are to primary sources, such as discogs.com and last.fm, that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that's sort of a semi-reliable source is just reporting the drummer's death, not substantive coverage about the band doing band things, so it is not enough to get them over WP:GNG all by itself as the only non-terrible source in play. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because discogs and last.fm technically verify that they existed — to get a Wikipedia article, a band has to show that it has received a GNG-satisfying volume of reliable source coverage in real media, in the context of having achieved something that passes WP:NMUSIC, but there's still nothing here which satisfies either part of that equation at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of the better-written noms I’ve seen in a long while. Nothing else needs to be said. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails SIGCOV and GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus indicates the subject is notable, but definitely some work to be done here. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 04:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim G. Shaffer

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and/or WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the sources we rely on it can be difficult to assess the impact of academics whose major work was published in the 1980s and 1990s. Shaffer contributed to the anthropology of the Indus Valley Civilization and is a critic of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. Shaffer's three most cited works are a 1992 article with 108 citations, a book chapter from 1984 with 104 citations, and a book chapter from 1982 with 71 citations, with the 1980s chapters' citations probably underestimated. Google scholar has yet to include the citations found in many book chapters from this era. In any case this is enough to show the impact of his work. The 1980s chapters are cited well into the 2000s. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The top 5 citation counts are:- 155, 147, 108, 104, 80 and 71.

Google scholar has yet to include the citations found in many book chapters from this era is not true for his domain. And, I need to evaluate a bit more about the average citation-metrics in/around these domains. ∯WBG^converse 07:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the aforementioned citation counts (155, 147, 108, 104, 80 and 71), 4 articles with over 100 citations, clearly relevant according to WP:NACADEMIC. --hroest 20:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I immediately found discussion of his work in major newspapers, not mere quote-the-expert type stuff, newspapers in India and Britain diving into scholarly debates. He is deeply involved in the scholarly conversations about the meaning of the archaeological record northwest India. What is needed is an editor familiar with the field willingto beuid a good page. the page we have is shoddy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the sourcing and references back up them meeting WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Indian Gaming Association

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY and WP:GNG. Masum Reza^📞 22:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 22:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 22:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Is the main lobbying group for Native American gaming in Washington, so likely an important group, but not enough information to really be its own article as-is without expansion/rescue. A merge of this content to a section in Native American gaming should be considered, with the title redirected into it. Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. You are right. Masum Reza^📞 00:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, but I am unsure if it is the best option. Geolodus (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references in the article, The National Indian Gaming Association is not for profit, so this is not an advertisement in any way. It participates in conventions and cares for the Native American community.

Here are some links to show notability On the last page here you can see the chairman and the treasurer --> http://www.indiangaming.com/istore/Mar18_2018%20London.pdf More links about activities http://www.gamingmeets.com/event/niga-indian-gaming-2019-tradeshow-and-convention/ https://www.indiangamingtradeshow.com/dsn/wwwurbanexposhowscom/Content/Documents/IndianGaming/Indian%20Gaming%202014%20_Culture%20Night%20Reception%20Release.pdf https://www.fantiniresearch.com/conventions/niga-national-indian-gaming-association-2019-trade-show-convention.html Caribianboss (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added more content to the page and various external sources to support notability of the National Indian Gaming Association Caribianboss (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masumrezarock100 I believe that at this stage the article is very well referenced and consequently i think it would be prudent for the deleteion proposal to be weived. Caribianboss (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a handful of {{cite book}}s, plenty of more where they came from, 600+ mentions in Scholar, no shortage of news coverage. Meets GNG by a mile. On a side note, this discussion should not have been sorted into "list of India-related deletion discussions". Sam Sailor 21:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did that because it has "Indian" word in his title. Masum Reza^📞 21:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian" referes to Native americans (the so-called "red indians" and not to the asiatic people who live in the famous subcontinent. Caribianboss (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Looks like I have a lot to learn. Masum Reza^📞 05:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should not have been sorted into Companies either. I have removed the transclusion on both Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies and added the discussion to the two lists below. Sam Sailor 05:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sailor Sailor seems to have added many good sources, so it is a case of HEY.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs are OK. Szzuk (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whilst there is significant support for a Dave MacKay and Vicky Hamilton page that is not the consensus. I see the consensus to be 'keep' but recommend a post-AfD 'move' discussion. Just Chilling (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Hamilton (musician)

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

No notability outside of forming a duo with Dave MacKay. Not even any solo releases. Merge or redirect? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Dave Mackay (musician), because all of her known works were with him. Note that Hamilton has been mentioned in the recent news reports about the 2008 Universal Studios fire, but she was just one of many whose works may have been lost. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added sources and quotes from reviews to the article. If this is merged, then at least there will be more about her. I have also made a small edit to the article about Dave Mackay (musician), which said he co-wrote the song "See My Rainbow", when the catalog of copyright entries shows it was copyrighted to her alone, for both words and music (other songs were copyrighted to both). I wonder if their first album would meet WP:NALBUM #1? Then perhaps this article could be re-written to be mainly about that album, and her name could be redirected to it???? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's the practical issue of how Twitter or Wikipedia's Women in Red project would respond to an AfD redirecting a jazz singer's article to her husband's with the rationale "all her known works were with him", and I don't want to get into that. Regardless, if they are noteworthy as a duo and MacKay is notable on his own, then the only real solutions are that we either have a page called Dave MacKay and Vicky Hamilton for them as a duo and redirect this article there, or we have an article for her herself. Given the fleshing-out this article has just obtained, the latter seems just fine to me. Chubbles (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the previous voter who is possibly being accused of something here. I actually think that a Move to Dave MacKay and Vicky Hamilton is a reasonable suggestion, because they released albums as a duo. But like it or not, even the recently-added sources continue to confirm that Hamilton has no solo works, and that is necessary for a solo article. Meanwhile I am stumped on how fears of Twitter flak matter for a discussion of someone's notability in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chubbles: there's really just a practical issue of working against systemic bias on Wikipedia. You shouldn't worry about what a certain WikiProject thinks: instead worry about fighting that bias and I think your suggestion about creating a duo page does just that. That's an excellent idea and I would support that. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per Chubbles. BurmesePokemon (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Or create merged article named for the duo. Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the article is my first vote, because it's notable. But merging the article is the better option, and my second vote is merge the Article with Dave Mackay (musician).Forest90 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or create Dave MacKay and Vicky Hamilton. Having solo works has not been necessary in past AfDs for solo articles about musicians who only recorded with others - the question is whether reviewers noticed and wrote about the musician's work. The best coverage I found of her was in the New York Times - the other sources found so far do talk about them as a duo. There is enough coverage to have an article about the duo, if it's not considered enough to have one about her - so I do not think that she should be merged into the existing article about Dave Mackay (musician). The section in that article about the duo could be brief, and point to an article about the duo. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite two relists this has been a low traffic AfD. Small majority for the 'keep's but their arguments are balanced by the other reservations. I am not seeing a consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Dialogue and ADR for Feature Film

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

This is not notable as a standalone award and I would propose redirecting it to Motion_Picture_Sound_Editors#Golden_Reel_Awards which is what the entry on the DAB redirects to as well as the awards are not actually independently notable, however the creator has contested this so i'm left with AFD.

So, delete and redirect. I'm also bundling Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Musical for Feature Film with it.Praxidicae (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For awards that are presented in multiple categories rather than just one, keeping all of the information about every category in a single merged article about the overall program would make that article far too long to be useful. So standard practice for multi-category film, television, music or literary awards programs has always been that as long as the overall program is notable, each category should have its own standalone article regardless of any quibbles about whether that individual category is "independently" notable separately from the overall program, simply because that's the user-friendliest way to package the overall program. Try, for example, to imagine if none of the Academy Award categories had their own standalone articles, but instead all of the winners and nominees in every category were simply crammed into one loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong omnibus article about the Academy Awards themselves: this would not be user-friendly or helpful to either readers or editors, so we split the information up for size management purposes, regardless of what anybody thinks about the standalone notability of any individual category. It's true that not every award category presented by the Motion Picture Sound Editors actually has its own standalone article yet, but that's precisely because getting them started is a new project being taken on by an editor within the past two weeks. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I have an issue with 51 (fast count) out of 88 references, being IMDb that is user-generated and considered questionable sources. Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Musical for Feature Film has 5 references that are all IMDb. Surely we can do better so I hope there are plans to address with "the new editor" because if not there are all-around notability issues. Otr500 (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If publications like the Los Angeles Times and Variety announce the results, the awards are notable enough. The quality of some of the sources is not a valid reason to delete the list. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements alone are not coverage. We do not need an article for every category and subcat when we don't even have an actual article on the awards and even if we did, it's not a directory. There is no sustained coverage of this. Praxidicae (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Real One (Trina song)

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

There's nothing here to indicate that this recording is notable enough fo a standalone article. Normally in such cases I simply redirect to the appropriate album, but am not sure what the target should be; the article states its a 2015 recording on her sixth LP, which according to the discography was released this year. TheLongTone (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I researched it too. I think the page is in error. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Editor blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NSONG. Article created by a now indefinitely-banned sock, and although the song is real, the article seems to be mostly fiction: the Billboard chart positions are made up, as is the article from Billboard's "Chart Beat" column (all the columns from the period are archived on the Wayback Machine, but this supposed one doesn't appear to exist). All the articles were allegedly accessed in 2015 for verification, yet this page was created less than two weeks ago. The song never appeared on an album (it's not on her recently released album), and with such a common title and a non-notable song, a redirect doesn't appear to be particularly useful. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Fear the Walking Dead characters#Troy Otto. Sandstein 08:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Otto

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

Virtually no real world notability. Should be a redirect, but some editors insist on turning it into a non-notable article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redirect or delete : As non-notable. If there is a list someone will, and likely should, try to create an article, but the many fictional characters that are not actually notable, have very large almost always unsourced plots (many examples: Nick Clark (character)), and usually only a couple of sources period, is an indication stand alone status is not warranted. Otr500 (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since the rumors came out about him returning to the show, there's been plenty of media coverage about him. There's also a petition dedicated to him. Seems notable to me. The Optimistic One (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, none of which is actual significant coverage showing real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not the material here for an WP:OUTUNIVERSE encyclopaedia article. Bondegezou (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Fear_the_Walking_Dead_characters#Troy_Otto. As mentioned, there are no real sources that discuss this character in any way outside of plot summary, except for the brief surge of incorrect information that he would be in an upcoming season, which turned out to be ultimately false. As the character is already present in the List of Fear the Walking Dead characters article, and is a plausible search term, a Redirect to his section there would make more sense than a deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to International Workers' Association#IWA today. This is a tough one. There's a rough consensus that it is TOOSOON for this to have an article. On the other hand, there are strong arguments to PRESERVE the info. I am therefore redirecting this to International Workers' Association#IWA today, as the ICL and its origins are mentioned there. That this is an article about a competing organization seems less relevant to me. Given the article's history, I will also protect the page, any admin can change the redirect or restore the article upon motivated request. Any content worth merging elsewhere will still be available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Confederation of Labor

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

This has twice been turned into a redirect (by User:Czar and User:Elmidae), but then recreated by an anonymous user. It does not contain any independent, reliable sources. I've looked for such sources in attempt to improve the article, but came to the conclusion that there is just one: this article in a Spanish newspaper. That's clearly not enough to establish notability. I'm undecided on whether this should be deleted outright or turned into a redirect (either to International Workers' Association or to syndicalism, as both of those articles briefly describe the ICL). Carabinieri (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oops

Redirect to Contemporary anarchism, where it is covered in greatest depth. For independent notability, I think what I wrote on the talk page three months ago still holds: Echoing what was written a decade ago, I check back on this article every few months and find no reliable, secondary source with which to write an encyclopedia article. If such sources exist, they're inaccessible to me. (The other language Wikipedias don't have comparable sources either.) Even the Time article, which is a bit of a joke, only refers to the specific "Third International Congress of Anarchist Federations", not a persistent "International". In any event, the article appears overblown without secondary sourcing to back it up. czar 04:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think you're confusing two articles. This is about International Confederation of Labor, not International of Anarchist Federations.--Carabinieri (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes indeed. Looks like that redirect (similar title) was undone at the same time this was nominated and I was pinged for both. Thanks czar 23:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Merge to International Workers' Association#IWA today, its most prominent related mention. re: redirect target, as a split from the IWA, I think ICL has a closer relation with that topic than with "syndicalism" as a whole.

As my edit summary went in March, this topic continues to lack significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Right now, secondary source coverage doesn't do more than confirm its existence. Ping me if you find additional offline and non-English sources? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Alarichall's added sources do not add enough information to justify a separate article, so their merger to the aforementioned target will suffice. czar 17:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been existence for only a year so is probably WP:TOOSOON. However, the participation of the long established and highly notable IWW, as well as other notable organisations, should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. I think the previous attempts at redirecting to the IWA article were not constructive since that article does not cover the membership of the ICL in any detail. There is an element of WP:PRESERVE that comes into this. SpinningSpark 11:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SpinningSpark, could you explain how WP:PRESERVE applies? That policy is about information that belongs in the encyclopedia, but is presented poorly. That's not the issue here.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it is, that's exactly the issue. The information that the notable IWW and other notable organisations have joined a newly formed federation is certainly information the belongs on Wikpedia, regardless of whether the said federation is notable enough for its own article. That is precisely what PRESERVE is all about, and precisely what that redirect failed to do. SpinningSpark 18:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and that guideline explicitly discusses merges and redirects. SpinningSpark 18:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that the articles on the member organizations should mention that they joined the ICL? If so, I certainly agree.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should also be collected all in one place as well as scattered across multiple articles. SpinningSpark 20:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources that assert the noteworthiness of the subject or its collection of member organizations? czar 23:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to meet GNG if the information is not on a dedicated page. I raised PRESERVE in connection with redirecting, not in connection with the substantive page. SpinningSpark 18:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spinningspark, maybe I'm just a little slow, but I'm still not exactly sure what outcome you're pushing for. Merging? If so, to what article?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pushing for the Wikipedia policy of PRESERVEing encyclopaedic information. Whether that is done as a merge, and to which article, is a secondary issue, but International Workers' Association is a suitable target since that is where they have split from. If the response to that is it would be WP:UNDUE weight in that article, then I am at keep. We can't have good information falling between two stools like that. This would be a classic case of applying WP:IAR in those circumstances. SpinningSpark 14:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in addition to the source found by Carabinieri, I've found a couple of other respectable mentions. They're not very substantial, so I don't think they'd save this article from being merged, but I hope that they can stay with the material as useful references if a merge happens. Alarichall (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Redirecting or merging to the IWA article makes no sense as they're rival organisations, and if the IWC doesn't become notable then it shouldn't have WP:UNDUE weight in the IWA article. If it gets coverage, recreate it, but until then, there's nothing worth saving. Triptothecottage (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorted by State

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

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 == General ==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump derangement syndrome}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_Progressive_Party_presidential_tickets_(2nd_nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Rusch}}