Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

WP:AFD/USA

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

General

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transit authority (surveillance term)

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

WP:NOTDICT, fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Just a definition, no discussion or context. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dobley missile strike

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

Redirect to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present). One of hundreds of airstrikes conducted in Somalia. Fails WP:GNG to stand on its own. Sourcing is routine news coverage and not WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Somalia, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is the only Tommahawk missile strike to have occurred during the Somali civil war, it therefore is clearly notable enough to stand on its own.XavierGreen (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present): per nom. Coverage is not WP:SUSTAINED and no evidence of a WP:LASTING impact. An (unfortunately) WP:RUNOFTHEMILL airstrike; content can be merged into the timeline article. It's more likely to actually be read there than in a separate article anyways. C F A 💬 02:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CFA. The argument for the only instance of something happening is, while an indication of importance, not an argument of notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with redirect. The content strikes me as sourced and suitable for inclusion, though whether as its own article or a subsection of another seems to make little difference. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are only three sources, barely enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. However, it really does not make sense without context. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory Response Network

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

No WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:RS. Redirect to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of which it is a part. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Behavioural science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "No reliable sources"? There is one reliable source. None of the included material would be found in the CDC article. My vote: Retain. Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Per WP:GNG, the topic should receive SIGCOV in multiple RS, which having only one source does not satisfy. In addition, the coverage is simply WP:DICT, not WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps a merge. Longhornsg (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect as above as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Keep, Redirect or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep Upon a preliminary look, it doesn't seem very informative, well sourced, or well written. Now to check if other sourcing exists... Okay, we could use the official site to at least clear up what the LRN is. Google Scholar shows that a number of research teams have written evaluations of the LRN: Public Health Reports, American Society for Microbiology, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness... USA Today printed two opinion pieces from the same author on the subject [1]. Okay, I'm feeling weak keep. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep For reasons given above. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Darkfrog24. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Do the sources brought up in this discussion contribute to the "multiple RS" required?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spillage of classified information

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

WP:DICTIONARY and the term is not notable on its own. Delete or merge into classified information. Longhornsg (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Politics. Longhornsg (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial and highly technical definition, cited to a primary source. Subject isn't covered in Classified information (and to do so would be pointless, as this is a highly specific term), so I don't see any point in a merge. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to National Security Agency. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FASCIA (database)

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

Delete or merge into National Security Agency. One of many databases used by the security agency. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and independent notability as a database separate from its use by the NSA and its inclusion in the global surveillance disclosures. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs expansion, but here is a source from 2016. jp×g 🗯️ 08:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIALMENTION, not WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NSA per nom. Lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, per the cited sources and above listed source. (?) Cover as an NSA program, which is the context in which sources cover it. Next time I suggest boldly doing so as an alternative before deletion. czar 15:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstfruits

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

Sustained, independent coverage in one article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. The Delete views make good points. But if there are editors familiar with our notability guidelines willing to work on the page in draftspace, I see no immediate imperative to remove it. Owen× ☎ 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the United States

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

Article has substantial issues including general copy-editing, severe lack of sources for much of what is stated, and is a general mishmash of actual "invasions", speculative ideas about potential invasions, and (until recent edits) covering completely non-related topics such as nuclear and cyberattacks.

Believe article should be moved to draft given the significant levels of issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Even with the nom's rightful removal of sci-fi cryptofacist fanfiction that took the article completely off the rails, this article is in need of serious help and sourcing, maybe even an entirely new title. As is, 'invasion' is doing very heavy lifting here, as only Pearl Harbor and Imperial Army attempts to get to the mainland during WWII could really be considered as such. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A reasonable person could absolutely make the case that putting all these disparate events into one article isn't WP:OR, but it feels like OR to me. The burning of DC during the War of 1812 and Pearl Harbor and the start of the Mexican-American War are all important events that should (and do) have their own coverage, but putting them all together without directly addressing that they are in most respects very different events seems like the passive suggestion of a connection that may not be merited in fact or sourcing. I think it's possible to write an article that is not subject to this problem, but it would look very different from this one. Off the top of my head, it's that "invasion" suggests that one party was the aggressor, and the relationships between America-Britain, America-Mexico, and America-Japan right before the invasion events were all very different. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see no purpose in draftifying; this article is a mess of pure WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fine as a category. In theory "Invasions of the United States" could be something, but better to start from scratch. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As currently written, this is probably a WP:COATRACK. Nevertheless, I would be inclined to keep, but make it as a List page. As of note, we have a disambig. page Invasion USA. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serves no real purpose. Way too much SYNTH. Also, the redirect has nothing to do with this page. It's referencing movie titles and a single album. Intothat darkness 19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is a jumble of WP:SYNTH. - Amigao (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This piece has marked content and sourcing issues. Draftifying will allow us to enhance its flow, sources, and quality. It will allow a complete redo of the article. It will help us discern recorded facts from guesses and unrelated topics, including cyber and nuclear attacks. Once these edits are made, the article will be ready for reentry into the main space.--AstridMitch (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with WP:TNT. List of invasions of the United States would be a valid article. This isn't that article, and the only content in it that might survive an edit to become that article is the "in pop culture" section at the end. -- asilvering (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See no reason to keep as List of foreign military attacks on United States territory covers notable instances anyway. Shotgunheist ^💬 16:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a rambling essay; List of foreign military attacks on United States territory covers the notable parts. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special Security Office

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

Delete or merge into classified information in the United States. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is (a) a real functional part of the U.S. federal government (albeit distributed across multiple arms of government), (b) serves a crucial part in the keeping of secrets, and (c) attested to by multiple reliable sources. — The Anome (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide the multiple reliable sources that establish notability? The ones currently in the article are not secondary sources that we would use to establish notability, nor do they include WP:SIGCOV of the article subject. Longhornsg (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a short article. Thus Merge to Classified information in the United States while also copying the data to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of State and National Security Council. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if even one Wikipedian volunteers to do the legwork. I took under ten minutes and hit up Google and Google Scholar. I found several sources that look promising and linked to them on the article talk page here: [2]. I have not perused any of these sources in detail, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them aren't usable, but I'm satisfied enough that enough reliable sourcing to justify an article on this topic exists. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided are either additional recitations of the same definition that do not address WP:NOTDICT or are WP:TRIVIALMENTION that do not address WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those secondary sources is about the Special Security Office. The Rise of the Mavericks book is only about the Air Force branch. Say ocean again (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to classified information in the United States. Fails WP:ORG. There's no inherited notability for being related to multiple arms of the US government. Say ocean again (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer's Network

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

Fails WP:GNG from lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an example of WP:Ignore all rules. The page already has a couple of sources, and one does not expect extensive coverage in newspapers etc. Assuming that this list is correct, it has a relevant encyclopedic role so should be left. I note that there appear to be several other security related pages nominated for AfD by the same editor. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is encyclopedically relevant. I looked around for another article it could be housed at instead, to see if there was a good merge argument, but we don't appear to have any central "watch center", "national security watch center" or similar article. -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Operations Center

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

Redirect to National Security Agency. Watch center not inherently notable on its own per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Longhornsg (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the NSA says As of 2013, NSA has about a dozen directorates, which are designated by a letter, although not all of them are publicly known. It looks like the correct place for this information would be Directorates of the National Security Agency. But that doesn't exist. We could redirect it per nom, but that would mean losing the information we have in this article. We could merge it there instead of simply redirecting, but the NSA article is already a large and difficult to navigate article - over 1000kb, 80kb of prose. Unless someone is prepared to do a lot of work here, and it doesn't look like anyone is going to step up in the AfD timeframe, I think it's best to leave this where it is. Call this a "!vote for no consensus", I guess. -- asilvering (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Agency Check with Local Agency Check and Credit Check

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. It's a credit check that lacks WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Thoroughly fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read into

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

Delete or merge into Sensitive Compartmented Information. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, and the sources available are not seem notable or relevant by themselves. Longhornsg (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscure term of art; someone searching for the phrase "read into" is more likely looking for information on the term meaning "to infer". This is not only a WP:NOTDICT violation, it's confusing to boot. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There's a clear consensus against deleting the page. The choice of whether and where to merge the page is an editorial one, and can take place on the relevant Talk page. Owen× ☎ 23:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda Network Exord

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

Subject of a New York Times article in 2008, one of thousands of unremarkable exords that the U.S. military executes every years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to War on Terror, possibly also Al Qaeda. Useful information which has now been turned into Wikiformat and should not be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge with War on terror.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Covered in foreign media [3] and some journals [4], [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The journal articles are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and not WP:SIGCOV. The foreign media article cited is just reporting on the New York Times article already sourced. Longhornsg (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now I don't see any consensus for any outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with War on Terror: Articles/journals linked are really just trivial mentions; seems pretty WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Fails GNG on its own. Better off in a broader article. C F A 💬 23:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge though I would also support outright deletion because I don't think the content is really important. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to 2024 United States presidential debates (selectively), as noted to address the Recentism issues raised that are contributing to the volume of text. This is slightly early close, but there is no other outcome that will come of this. Star Mississippi 14:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024 United States presidential debate

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

Similar article already exists David O. Johnson (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I am not commenting on this AfD at this moment, but the reasoning provided here is not correct and should mention 2024 United States presidential debates. The argument is about whether or not this is a duplicate of the content on that page, especially the section about the CNN debate last night; or, in other words, could a separate article be sustained on the debate? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I hold that there is enough background information that should be considered. The specifics of this debate—sidestepping the Commission on Presidential Debates, Kennedy's Federal Election Commission complaint, Biden's performance and calls to withdraw that will not be entertained, critical reception such as "This Debate, We Could Hear Biden Speak. There His Troubles Began.", and a misguided Twenty-Fifth Amendment invocation proposal—suggest a debate that is unique and would not be sufficiently covered in an article about the debates in general, including the CPD's canceled debates and the forthcoming debate on ABC News on September 10. This situation occurred twelve years ago with Obama, some may add, but the consequences of this debate are much grander. To that end, there is paranoia surrounding this topic and many an unwarranted fear that should not be conflated with legitimate fallout. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge 2020 United States presidential debates was perfectly able to cover all of that year's debates in one article, and 2024 United States presidential debates can do the same. All of this coverage can and should go in the main article, where 2024 United States presidential debates#June 27 presidential debate (Atlanta) covers it quite well already. This page has far too much duplication of the main article. I must YET AGAIN ask Elijahpepe not to create articles on current events when there is an existing article that covers it perfectly well already and to propose a WP:SPLIT on the talk page to get some input first. Yes, there was a lot of next-day media coverage, as will every debate, but that even if you could write a ridiculous amount of detail about everything that was said and every response, that still does not mean there should be a separate article with such a level detail and duplication. There will be more debates this year, which will also receive a flurry of media coverage, but they just don't need standalone pages. I vehemently disagree with the idea that that this debate's specifics cannot be covered in the main article. If you do want individual pages, then the main 2024 debates page should be deleted and 2024_United_States_presidential_election#2024_presidential_debates be the parent. Reywas92^Talk 20:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Events, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge to 2024 United States presidential debates; I correctly merged and redirected this article before when elijahpepe created it the first time due to a lack of reasoning on his side why this split is necessary, as we are nowhere close to having size concerns on the main article. As it was before and is now, two reports of roughly the same length are being collaborated on and with different information, which is not great. We should adhere to guidelines on splitting and breaking or very highly reported news such that we should initially develop it in a section (and as Reywas92 said, was done for every other presidential debate article and never split) and after a few days should then discuss on the talk page to gain consensus on if a split is necessary, which I don't foresee it to be. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect/Speedy merge to 2024 United States presidential debates. We don't need a standalone article for this debate; everything in this article can be easily be covered in the 2024 United States presidential debates#June 27 presidential debate (Atlanta) section. Some1 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that the June 2024 United States presidential debate is being covered in-depth at 2024 United States presidential debates#June 27 presidential debate (Atlanta). The article that's up for deletion right now is a redundant content fork that is not as comprehensive as the parent article. Some1 (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2024 United States presidential debates. There is no precedent for splitting up general election debates into separate articles. I looked at the United States presidential debates template (apologies, I'm not sure how to add a link here without linking the actual template) and every single debate year just has one article; there are no separate articles for each debate held (aside from this one). David O. Johnson (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge There is no precedent for debates to have their own pages. No size concerns exist on the main page. Some existing content can be easily moved over to the main page. BootsED (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The comments stating there is no precedent have not addressed any substance about this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to address the substance. Whatever substance the article has can go on the main page just fine. Even if there are GNG sources, per WP:NOPAGE we can still consolidate them in a larger contextual article. You need to propose a properly-performed split when warranted, not just create a duplicative/overlapping page. Reywas92^Talk 23:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete this. This should never have been created. The clear message from the previous AfD should have been accepted and respected. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the suggestion to merge to 2024 United States presidential debates is reasonable, this particular debate really stands out and has a very significant coverage; I think it certainly passes WP:GNG. It is quite possible (and I hope) that Joe Biden will withdraw from the elections after such debates in favor of a younger colleague. Otherwise, he will lose these elections, and the consequences for the world will be enormous. My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To correct the record, there is no indication Biden will not withdraw. This occurred twelve years ago when Biden was vice president. There is no replacement for Biden, and his withdrawal would alter the chances of Democrats winning from where they are now to zero. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no such indications at the moment. Speaking on the rest, many politicians and experts say the opposite [6],[7],[8], [9], which creates the controversy and makes this page worthy of the existence. My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether or not this page passes the GNG does not necessarily determine if it should stay or not; this page was mostly split from the 2024 United States presidential debates article without good reason; there were and are no size concerns for the main article so there was no need for a split, even if the new article happens to be notable enough to stand alone; both articles on this topic (the section of the 2024 debates article and this article) are roughly the same length, and as most collaboration is happening now on the main article, we shouldn't have two different reports on this debate be developing. To centralize work on this and to adhere to WP:NOPAGE, we should have it all be in this one section for now and then see, if size concerns arise, if it should be its own article through a proper discussion. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance at WP:SIZERULE is not an end all for pages. For example, Criminal law in the Taney Court is 2,452 words, yet I doubt you would be able to raise an AfD against it. The concerns about converging articles are legitimate, but not a reason to delete; this was the subject of a lengthy discussion on The New York Times, where the Online platforms section was split into Online platforms of The New York Times at 2,514 words even as I said that the content there needed to be expanded more before a split. The solution seems to be to condense information about the debate in the article with the larger scope and expand this one. At 1,422 words, this article is not there yet, but as I said above, a significant amount of coverage has been ignored to create an article skeleton that works to gather information. Debates have garnered coverage before, but this is an unprecedented circumstance where there is now a consequence of a debate: discussions of Biden's withdrawal that do not appear to be in jest. I do not see how that does not warrant an article in some form. The article about the 2024 presidential debates has its scope; it is not an article about this event, which including the volume of information that is out there about this debate would create. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the sizerule is the solution every single time, but with this case it certainly is. You don't get to own the article and create a separate one all by yourself just because you think there should be one, we should have actual consensus on the talk page first and a good reason to do so (usually size concerns but not always), which we don't have. We also have never made a separate article for any other presidential debate, so you have to give a good reason why this one should break precedent and be so more special than any other debate. I'm aware of the past ownership problems and premature separate article creations in the past you've had, and I think for now it would be best for you and all of us if you just let this topic develop in the section like it has been doing. We can see later on if you get to claim creation of a separate article; please read WP:NOPAGE and WP:DELAY. I'm not saying every short article that is somewhat related to a more broad article should be merged there, of course not, but rather that splits should not be made without good reason and size concerns just "because I think there should be a separate article". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I provided reasoning above. The calls to withdraw themselves already make this a unique debate, but we don't have an article on Obama's first debate in 2012. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So because there are some "calls to withdrawal" (which are already covered in the main article), you believe that warrants a separate article for the debate? Some1 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As currently written, this is just a content fork. But perhaps it should be only briefly summarized on page 2024 United States presidential debates, and this page be kept as a valid sub-page. Note that the issue has become the matter of poling already, showing that possible replacements would do only 1% worse than Biden, but they may have a higher potential among undecided voters [10]. Some discuss if Joe Biden has a serious mental/health problem [11], [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether Biden will withdraw or not is WP:CRYSTAL, but the calls to withdrawal themselves, and more generally the impact of the debate, makes it more than pass WP:GNG on its own. While precedent is good, it isn't necessarily an argument if there wasn't a higher level of consensus, and individual debates might not all have the same level of coverage and notability. Furthermore, even if the page isn't yet large enough for WP:SIZERULE to be an issue, it might make it harder to have an in-depth coverage of all debates at once. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge to 2020 United States presidential debates per above arguments/comments, particularly those of Reywas92, Flemmish Nietzsche, and David O. Johnson. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reaction to the first debate is notable and clearly more notable than other debates. Several editorial boards have called for President Biden to end his campaign as a result of the debate, which certainly passes WP:GNG. Existing coverage on 2024 United States presidential debates is long enough for its own article. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to 2024 United States presidential debates, depending on whether there's anything of value that isn't duplicated. This is not a discussion about whether the subject is notable or passes GNG, it's about whether it should exist independently of the target article. There's hardly any useful information in this article that isn't in the target. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at this point its section in 2024 United States presidential debates is getting very long, and this debate is exceptionally newsworthy compared to other presidential debates, so precedent arguments don't apply. —Ashley Y 09:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to that is to delete the WP:RECENTISM. Not to create a content fork. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the content fork should be fixed. But it can be fixed by moving some content from page 2024 United States presidential debates to this page, and by leaving only a brief summary on page 2024 United States presidential debates. That would be optimal for readability. That's why we have sub-pages. This is the argument. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly this. Leaving aside the present content, this page should exist, given the salience of the event. —Ashley Y 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, sure. This is now a HUGE story, basically a crisis [13], with enormous political consequences. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it's a "HUGE" story, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't need a separate article. There still are not any size concerns or any good reason for a content fork, which may change if Biden does indeed cancel his reelection bid, but for now there is not as it is still just calls for him to step down and reactions to the debate, which do not warrant a separate article even if you think it is a "crisis".
        
        Even if there should be a separate article at some point due to the notability of this debate, this article creation and content fork was premature and has unsuccessfully tried to put the majority of content on the debate in this article, while currently most is in the main article, which most people seem to be fine with. Simply closing this debate as keep would actually be worse if it was clear it should be its own article, as the AfD result being a keep doesn't automatically mean we have consensus to move all the content over to this page and summarize it in the main article, and having the share of content between the two pages in limbo as it is now would probably be the worst outcome. if you really think we should have a separate article, we should discuss it on the talk page of the 2024 debates article after this debate is closed and all content here is merged to the main article, which is what should have been done originally. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if he withdraws from the race or not. This is simply a highly notable political event that goes far beyond just a presidential debate! It therefore deserves a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I agree this is a content fork right now. I just think a split would be reasonable in this case to eliminate the content fork. My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary content fork created due to WP:RECENTISM. This debate will fade from memory in 10 days, let alone ten years. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above votes. This really should have been put on the talk page first, otherwise I would be more neutral. WP:BOLD has it's limits and consensus should be respected with past AfD decisions. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge; the 2020 United States presidential debates page manages to successfully cover all three debates that occurred that year. I don’t see any reason why as to why this can’t be done for the 2024 debates. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 09:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into main debate article. If Something Happens (like Biden dropping out) it might be worth spinning this off into its own article. Right now it's just unnecessary, and it seems like we're getting into some recentism with an additional article. Carlp941 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Immigrants Award

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

A non-notable award (to 35 people in 2203), with no obvious selection criteria or monetary reward. Coverage is press releases and PR. Could be a redirect to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Possibly a vanity award, a spam magnet at least. Edwardx (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Edwardx,

Please find my reply below. Of course, any further questions I would most certainly answer. This is my first encounter with the Deletion process and I want to make sure it is done properly.

thanks,

Ronald Sexton

I wish to argue in the strongest terms for the Great Immigrant Award remain as an entry in Wikipedia. The award is not a vanity prize, no one can purchase this award and no marketing services are involved.

Adding this to the selection section makes for more clarification:

The award is made by Carnegie Corporation of New York, a philanthropic foundation established in 1911 by Andrew Carnegie to promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding. In keeping with this mandate, the Corporation's work focuses on the issues that Andrew Carnegie considered of paramount importance: international peace, the advancement of education and knowledge, and the strength of our democracy. The Great Immigrants award is a part of its democracy program and recognizes naturalized Americans who have made significant contributions that strengthen our democracy and enrich our society. The award is not available for purchase or as a PR/marketing offering. The award aims to bring awareness to the positive contributions of naturalized Americans at large.

The award was begun by the Corporation’s previous President Vartan Gregorian. An immigrant himself, who wish to bring attention the importance of immigrants in all aspects of American life. I am the primary contributor and based this entry on the Vilcek Prize entry. Ronald Sexton (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to for spam magnet, I was in the process of changing the link in the list of awardees to their individual Wikipedia page instead of going to the Corporation's website. Ronald Sexton (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The awards have received coverage in secondary RS to establish notability, including the AP, UPI, Jewish Journal, and analysis in scholarly tomes [14]. Longhornsg (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The deletion criteria states that spam is a reason for deletion only in the context of articles "without any relevant or encyclopedic content." That is not the case here, as there is reliable sources coverage, and it is an award of one of the most notable philanthropic organizations in the world. Therefore, the concern about being a "spam magnet" is not a proper deletion reason, otherwise millions of articles would be put up for deletion, as we are constantly under duress from spam. Also, if the point in the initial nomination was that it was only given "to 35 people in 2023" (typo fixed) that's not a good argument. The quantity of awardees per year has never been a valid argument for notability (see the Nobel or Pulitzer Prizes where they typically award fewer than 35 entities per year) as the whole point of an award is that it has standards for selectivity. The article could be made more NPOV, but deletion is not justified. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Patrick Carney. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Eagle Records

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. It's mentioned in a few interviews with Carney, and there's this very short article on Cleveland Scene about it. A possible alternative to deletion is a merge/redirect to Patrick Carney or The Black Keys. toweli (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, United States of America, Ohio, and Tennessee. toweli (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Patrick Carney. Option to keep if more sources are found. Why is this at AfD at all? Chubbles (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Patrick Carney, then delete to prevent restoration. Absolutely fails WP:NCORP. The suggested target is also tarnished by public relations editing activity, so that page needs to be carefully scrutinized for potential GNG fail. Graywalls (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Patrick Carney: Merge? I don't see merging coming when the article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Since it reads, "The recording studio is used solely for Carney's productions.", redirect to the founder's article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Chenfeld

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

Clearly unnotable. All but one of the sources are about his record company or Kidz Bop. The sole source documenting him is an interview. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, United States of America, and Ohio. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: Should be notable with articles such as [15], but I don't find enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage now in the article is mostly about his business ventures, not about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan McGuire

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion would be a redirect, but I'm not sure what would be the best target. toweli (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Illinois. toweli (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any coverage that would establish notability. Recommend against a redirect due to this involvement with multiple groups. Longhornsg (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to How We Gonna Make the Black Nation Rise? as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 08:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clappers Records

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

I just attempted to find sourcing for this article in effort to conduct wp:before and no significant citations exist that demonstrate wp:n. I would like to propose either a move to a larger article on reggae or outright deletion. This article has clearly been lingering for a very long time without any significant improvements. Variety312 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 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 ☎ ✎ 01:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking indepth sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we should be careful about deleting this. It seems to have a significant cultural impact on rap and reggae. It has an entry here which is interesting, and at African American Research Perspectives [16], of which I can only see a small part. The label had one release which seems to be of particular significance [17]. I'm not finding enough coverage for a standalone article. Perhaps redirect to How We Gonna Make the Black Nation Rise?? It seems to be significant enough to WP:PRESERVE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5.‎ XOR'easter (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Dennis Mangano

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

Draftify moved unilaterally to main space when unready. I think the subject might potentially have some notability, but the article is not written to show it, nor referenced to show it. Flagged as failing WP:GNG after arriving in mainspace by the editor who moved it to mainspace. Being charitable, this feels as if the move were in some manner accidental. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. Not ready for mainspace. Other than one lawsuit in 2007 (which isn't mentioned in the article prose), the references seem to just be his published research papers. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. New enough for this to be a reasonable choice, sources inadequate for current content, but with some possible case for notability (possibly through WP:PROF#C1). That criterion does not require depth of sourcing for notability itself, but it does not eliminate the need for all claims in our article to be properly sourced. In particular all claims of having invented or discovering something important should be backed up by reliable independent sources that verify those claims; his own publications are not adequate for that kind of claim. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (the AFC reviewer who originally declined the submission). I do think the subject could meet the GNG, as there is some coverage (I have 1E concerns as it relates to the fact that a lot of the coverage will be primary in regards to the various lawsuits) but that is not demonstrated here and I have doubts that its demonstrated presently and the I have non-encyclopedic concerns about the article in mainspace presently. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G5: Sock of blocked user Harrysigma 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The consensus of most participants is that this article subject is not notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario A. Guerra

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. No sufficient source to satisfy any application specific or general criteria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Cuba, and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on significant reliable source coverage that enables us to write a substantial article about their political impact. This, however, features virtually none of the type of content (significant things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, etc.) that we would need to see, and is instead devoted almost entirely to things he did before or after the mayoralty rather than anything he did in the mayoralty — and it's referenced predominantly to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, while the few third-party footnotes come entirely from a weekly community hyperlocal rather than GNG-worthy media of record, and are mainly sourcing things like "former mayor has sports complex named after him" (which is not a notability criterion) and "former mayor pens open letter thanking the community" (which is really just another primary source, since he wrote it himself). This isn't what it takes to get a mayor over the wikibar. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG as these three sources have significant coverage and are independent as well, hence reliable:
- [18]
- [19]
- [20].

He is a recipient of Romualdo Pacheco Award as well. [21] Macyramps (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I struggle to see any sourcing that points to the political impact of the subject, as Bearcat describes. The LA Times articles are a bit better, but one one of them is primarily about the subject, and even that article is just that he was selected to lead a regional association. --Enos733 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The association is made up of about 50 Southern California cities that run their own police and fire departments, hence the “independent” designation. Combined, they represent more than 7 million people." - it doesn't seem to be a regional association. Macyramps (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local official. News coverage seems to be mostly passing mentions and WP:ROTM stories about his mayorship. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small town mayor who didn't receive coverage for anything other than being a small town mayor. SportingFlyer T·C 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excuse my naivety, but I believe the recent comments from fellow editors are not entirely accurate. The first comment suggests that the coverage is merely passing mention, yet there are several articles that provide significant coverage. The second comment labels him as just a small town mayor, but he holds other notable positions as well, such as President of the Independent Cities Association. He also ran for the state senate, won the Romualdo Pacheco Award, and serves as a Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army, a position that carries a three-star general protocol. I believe he meets the notability criteria. Maplelaple (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Maplelaple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
My comment referenced the fact that if he wasn't a mayor, which is usually the notability hook, he wouldn't otherwise be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the comments in this discussion seem contradictory. Some are saying there is no coverage about his mayoralty, while others claim the coverage is only about his mayoralty. Additionally, it is worth noting that he was the first refugee ever to be elected as Mayor of the City of Downey. I'm adding more sources below for further clarification:

Mayorship Coverage: [22], [23], [24] and [25]

Non-Mayorship Coverage:[26], [27], [28],[29],[30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] and [36] Maplelaple (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look, and the vast majority of those are simply local news coverage or are related to his political campaigns. I apologize, but I still don't see enough there to keep this. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Aushenker

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

No independent significant coverage anywhere, seems to just be WP:TRIVIAL coverage online. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 08:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, United States of America, and New York. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 08:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything substantive about him. I see that he has written for one or more possibly fringe publications. There are quotes and cites to someone with that name in books about Hollywood, but I don't know if it's him because there isn't enough information to determine that. Lamona (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any SIGCOV to establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there's some information here, it doesn't quite meet the bar for an article. Reliable sources like established publications would make a stronger case for keeping it. Waqar💬 15:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Square dance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western promenade dance

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

I could find very little coverage about this dance. The article was PRODed in 2022 with the rationale being it is indistinct from square dance, but this is not clear due to the lack of coverage. Was later dePRODed with the suggestion to redirect to square dance or country–western dance. I would slightly prefer deletion but I'm okay with redirecting. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and United States of America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed in square dance books here [37] in a bit of detail and here [38] in no detail. It really doesn't seem to be used much as a term. I think redirect to Square dance is best considering the article's long life, although even this is a stretch as it seems to be linked only by lists of dances (including one that redirects to this one). Oblivy (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to square dance seems the most appropriate choice given the page history and sourcing discussed above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Socialist Caucus

AfDs for this article:

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

This was already deleted as it disambiguated between two entities without their own articles and that weren't explicitly referenced in the linked articles. This disambiguation was apparently recreated only a few months after it was deleted, but this time with an extra "caucus" that is also not mentioned in the linked article. None of the original deletion rationale appears to have been addressed in its recreation, so I'm nominating it for deletion a second time. Grnrchst (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing has changed since the first Afd that warrants a different consensus. Sal2100 (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. Nothing here warranting reversing the prior AfD outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Internet challenges#Crime. Owen× ☎ 16:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallon smashing

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

While this probably seemed like an interesting topic at the time, it seems to explicitly fail WP:SUSTAINED (cf. also WP:10YT) as the coverage happened in 2013 with very little after that. Therefore, in hindsight the fad seems short-lived and confined to that time period with little impact (WP:IMPACT) beyond that. An alternative way to proceed could be a broader article about criminal "challenges/pranks" directed against grocery stores/food places, as gallon smashing seems closely related to ice cream licking [39] etc. Geschichte (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Crime, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already has a well-sourced entry at List of internet challenges, which goes into more than enough detail. All sources cited (and all sources I can find outside social media) are from 2013, making this a textbook failure of WP:10YT. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: page creator). I take the opposite position as above. I think there's sufficient secondary coverage about this trend and the page is an appropriate fork from List of Internet challenges. The list merely defines "gallon smashing" without providing any additional context about the trend's history or impact. I'd prefer to see this entry expanded, not merged or deleted. I've added additional in-depth coverage by Bloomberg News, ABC News, CBS News, etc, and I've shared more refs on the talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the trend's history or impact". What impact? Geschichte (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Charges filed, arrests, injuries, etc. Many trends don't result in these things. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of internet challenges. I looked at the titles of the sources and thought that an Internet challenge still getting media coverage eleven years after the fact might indeed merit its own article, but then I checked the sources. The articles listed as being from 2024 are actually from the mid-teens, merely archived in 2024. Possible mislead but also possible NBD. Given that, the entry in "List of Internet challenges" seems sufficient to me. Would reconsider if there is in fact analysis of this challenge from 2020 or later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of American scientists

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

WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens – if not hundreds – thousands entries. We have much more selective categories (by field by century, by field by state,...), there is no need for this overarching list. Broc (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Science, Lists, and United States of America. Broc (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split article into a list of lists, specific to scientific categories, per nom. —Mjks28 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjks28 this is an alphabetical list, how do you propose to split it? Broc (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose to split the article into different subsections of science; i.e. one for psychologists, one for biologists, one for chemists, etc, and make this article a list of those lists, sort of like Lists of celebrities. Mjks28 (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an effort completely unrelated to the existing page, as it would not be a simple WP:SPLIT but would require a complete re-evaluation of all entries in the list. Creating lists by topic could be done by simply using categories as a starting point, without needing the existing list. In my opinion the suggested "split" is not feasible. Broc (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In that case, I'd agree with deletion. Mjks28 (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for much the same reasons as for deleting the List of British scientists just above. Athel cb (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While creating new lists for American chemists, etc. may be an appropriate narrowing of topics, I see no need use the existing list in any way. Recreating it as a "Lists of" or other navigation page is welcome, but again it's not necessary to use any of the current page as a starting point. Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Alvarado

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

I can find nothing in-depth suggesting encyclopedic notability of this actor. BD2412 T 18:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 18:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage to meet WP:NACTOR. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial coverage about him that would meet GNG; the one source in the article is a one-line mention. Google search results mainly return other people of the same name. His most prominent role appears to have been 83 episodes of General Hospital, which is insufficient to meet any SNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Puerto Rico, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There currently aren't enough sources in the article to cover WP:NACTOR and I couldn't independently find sources to solve that. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this individual found, what's used (the one article) isn't sufficient. No coverage, no notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He wasn't even part of the starring cast on General Hospital and even if he was, it would be considered as WP:ONEEVENT which is still not enough to warrant an article for the actor. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Cloud

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

Biography of a person not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. The attempted notability claim here, "melter and refiner at the U.S. Mint", could get him an article if he were well-sourced as passing WP:GNG on coverage about his work, but is not "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him an article without proper sourcing for it -- but the only two footnotes here are a primary source directory entry that isn't support for notability at all and one page of a book about the history of the county where he lived, which is being cited in such a way that it's deeply unclear whether it even refers to Joseph Cloud at all, or merely to an ancestor of his — but even if it does mention Joseph Cloud himself, being namechecked on one page of a book about something else wouldn't be enough all by itself.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived American media coverage and/or history books than I've got can salvage it with better sources than I've been able to find, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mentions in journals from the 1800's [40] and [41] (apparently), but these are tertiary sources, so I can't vouch for the validity of each statement. I can't find anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable, and is badly sourced. —Mjks28 (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, it's written: melter and refiner at the Philadelphia Mint, appointed by Washington. Perhaps it can meet GNG due to his role in the primacy of the Philadelphia mint and the early currency development of the United States. O.maximov (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is a measure of the quality of the sourcing present in the article, not of the subjective significance of their job title in and of itself. So getting him over GNG would be a matter of finding adequate sourcing, not just of asserting that he had a prominent role without properly sourcing its prominence. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. – Joe (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul K. Davis (historian)

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

Fails WP:GNG, Can't find any other sources in an outside search other than one source in the article. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, United States of America, and Texas. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the unscholarly ring of some of his book titles I found thirteen published book reviews of four of the books, enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This military historian passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Book reviews are fine, seems to pass AUTHOR. Source 5 shows multiple reviews in multiple journals, that's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this person meets either NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. For the latter, his books, save one, have been cited in the middle to low two figures. The other one was cited ~160 times. I'm also not convinced that the fact of having a book reviewed in what are essentially trade journals suffices for AUTHOR. I am unable to get to the EBSCO journals but the fact that most of the reviews are in Library Journal and School Library Journal do not tell me that this is a major author. Like Publisher's Weekly, these are non-academic publications that generally provide short "advice" type reviews (buy this/don't buy this). Looking up "Encyclopedia of Invasions and Conquests" in WorldCat, it's held in 5 WC libraries. It's hard to know what this means since school libraries are rarely found in WC, but I would not consider this person a notable author by any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the EBSCO reviews should be accessible through The Wikipedia Library. That might be relevant if you completely ignored the two substantial academic reviews of Ends and Means in academic journals, the three of Masters of the Battlefield (counting H-net as equivalent to an academic journal), and the two mainstream-media reviews of Masters of the Battlefield. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these reviews indicates that the books are NOT considered major contributions to the field. For example: "This book is a generally accessible book for a mid-brow audience as opposed to a scholarly work." (That's H-War) The Michigan Review states: "Serious students of military history, however, will find here neither a dependable reference book nor an original contribution to the scholarship of command across the ages." The two for Ends and Means are one page each, and one states "Its principle weakness lies in a failure to draw in literature on the Middle East, and especially the Arabic results in gaps and misconceptions. It is nevertheless a strong study of the modus operandi of the British in the area, and of the muddle and misinformation which lay behind their eventual success". This sounds to me like the reviewers are not seeing these books as being major contributions to the field. Nothing in NACADEMIC nor AUTHOR states that if a book (or a few books) get ANY reviews the author is notable. Both of those policies include much more rigorous criteria, and among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics. This person clearly fails that. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in NAUTHOR says anything about the reviews being positive, nor about the reviewed books being scholarly works. They merely have to provide depth of content about the books they review. Your quote "among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics" is completely false. There is nothing in our criteria that reflects that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the 8 criteria in WP:NACADEMIC and indicate which of those this person meets. I don't think he meets any of them. And note that nothing in academic nor author notability mentions book reviews. I don't know why this has become a thing here at AfD, but the mere fact of reviews wouldn't satisfy the policy criteria for either of those categories. If, however, you are looking to see whether a person has (as the policy says) "...made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions" then what their colleagues say about their work is evidence.Lamona (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have I even tried to argue for a pass of WP:ACADEMIC? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:POLITICIAN? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:ATHLETE? Do you think that minor politicians who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as politicians, or that minor athletes who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as athletes? How about you address the criterion I am actually arguing for, WP:AUTHOR, instead of trying to make the ridiculous argument that being notable requires being notable for everything? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it sounds like you are going for #3 of AUTHOR. Here's the whole AUTHOR list:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I do not see that this person has created a "significant or well-known work" merely because it has been reviewed. I am leaning on the word "significant" and when a book is reviewed as not being dependable (as above) then I don't see it as "significant." As I said, just getting reviewed doesn't make it "significant" and if you're looking at "well-known" then low citations and low library holdings (the only number we have because we don't have access to sales figures) tell me that this greatly stretches the concept of well-known. Also, I'd like to mention WP:CIVIL. Lamona (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4(c): The works have won significant critical attention. Perhaps you are having difficulty with the grammar of that criterion? The word "significant" is a description of the amount of critical attention the works have received, not of the works themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by way of passing the WP:AUTHOR bar. Reviews don't have to be positive; what matters is that attention was paid to the author's work. Nor do we require that the books being reviewed have to be scholarly in a narrow sense. We have articles on authors known for inaccuracy, popularization, and inaccurate popularization. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and probably WP:PROF#C1 as well based on number of reviews and multiple Oxford University Press books. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Hifo

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this rugby league footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage, doesn't appear to be a notable player regardless. Mn1548 (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't look like they've had a significant enough impact on the rugby league world to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia page. Maybe if their career takes off in the future, we can revisit this. Waqar💬 17:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of The Handmaid's Tale episodes#ep11. ✗plicit 03:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June (The Handmaid's Tale)

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

WP:INCOMPDAB with two entries, both of which redirect to the same article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Disambiguations, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Handmaid's Tale episodes#ep11, which contains the most pertinent information on the episode and sufficient content on the character. BD2412 T 17:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above argument, and per nom. No point having a disambiguation page that just redirects both uses to the same article. —Mjks28 (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bash-n-the-Code

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question is the Keith Lancaster mentioned Keith Lancaster? It seems likely to me they're different people based on the genre and timing. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment they had quite a few charted songs, see [42], including biographical bit that could be used as source. Broc (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found that prove the article meets WP:N and is not WP:OR. I find it hard to believe a "musical derivative" of a band not deemed notable enough to have its own article (Found Free), is itself notable. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Online I found this review, but this seems more like a blog. There are some coverage regarding shows, and on Newspapers.com all the coverage are of that nature. Mark Lee Townsend was a member by the way. Geschichte (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this but not much else. Contradicts information found here, but is worth checking out. ❤History Theorist❤ 01:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Alex Danvers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (Supergirl)

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

Only one entry, Alex Danvers, has a standalone article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Disambiguations, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dab not needed per WP:ONEOTHER. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Alex Danvers. It's hard to add a disambig hatnote to a table (list of episodes, as the other meaning is an tv show episode). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are clearly two topics that could be this entry. Having this lead to a disambiguation page prevents accidental links from happening as bots notify users when adding these. There is zero upsides to deleting or redirecting this. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not a case of WP:ONEOTHER as there is no clear main topic. Broc (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as there is as the episodes title is clearly referencing the character. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two topics. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Alex Danvers, in the light of comments below.
Delete: Disambiguation page only links to one article, the other is just an article where the second subject is mentioned. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The standalone article should be primary, with a hatnote being used to direct readers to the other Alex, who is only mentioned in the article body. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers and add hatnote to season page per WP:TWODABS/WP:SIMILAR/WP:ONEOTHER. Primary topic with only one other topic that isn't stand-alone article-worthy. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers. I've added coverage of the first topic (the episode "Alex") to the second topic (Alex Danvers).[43] There is a redirect (Alex (Supergirl episode)) that could be used for a hatnote on Alex Danvers#Season 2. I wasn't sure if it was okay to do a see also for a redirect, but it makes sense here. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers. The article now has information about the episode "Alex." This two-item disambiguation page serves no useful purpose. If not redirect, then simply delete. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alex Danvers. The only two topics are the character (who has a standalone article) and a TV show episode named after that character (which does not have a standalone article). A hatnote is definitely sufficient for dealing with the small number of people who would want to go to the list entry about the episode. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, again. Arguments are almost evenly divided between those wanting to Keep the page and those advocating a Redirect (with a few Delete opinions mixed in). So, we need some more policy-based arguments or some participants reconsidering their "votes". No consensus closures tend to make all sides dissatisfied so that is the last resort if nothing changes here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alex Danvers with hatnote per Quicole above. As has been mentioned, the episode is stand-alone and is referencing the character regardless.

JoeJShmo^💌 08:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Gonnym, Shhhnotsoloud, and Broc: Since you all have voted, the article Alex Danvers now includes a hatnote and cited content linking to the episode here: Alex Danvers#Season 2 @Mjks28 and Jclemens: Would you all be okay with a redirect per WP:RKEEP point 3, "They aid searches on certain terms.", as "Alex supergirl" is a plausible search for "Alex Danvers"? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear how this responds to my concern. An editor using the link Alex (Supergirl) for the episode now gets a warning they added a disambiguation link to an article. If this changes to a redirect to the character, it won't happen and it might not be fixed. How is changing this to a redirect helpful? Gonnym (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think deletion is the right choice. If the "Alex" episode had its own article it would be a different matter, but as there is no article for it, having a disambiguation page wouldn't be helpful. -- Mjks28 (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a valid redirect given it's covered at a parent article in a significant manner. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with turning the dab into a redirect if we agree there's a PRIMARYTOPIC. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary topic would be the character due to her having an article, I'd assume. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus among participants that this is not a POVFORK and this article should be kept but could probably use additional sourcing if there is a bias present. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Association of Palestine

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

Very obvious WP:POVFORK of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, spends much of the article talking about the trial and the same people from a very biased POV. Not certain if there are notable differences from the HLF article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some Info:

Initial Merge Discussion

I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.

Information about the trial

The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.

Information about what the IAP

I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.

I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.

The HLF article makes more sense and seems more objective without having to go full "Civilization Jihad." User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:13, 22 June 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 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not seeing how it's a purported POVFORK. Per sources, the Islamic Association of Palestine is a separate organization from the Holy Land Foundation, so they should not be in the same article. An editor's perception of bias is not a reason for AfD, which is determined by coverage in WP:RS. Levvitt is a scholar and reliable source. Affiliation with an organization perceived as bias does not affect whether the source is credible and a reliable source of facts. Lots of coverage in source across the ideological spectrum that clearly establishes WP:GNG:
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
Significant coverage in scholarly work The Muslim Brotherhood and the West by scholar Martyn Frampton and published by Harvard University Press
[48] in scholarly work by scholars Thomas. M. Pick, Anne Speckhard, and Beatrice Jacuch. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First article seems fine.

Second, third, fourth article is about the HLF trial.

Fifth source mentions IAP for one paragraph, and includes HLF.

6th source uses a scratch note from one Muslim Brotherhood guy that was never accepted by any other muslim brotherhood. This 1991 note became the basis for the Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory in the 2000s to 2010s.

matthew Levitt was the key witness for HLF trial, and his work is entirely about proving financial connections between groups. His writings are about the holy land 5.

i argue that if this article is mostly about the trial to convict the 5, and the IAP is not sufficiently notable by itself except in context of the trial, it should be merged (maybe keep as a subsection in HLF what it did). User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that a passing mention (one word mention) in three of these sources also suggests it is a passing reference as part of discussion for the HLF trial.

I want to find more sourcing beyond the HLF trial and its repercussions, that there is enough info besides just the HLF trial to suggest it warrants an article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Matthew Levitt source is used 11 times throughout this article, when in the Holy Land article, his sourcing is used only once suggests a POV Fork.

A review of his work on NYTimes

"Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgements and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies — an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees... None of this would matter if Levitt used the center's analyses critically, but he doesn't appear to. As a result, there will be readers of this book who will see it as fronting for the Israeli intelligence establishment and its views."

Not arguing he's not academic, just biased (As is every source on Israel/palestine), and that citing him heavily about the trial and the evidence tying the defendents together in one article, and not citing heavily in another suggests a POV fork. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So add more sources. This is not what a WP:POVFORK is. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Islamic Association of Palestine is a different organization from the Holy Land Foundation. How is this a POV fork of the Holy Land Foundation - the article does not exclusively rely on Levitt's writings, directly cites an FBI report, and refers to a different organization from the HLF. Both were convicted of providing material support for terrorism and were proven to be fundraising arms for Hamas, alongside the Quranic Literacy Institute. All three organizations are notable as per the general notability guideline as per the sources Longhornsg provided. This article could easily be repaired by bringing in sources from the other two articles about the Holy Land Foundation case, so that the article is not largely reliant on Levitt, given possible concerns of bias. In order for something to be a POV fork, it must be on the same topic as another article. The Holy Land Foundation article is about the Holy Land Foundation, whereas this article is about the Islamic Association of Palestine.
TL;DR: No, this is not a POV fork because it simply isn't on the same topic as the Holy Land Foundation article and the Islamic Association of Palestine clearly meets WP:GNG. »PKMNLives 🖛 Talk 04:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It discusses the same trial to the same five men for 95% of the article. The suggestion to bring it into line by including sourcing from the other article would be to keep discussing the trial.

There is not enough about the organization by itself, outside of the context of the trial, and it is not notable except as part of the HLF trial. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Honor System (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob DePaola

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I'm not sure what would be the better redirect target of the two bands mentioned in the article. toweli (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Illinois. toweli (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Honor System (band), as that band seemed to accomplish a little more. I'm not sure if his other band (The Broadways) is notable either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads. Star Mississippi 14:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Makelim

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

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this rugby league player to meet WP:GNG. There are a couple of interviews available (1, 2), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC) A possible redirect is 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads. JTtheOG (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Australia, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Given his career their should be more sources available. Current level of sourcing is borderline for notatability in my opinion, but more closer to delete than keep. Mn1548 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Slavonia

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

Not a notable person; article is promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication one will form to delete this article. A discussion on a merger to List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships or rename to List of future ships of the United States Navy can continue on the talk as neither requires admin action. Star Mississippi 13:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the United States Navy

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

Literally just an out of date list of ships being built. The comparable articles for other navies are rich with prose. At best should be merged without redirect. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what's actually out of date or if the tag itself is out of date, but that's an editing issue and not a reason for deletion. While prose about the future would be great, the lack therof is also no reason to delete this list. However, I am undecided if this should be merged to List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships or kept and renamed to List of future ships of the United States Navy with that section merged here instead. Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Military planning shows plenty of lists like this with this naming convention. I don't know why, but there should be a discussion somewhere about this. The items on this list are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, so this is a valid navigational list, far more useful than a category since additional information is listed. Dream Focus 08:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that it is not out of date since less than a month ago there has been a big update with new auterized ships added. Otherwise I would also agree it could be renamed to List of future ships of the United States Navy as mentioned by Reywas92. 102Legobrick 12:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC+2)
Delete. The article as it currently stands is covered by List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships. Redirecting the title to that location is a poor fit because any article at this title should cover more than just future ships (what about aircraft, additional technologies, etc.?). If the article is kept, I would prefer to see it moved to List of future United States Navy ships, similar to List of future Spanish Navy ships. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/no opinion. There is a significant overlap with List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships, hence potentially a content fork. But this page is more detailed, covers partly different data and fits to the series of similar pages for other countries. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost sounding like WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Lorstaking (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very poor argument, I see nothing that is speculation. Most of these ships already have articles and they are sourced that they are actually under construction or have Navy orders. Reywas92^Talk 22:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Crystal ball" is for films and other entertainment media that might not ever get completed. When something is paid for, and under construction, its going to be completed. These things cost a fortune. Dream Focus 22:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of future ships of the United States Navy but keep. No opinion on a merge to List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships; the "builder" column seems like the only content that would be merged. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh90210, renaming is an editing decision that is outside the possible options for an AFD closure. If that is the outcome you seek, you need to argue for a Keep and then a discussion on a page title can happen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships: Unnecessary content fork that makes maintenance of both lists more difficult. I note that none of the other sections on List of current ships of the United States Navy have the builder or status columns, but I think more information is better. Additionally, status only makes sense the future ships section, and the builder could be added to the other list sections as well. I'm not persuaded by the fact that other lists exist for other nations per WP:WAX. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Any user can redirect this title to a suitable target if one is found. ✗plicit 14:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kenton Council

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

Scouting council is an organization, thus is expected to meet WP:NCORP which the organization in question fails miserably. Hyper-local branch of a larger organization. WP:BRANCH. I suggest delete, and re-direct to target if suitable one can be found. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, United States of America, Kentucky, and Ohio. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Delete or redirect. Bduke (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Delete views based on the argument that only one review exists were discounted once multiple additional reviews were found, with plenty of time for all participants to assess the sources. Owen× ☎ 22:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity

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

Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. At best it has only received little coverage over disinformation it spread. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, India, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage in the Kansas City Star and The Historian, as well as from other authors, makes it notable. Critical coverage is still coverage. Astaire (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from more than just 2 twenty years old sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBOOK does not require sustained coverage for a book to be notable, so the comment about "20-year-old sources" is not relevant. The comment about "garbage books" is also not relevant according to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There have now been three journal reviews found, which is more than enough to meet NBOOK. If these reviews are critical of the book, then the article should make note of that. Astaire (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It passes NBOOK and is therefore notable. The reviews seem to adequately address the book's fringe claims. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: How does it pass WP:NBOOK? Ignore the misleading claim above that there is coverage from "Kansas City Star" because it simply not verifiable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArvindPalaskar On proquest, there are:
- review in Choice, proquest id 225800157
- a review in Free Inquiry, proquest id 230077014
Above NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also a review in The Humanist, proquest ID 235297768. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified that the reviews in Choice and Free Inquiry exist. Those two reviews, plus the existing sources in the article, are enough to more than meet the NBOOK threshold. Astaire (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best we have only 1 review that meets WP:V. I agree that special care should be taken over a fringe subject but even without that this book easily fails all points of WP:NBOOK. Azuredivay (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, one review doesn't prove notability. Artem.G (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, that's why we've found at least 6 below that prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed there is only 1 review and that too only tells why this book is faulty. NavjotSR (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Steger, Manfred (2005). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". The Historian. 67 (4): 781–782. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2005.00130.x. EBSCOhost 19009759. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The review notes: "If the author had managed to present credible evidence for both theses, his book would have been nothing short of a scholarly sensation, not only invalidating diametrically opposed assessments emerging from nearly eight decades of academic “Gandhiana,” but also dismantling the Mahatma’s popular image. In addition, Singh’s study would constitute a valuable contribution to the existing social science literature on Indian politics. Concerning G. B. Singh’s first thesis, however, this reviewer could not find hard evidence for the sinister manipulations of the “Hindu propaganda machine.”"
  The review notes: "Numerous criticisms of Gandhi’s moral flaws do exist; one only needs to consult pertinent works authored by Ved Mehta, Partha Chatterjee, Joseph Alter, or this reviewer. Yet, out of fairness, these authors balanced their critiques against Gandhi’s impressive moral strengths. By launching a one-sided attack without offering the larger, more complex picture of Gandhi’s ethical and political engagements, the book under review turns into a strident polemic, thus diminishing the considerable value of some of its criticisms."
2. Clark, Thomas W. (July–August 2006). "Gandhi in Question". The Humanist. Vol. 66, no. 4. pp. 45–47. ProQuest 235297768. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The review notes: "G. B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity subjects Gandhi the saint to death by a thousand cuts. The man is portrayed as an impostor who harbored racist attitudes toward South African blacks and whose efforts on behalf of Hindu "untouchables" were misguided half-measures, designed merely to build his own reputation and political influence. Using dozens of quotes from newspapers, letters, and biographies, most of which actually show Gandhi in a positive light, Singh aims to deconstruct what he calls Gandhi's pseudo-history. ... Singh also offers an unsubstantiated hypothesis that Gandhi, in cleaning out files, deliberately destroyed some incriminating documents sometime after 1906. But he has no evidence as to what the missing documents contained. That their content was racist and their destruction part of a coverup is simply speculation on his part."
3. Terchek, R. J. (February 2005). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Choice. Vol. 42, no. 6. p. 1077. doi:10.5860/CHOICE.42-3580. ProQuest 225800157.
  The review notes: "For career military officer Singh, Gandhi's character and record are dark and troublesome. He finds his subject a racist, "macho," a propagandist, beholden to special interests, a liar, a "superb manipulator," a "witch doctor of the worst kind," the "most bribable of all Congress Party leaders," and the list goes on. The book lacks balance and refuses to acknowledge that people can grow and develop, learn from mistakes, and try to move forward."
4. Narisetti, Innaiah (October–November 2004). "A Critical Look at a National Hero". Free Inquiry. 24 (6): 55–56. ProQuest 230077014.
  The review notes: "Mr. Singh's book attempts to expose the racial prejudices of Gandhi and his followers in South Africa and the sometimes violent nature of his satyagraha movement there and asserts that facts from that period were concealed as biographers, in years to come, relied primarily on Mr. Gandhi's own writings rather than independent research. The author provides a lifeline for Gandhi and a select bibliography as appendices. The book also comes with three unusual caricatures of Gandhi: "Dawn of the New Gandhi," "The Hindu Face of Gandhi the Avatar," and "The Christian Face of Saint Gandhi.""
5. Volin, Katie (2005-01-02). "Gandhi as a racist doesn't add up". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Although changing people's notions of history can be done, it would take a strong argument to convince many people that Gandhi was racist. Establishing the book's incendiary premise becomes the Achilles heel of G.B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. ... Singh's failure to first define racism and second to demonstrate how Gandhi's behavior with regard to other races was socially aberrant in his lifetime weakens the author's argument irreparably. It is rather difficult to market one's book as a scholarly work if basic definitions and sociological conditions are not even given mention."
6. Xavier, William (October 2004). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reviewer's Bookwatch. Midwest Book Review. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The review notes: "The mud slung at Gandhi by G.B.Singh only adds to the greatness of the Mahatma. (Mahatma means large minded)."
7. Less significant coverage:
  1. "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reference and Research Book News. Vol. 19, no. 4. Copyright Clearance Center. November 2004. ProQuest 199666401.
    The review provides 78 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "A career military officer and student of Indian politics, Hinduism, and Gandhi, Singh tries to make some sense of the widely divergent images of the Indian leader by various interests appropriating him for their cause"
  2. Sudeep, Theres (2021-08-17). "Rediscover Gandhi this weekend". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable and in-depth published reviews (possibly as many as six) is enough for WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They are not really "reviews". The book absolutely does not meet WP:NBOOK, let alone WP:GNG. There is a big difference between advertorials and reviews. The sources mentioned above are either advertorials or fact-check. Orientls (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are they not reviews/commentary? It doesn't matter if they're strictly delineated "reviews", provided they are significant coverage on the book. There is no evidence they are advertisements and fact-checking a book in a commentary manner would be significant coverage, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at them they are reviews. Why wouldn't they be? What do you consider a review? This is very far over both NBOOK and GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Book review cited in the article and this [49], should be enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reviews from the relevant academics make it an easy case for deletion. Capitals00 (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria nor Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline require "reviews from the relevant academics". Cunard (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage from academics... isn't a notability criterion..... PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ to delete is going to emerge here. A potential merger doesn't require an additional relist. Star Mississippi 03:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VanGrunsven RV-2

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

Fails GNG, no mention in RS besides passing ones. Is not individually notable beyond its series. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, Technology, Aviation, and United States of America. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the EAA video cited in the article has the interviewer ask the designer specifically about this design, and they discuss it in more than passing. The video from Van's about the restoration of another design which uses part of this design is also more than a passing reference, but since it's from the company themselves, it's not truly independent of the subject. In a case like this, where we have a series of 13 out of 14 closely-related articles that are all patently notable, and 1 out of 14 that's iffy, I think it makes sense to WP:IAR if we don't have the magic three sources.

[edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator[50] is one of the worst examples of biting I can recall seeing. And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When did U5-tagging an unsourced autobiography that promotes the author's resume become "biting"? Are we so scared of scaring off newbies that we allow whatever promotion and spam they insert? Has the blame shifted from spammers and COIS to the new page patrollers and admins who work the speedy deletion process? Air on White (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to read over this section of the behavioural guideline and reflect a little. With behavioural guidelines, it's less about what you did, and how you did it. I completely believe that you acted in 100% good faith here, but the outcome was still a bad one for the newbie and for the project. I've done patrolling in the past, and I know what a grind it can be (and how valuable it is to the encyclopedia). But if sustaining that fight is taking its toll and leading to actions like this, it might be time for a rest for a while and work on writing about something that brings you joy and recharges you. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you concretely explain what I did wrong? How is this case is different from normal? Are you yourself aware of your patronizing, judgmental tone? Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm very happy to dive into this in detail with you; but I'll take it to your talk page. I apologise if you don't like my tone; it's not my intention to come across that way. That said, there's a profound difference between two highly experienced editors communicating in a forum like this vs how a highly experienced editor with tools permissions treated a well-meaning newbie. I would additionally suggest however, that both your responses here confirm my impression that time on the front line might be taking a toll. More shortly in a different place.--Rlandmann (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to promote anything. I am content with my employment (i.e. not looking to get into anything else) and my company makes business-to-business products (i.e. it's not like a Wikipedia reader is going to decide to buy a cargo jet after reading that I work on them). I thought that writing about myself would (A) establish that I'm knowledgeable about my field (including awareness about good public sources to get relevant details from) and (B) show that I'm trying to be honest and to do things in good faith since I'm tying my actions on Wikipedia to my real name and career, not an anonymous pseudonym. But, ok, if there is no advantage to being a real expert rather than a random anonymous stranger on the internet, I can create a pseudonymous screen name instead and use that (other than for uploading images, which I do intend to retain ownership of). Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the actual argument of the keep post. Interviews do not always contribute to notability. The Van's video most definitely does not count as a source as it is not independent at all - all company videos can be assumed to be promotional sources that do not undergo the rigorous fact-checking of RS. It provides 0 sources toward the "magic three." The only other source is the EAA video. Can you provide the timestamp of the interview where the RV-2 is mentioned? It is also equivalent to a serious, reliable documentary? At best, it is 1 source. No amount of invalid sources adds up to notability—0+0+0+...+0 = 0. This keep case stretches and twists policy—the independence of sources and the threshold of GNG—to shoehorn a topic of supposedly inherited notability into Wikipedia. Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, just verifying my own understanding here: when you opened this AfD and asserted that there were "no mention in RS besides passing ones", you had not actually viewed the sources? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now~~ Comment. This article has only been here a few days. I think it's too early to judge what RS might or might not be out there. By all means tag it as short on RS, but deletion is premature. Having said that, Van's Aircraft's own puff about its planes starts with the RV-3, so seeking sufficient RS to support this article could be a fool's errand. Or maybe merging into Van's Aircraft will prove a good middle way. I'd suggest we revisit this in a month or so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Update] See comment below following relisting, now that some of that time has passed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia and I obviously can't claim to understand the rules and the culture thoroughly. If you guys decide that the article should be deleted, then, that's fine, do what you think is best.

FWIW, my rationale for creating the article was the following: Van's Aircraft is far and away the world leader in experimental airplanes, with over 11000 airplanes flying and countless others being built. When people in the aviation world first learn about Van's - or maybe after investigating RV airplanes for a while - the question naturally comes up: If it's so easy to find out about the RV-1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, then... What about the RV-2, 5, and 11? Now, again, I'm not 100% sure that Wikipedia is the place for (at least a very summarized version of) the answer, but... Firstly: Wikipedia already had an article for the RV-11 (which made it a little further in its construction but was also unfinished). And secondly: Wikipedia has countless articles about concept aircraft that never made it into the air, included in the encyclopedia because they're part of a series where people often wonder about missing numbers (The X-6 and X-54 didn't make it very far at all, and the X-33 and X-57 were cancelled after substantial prototyping and subsystems tests but before completion of the final vehicle), or because the development project was large and/or resulted in relevant technologies or partnerships or R&D later used for other things (National AeroSpace Plane, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, High Speed Civil Transport, Aerion SBJ and AS2...). So I figured, if all those X planes and supersonic transports that never made it off the drawing board all warrant Wikipedia articles (and the RV-11 apparently does too), then the RV-2 probably does too.

But, again, I'm new here, and if my reasoning goes against how you guys think Wikipedia should be run, then, do whatever you think is best. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short: The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability states, under "Projects and studies", that such aircraft "are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project (...) is a significant project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft". It seems to me that the RV-2 and its article meet this criterion. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad to see you back! I was really worried that we might have scared you off.

Note that that guideline is an unofficial one and does not trump the General Notability Guidelines. (It's also ancient and reflects Wikipedia practices from 10-15 years ago, so needs to be brought into line with current practice...) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the !votes thus far all favor keep, their arguments call for (reasoned) exceptions to policy/guidelines rather than basing themselves on it, so a relist to allow for further discussion seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of order, my "Keep for now" is based on Articles for deletion where it says; "Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article by conducting additional research." (my bold). I am pointing out above that those attempts need time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I endorse User:Rosguill's summary of the situation. And, after further research and further discussion with the contributor, I'll add that it seems really unlikely that further RS will be forthcoming anytime soon. Based on the sources that we do have, then at worst, this material should be merged elsewhere. However, there's no clear, logical place to do that. In other, similar situations, we merge information about minor aircraft projects (particularly unbuilt or unfinished ones) into the article on a related design. However, in this case, this was a stand-alone design that isn't related to anything else that Richard VanGrunsven designed or built. Which means that his bio is the most obvious destination if we were to do a merge, but would create serious undue weight there. So yes, if we do decide to keep this information in a separate article, it is as an exception, and one based purely on information architecture, not on the Notability of this design per se. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bio. Thank you for your additional research. I don't think your suggested merge to his bio would be unduly undue, as it were. There are several paras about his planes there and the meat of this one is really quite small. Alternatively, since the canopy was used for the VanGrunsven RV-5, it might be merged there, but I agree that is not very satisfactory. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [add clear !vote — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)][reply]

Merge (selectively) into Van's Aircraft#RV aircraft series as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a well-developed article. gidonb (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging everyone who wanted this merged: Rlandmann and Steelpillow. Best, gidonb (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:gidonb -- the problem here is that the RV-2 and RV-11 are not Van's Aircraft designs or products, and should be removed from that list ASAP. (I've left them there for now pending this discussion) Note how they're missing from the timeline graphic immediately below. Creating a similar list of all Richard VanGrunsven's designs in his bio would be one merge that could work and still avoid unduly unbalancing that article. I'd hate to lose the images of the RV-2 and RV-11 now that we have them though, and also don't want to dominate VanGrunsven's bio with a table of all his designs and pictures. If the outcome of this process is merge, maybe we should create a separate list article for all VanGrunsven's designs, with an image of each. I think that would cover all the concerns that have come up in this discussion. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as the best way forward, given Rlandmann's input. gidonb (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Salant

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

WP:MILL journalist, does not fulfill WP:NJOURNALIST criteria. Broc (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Broc (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage of her books to pass AUTHOR [51], [52], [53] Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets the notability criteria for authors. The information is well-sourced and relevant to our readers. I vote to keep it. Waqar💬 16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iwaqarhashmi please look at WP:!VOTE, AfD discussions are not polls. Broc (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Sources provided by Oaktree b above are sufficient to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Sal2100 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sal2100 Per WP:NAUTHOR The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. So far I see one independent review posted by Oaktree b, and there is one extremely short blurb in Publisher's Weekly as mentioned below. No other independent reviews have been found, so I wonder how you think the criterion is fulfilled? Broc (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changing from previous !vote after re-evaluation based on Broc's comments immediately above. Sal2100 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My main concerns are 1) that there are no independent sources and 2) I cannot find any sources for the awards. The Houston Chronicle source on the last one does not verify that award. One book got a review in Publishers' Weekly but that isn't really enough. Lamona (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b pointed out some additional coverage above, of which one is an independent review in a published source. The other two are coverage of her books in newspapers for which she writes/wrote. Two reviews for a book are in my opinion far from sufficient to fulfill WP:NAUTHOR. Broc (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more enthused if those reviews were in major publications. The Gadsden Times and Sarasota Herald-Tribune don't impress me. And the Lodi review says: "...I have never encountered a book as hard to read as this one" and goes on to pan the book in other aspects. So, no, I don't think these sources are sufficient. And may I say that there is nothing in the policies that says: any 2 reviews = author notability. First, reviews can be negative, so we should read them and not just count them. Then, there is a matter of IMPORT. The actual policy criteria at WP:AUTHOR are pretty intense - but they come down to the question of whether the person has made a significant contribution to a field of study or an area of art, and whether there is evidence that the contribution is recognized by peers. Writing two books on how to buy and sell property - books that do not appear to have gotten national attention - doesn't rise to that level, IMO. Lamona (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The delete arguments do seem a bit stronger based on Wikipedia policy, but a clearer consensus might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and keep improving per WP:HEY. Easily meets WP:BASIC and likely even WP:GNG per the sources provided by Oaktree b. Katherine Salant is a nationally syndicated journalist, so one could argue that she satisfies WP:JOURNALIST by definition (in any case, she is far from WP:MILL). But even if you don't buy that argument, the book reviews and feature articles about her are more than enough and seem balanced (and largely positive about Salant's analysis, even though most reviewers disliked the typeset and book design) – e.g., Chicago Tribune review which calls her advice "absolutely sound" with useful tips for averting home-building disasters;; the Robert Bruss review in the Orlando Sentinel titled "DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER -- THE CONTENTS ARE SUPERB"; and the Ottawa Citizen review, "Information gems: New advice book successfully crosses border, makes good sense to Canadians looking for a new house" – which have all been added to the article now. Pinging Sal2100 for possible reconsideration. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Keep, thanks Cielquiparle for the good work. Broc (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Cartwright (poker player)

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Only notable for a single event, so WP:BIO1E applies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; an unremarkable professional poker player who has not been the subject of substantial press coverage other than routine coverage of tournaments he placed in. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trotskyist International Liaison Committee

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

This is yet another obscure Trotskyist international with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the two currently cited sources, one is from the organisation's own successor's publication; the other is Robert Alexander's book, which only mentions the TILC briefly in passing, in a section about the Revolutionary Workers League. A search on Google Scholar yields only two results: a mirror of a Swedish Wikipedia page, and a Czech PhD thesis, which only references it once it in a long list of Trotskyist internationals.[54]

As this doesn't appear to meet our guidelines on the notability of organizations, I recommend this article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Yue🌙 01:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sepiol

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep World Championship win + bracelet win should merit inclusion. Now satisfactory backed up. PsychoticIncall (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PsychoticIncall: As I've asked in other AFDs, please read and understand WP:SIRS and then list WP:THREE references you feel are SIRS. WP:BURDEN is on you to prove notability, not just assert it through non-policy means (which is what you are attempting). - UtherSRG (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again - the sources are all there backing up the main statement probably even more obvious than ever before (Las Vegas Review Journal isn't just providing routine match reports). PsychoticIncall (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete sourcing depth just isn't there for a biography IMO. It might just scoot over WP:N, but I really don't think we have enough for a biography. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of the current sources, the only one I'd say meets the WP:GNG (marginally) is the first one from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which does delve into a significant event. The remaining sources are of the routine coverage variety with little in the way of actual in-depth coverage needed to meet notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Earth Island Institute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brower Youth Awards

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

No WP:SIGCOV about the awards themselves to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Environment, and North America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on this process but it seems that even a quick online search yields entire news articles about the awards and winners. Just a few I found in 5 minutes:

What's the process where it's like this article just needs more citations demonstrating WP:SIGCOV?

208.58.205.67 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@208.58.205.56 I am not sure, personally I have no interest in fixing the article Mr Vili talk 06:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of the recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a response to @208.58.205.56, The Nation looks like a reliable source and is green on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list and there is no consensus for The Mercury News and Grist.com. However those three articles are about winners of the award, not significant coverage about the award itself. There are other sources such as Yale University ([[[55]]]), University of New Hampshire ([[[56]]]), and Institute of Competition Sciences ([[[57]]]), that discuss the background of the award. I think this at least merits to be kept as a stub and/or a list.Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Earth Island Institute - The problem with the Yale, University of New Hampshire and Institute of Competition Sciences pages are that these are all non independent/primary links for people wanting to apply for the award. What I am not seeing is any source that demonstrates this award is notable, by which some secondary source talks about it as a thing in itself, and not as "our student won" or "this is how to apply". It is not a huge award, but it is an award of Earth Island Institute whose notability is indicated in having a page. That page has one line on these awards that could be expanded with one of Prof.PMarini's sources to describe the award (information that is not clearly on the page, so not a merge), and that is then all we really need. Rather than keeping this as a stub, per Prof.PMarini, we can keep that information where it sits in the context of the institute's work. The redirect preserves page history should this become notable by secondary sources taking notice, and the long list of winners can go because Wikipedia is not a database (WP:NOT), and this is all unsourced and outdated. There are 5 years missing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Earth Island Institute. The program seems fairly well-established and is a reasonable search term. However, the sources mentioned here and in the article itself each mostly focus on a single winner as a local human-interest story; sources that cover all of the winners of an award would be significant coverage of the event as opposed to the person, but that doesn't seem to be available here. The sources that don't fall into this category are just listings of scholarship information that seem more like database entries. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. in light of new sources located. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Engineering

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2017. Nothing to support notability was found in a BEFORE. Checking the other languages pages, several of them have 0 citations. The ones that did, they are not independent/in depth enough for notability support. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Architecture, Science, Engineering, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Various sites to stream the show, a Fandom wiki and mentions of extremes in engineering unrelated to the TV show are about all I can find for sourcing. Rotten Tomatoes has no reviews, nothing... I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Strauss, Gary (2007-08-14). "He engineered himself a job - 'Build It Bigger' host loves his Discovery gig". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The article notes: "Forster, an architect and erstwhile stand-up comic with no TV experience, sent a three-minute audition tape that led to his hiring last year on Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering, a series that became this season's Build It Bigger (tonight, 10 ET/PT). Bigger kicked off the first of 14 episodes in July, with Forster checking out the engineering behind roller coasters. He also has traveled to sites ranging from an Alabama plant that refurbishes Abrams battle tanks to the 100-story-plus World Financial Center, one of the world's tallest buildings, under construction in Shanghai."
2. Ashby, Emily (2023-06-19). "Parents' Guide to Build It Bigger". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The review notes: "That said, the show lacks any special pizzazz, so it probably won't be a must-watch for most kids. But tweens and teens with an interest in engineering or heavy machinery may be intrigued to watch their practical application in the real world. As for content, it's all fairly benign, but keep an ear out for some (bleeped) strong language and plenty of talk about the life-threatening hazards that accompany work on jobs like these."
3. Filucci, Sierra (2022-10-13). "Parents' Guide to Extreme Engineering". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The review notes: "Though Forster attempts to build excitement through each project's many steps, some episodes are less interesting than others. For example, one that detailed an extremely complicated Swedish project called the Hallandsas Ridge Tunnel is dull despite the narrator's enthusiasm and the pre-commercial break cliffhangers (what will happen after the dynamite blast to that wall?!)."
4. Johnson, Eric (2004-07-28). "Long Beach Port Called Extreme - Television: Discovery Channel Airing Documentary on Our Seaport tonight.long Beach Port Called Extreme - Television: Discovery Channel Airing Documentary on Our Seaport Tonight". Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The article notes: "The Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering series chronicles engineering feats on a massive scale. Things don't get much more massive or extreme than at the Port of Long Beach, which is why a filming crew for the channel spent a week in March documenting an average day at one of the world's busiest ports. ... Other shows in the Extreme Engineering series document construction of the new Bay Bridge in San Francisco and the "turning torso" building in Denmark, which resembles a male figure turning at the waist."
5. Bellman, Annmaree (2004-11-18). "Pay TV - Thursday". The Age. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The review notes: "This episode of the engaging series follows the week of one crew and their bosses, from high-rise dangers to nights on the town. The engineering is amazing, the building rising due to a massive automated structure that hauls itself up each completed floor to provide the basis for the next. It's the 21-man crew that makes it happen, though, and in frigid temperatures and strong winds. The narrator plays the "descendants of Vikings" card too often, but it's a great look at extreme building and its practitioners."
6. Del Gandio, Jason (2014). "Performing Nonhuman Liberation: How the ALF and ELF Rupture the Political Imagination". In Besel, Richard D.; Blau, Jnan A. (eds.). Performance on Behalf of the Environment. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-7391-7498-2. Retrieved 2024-06-14 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Discovery also airs Build it Bigger, a show that depicts massive, breathtaking feats of engineering. This show—as a discursive phenomenon—subtly contributes to the masculine, patriarchal, and even quasi-imperialistic practices of "bigger is better" and "expansion is progress." It also ignores issues of population displacement and the extinction of indigenous practices and knowledges caused by urban sprawl."
7. Jergler, Don (2004-07-15). "Digest: Cable Show to Highlight Port of L.B." Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The article notes: "Discovery's Extreme Engineering series is produced by Powderhouse Productions of Somerville, Mass. Production crews filmed at the Total Terminals International container terminal on Terminal Island, a 375-acre facility that is the Port's largest shipping terminal, and one of the largest such facilities in the world."

reliable sources

Extreme Engineering

Build It Bigger

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline

reliable sources

independent

Cunard (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sources presented above show it's notable enough and, according to Wikipedia's policy on notability, the page can be retained. Thanks, Cunard. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have other opinions on this newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I am convinced the new sources are enough for notability. 'WITHDRAW' DonaldD23 talk to me 21:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was closed due to the nominator's withdrawal of their nomination. I have reverted this closure due to the earlier "Delete" vote which has to be considered in a closure. This is especially true, I believe as it comes from one of our regular AFD participants. Any closer is free to close this discussion on the basis of assessing the content of the entire discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Cooper

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

I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c (Researcher in security studies)‏". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [58] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:

with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy, the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance
with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.
2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.

...and so on. My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this diff and presented by user Ceyockey. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cooper probably passes PROF (several articles having GS cites > 100, h = 18), but he is clearly in the analyst/policy field, which is somewhat outside the academic world that PROF covers. What I think has been missed here is that there are several WP articles that have non-trivial reference (i.e. links) to this page. The article was also created by an editor who seems to be expert in the spheres of policy/diplomacy and who has created numerous BIOs of people in this area. In this sense, the subject is clearly notable. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in lieu of closing this as "No consensus". As one editor stated, this is borderline, with different editors assessing PROF contributions differently so we need to move the needle one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't believe this person is significant enough to have an article EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your reasons? See the note on your talk page by Liz. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The delete !votes further up are heavily focused on evaluation per PROF, but, as I said above, foreign policy and/or govt/ngo analysts do not fit neatly under this heading. Much of their work is not circulated publicly like academic work, so tends not to have the same citation statistics, and may even be classified in certain instances. Most of these folks would not be notable under PROF, though Cooper arguably is. Here, I think further weight should be put on the article creator's record as an expert in this area, the high-level positions this person has held at DoD etal, and the fact that in several other WP articles in this space refer to him by name. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I am 128.252.210.1 above. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an interesting policy question. We have policies for WP:ANYBIO, which requires evidence that the person has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". It isn't clear to me how we would determine that. Assuming that we don't look at this as a WP:NPROF then we have WP:AUTHOR. That has "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and then "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique...". Unfortunately it doesn't say how we determine that the person has had the requisite impact on their field. One way is to look for citations, another would be awards. The only other way to determine this, AFAIK, would be if there are articles about the person in reliable sources that make this case. With this person, what evidence do we have to make this determination? Lamona (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as someone who can make a prima facie claim to being regarded as an important figure and/or has published impactful publications. Also it's good the article doesn't suffer too badly from hype language. Trying to measure impact by citation count, asking whether co-publications count the same, etc., runs the risk of driving the discussion into a kind of pseudo-empiricism that masks the larger question of whether he has enough notable real-world activity that the encyclopedia benefits from having verifiable information about him. I'd rather this close as keep than no consensus, as NC tends to invite do-overs and the way forward will be no more clear nxzt time (unless he gets a named chair or something)Oblivy (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

Sorted by State

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