Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

WP:AFD/USA

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

General

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 people in Playboy 2000–2009#2007. ✗plicit 11:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Rene Smith

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

Biography for a non-notable playmate model. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of people in Playboy 2000–2009#2007. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2022 (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!} 06:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lima: Breaking the Silence

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found nothing during a WP:BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some significant sources are provided in previous AFD. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources reviews found in the first AFD as shown in this comment from the AfD: "There are a couple reviews in the Spanish article that seem noteworthy: the El Comercio (Peru) review and the rayray.utero.pe review. The book source has a couple paragraphs about the film. cinencuentro.com looks like it could be reliable though it seems to be a niche website. The German article has this Film Dienst source with a "long review" hidden behind a paywall. Other than that, the New Video source looks like minor/routine coverage. Overall, the amount of coverage is somewhat underwhelming for an American film released in 1999, but I think it might be just enough to meet WP:NFILM guidelines. I think I would support either keeping the article or merging some of it to the director's article, Menahem Golan. Mz7 (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC) , imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, due to sources pointed by Mz7 from previous AfD, including reviews in Spanish.Fulmard (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2022 (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~~. This is without prejudice to the possibility of a merger, which is a normal editorial action that can be taken following a discussion on an article talk page, or under WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion and reflection, I consider it appropriate to amend this closure to no consensus on the grounds of poorer quality of argument on the keep side. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Flag

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

I prodded this a while ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". User:Toughpigs deprodded ith and expanded, with the edit summary "added more information from independent reliable sources". Unfortunately, the article is still limited to just a plot summary and publication history and contains zero indication why the subject meets WP:GNG. The linked sources I checked don't seem to go beyond said plot summary and list of works he appeared in, and I am afraid that's too little to meet GNG (as well as WP:SIGCOV). Side note to people new to the topic area: a lot of "comic book encyclopedias" are illustrated plot summaries, not written by scholars but by fans, and are in-universe, and/or much closer to illustrated books for young readers/fans or graphic novels than encyclopedias. So the argument "notable because he is mentioned in another encyclopedia" is not going to be very helpful here, I am afraid. The Encyclopedia of Golden Age Superheroes is not an academic work but a fan Kickstarter project... and while I couldn't access the print version, I think it just reproduces the contents found on the author's website: [4]/[5], and I think this is representative of the coverage of this super niche character in general (no analysis anywhere, just plot summary and least of appearances, sorry if I sound like a broken record). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, no valid deletion criterea given, "Jess Nevins doesn't count" is policy made up upon the fly. 2601:602:8B00:F750:3C89:5F1:D831:E4B4 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is quite a bit about the real-world publication history, backed up by a three-page long section in Lou Mougin's Secondary Superheroes of the Golden Age, a non-fiction work published by McFarland. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of non-plot, non-publication history is in that book? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See for yourself. The relevant parts are from the end of page 132 to the beginning of 134, so it's only two pages at most. It's just some storylines. Avilich (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich Thank you. As I suspected, there is ZERO critical, literary analysis of this character. Wikipedia is not Fandom, that's why we have GNG policy - we require more than just a rehashing of the plot, we need something showing this has been considered significant, notable, etc. Why so many people fail to understand this is beyond me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Notable superhero as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect No indication, in the form of sources or a reception section, that this character has had any significant impact outside of his own universe, as mandated by WP:IINFO#1 and WP:WAF. The source provided above doesn't give anything relevant, and, like the nominator, I failed to find anything that could qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator has attempted to dismiss the cited sources but I disgaree with their reasoning. A published book doesn't have to be written by scholars to count towards establishing notability. It would be good to hear from Toughpigs who may be able to offer more insight into the sources they cited. NemesisAT (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT Works by non-scholars are fine, but we need something that goes beyond a pure plot summary and/or publication history. IMHO at least a few sentences of analysis, sth like "Captain Flag exemplifies middle-of-century nationalism" or like is necessary for the topic to merit an encyclopedic article (which is what makes it different from an entry on a fan wiki, where in-universe information is sufficient). Or do you disagree with that? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel particularly strongly about it either way though as we don't have access to the sources cited, I'm happy to assume they do have the coverage required. NemesisAT (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody made such assertion - further, the editors like Toughpigs who expanded the article know how important such content would be and I have trouble believing they would not include it if they found it. Which leads us to WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do have access to the source cited (see above), and it has been shown that the WP:WAF-compliant coverage is nonexistent. Avilich (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The character is already covered here https://archiecomics.fandom.com/wiki/Captain_Flag. If anybody is genuinely interested in preserving the information, that is probably a better place to start than an encyclopedia which explicitly mandates that articles on fictional topics not be limited to in-universe details. Avilich (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 5.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the argument that the information is available elsewhere so we don't need it could be applied to everything in Wikipedia. People are interested in who illustrated these comic-hero strips, what other series were being produced at the same time, that sort of background information, which is indeed in the article, and referenced. We do not need erudite professorial secondary sources to prove notability; we just need to prove that people independent of the source are publishing reasonably meaningful material. We don't expect reviews of Bollywood films to contain analysis about their exemplification of 2020's political thought, and nor should we require this of 1940's entertainment-fiction. Elemimele (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For notability to be demonstrated, sources are needed to prove that this topic has received MOS:REALWORLD coverage. Publication history and plot info are trivial stuff that all fictional topics have, and so aren't enough on their own (WP:PLOT). As far as I can see, the current sourcing does not have any of this. Benton 1992 appears to have little more than passing mentions, and Mougin 2020 is basically only plot information and publication history. Markstein's Toonopedia is a deadlink but presumably just the same, and the rest seem to have only plot summaries as well. Avilich (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets WP:N with sources discussed in DRV. Arguments that WP:PLOT and MOS:REALWORLD apply as part of our inclusion guidelines are a stretch. We meet the notability guidelines and it's possible to write a short article that meets the MOS with what we have. Hobit (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sourcing exists to meet GNG, and, per Hobit, I note that the arguments put forth in the DRV, that independent RS'es which wouldn't align with our fiction MOS'es if they were Wikipedia content are inherently incapable of contributing to notability, entirely wrongheaded. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently sourced article to meet the notability criteria. Dimadick (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Okay, in my opinion articles about fictional topics should contain more than a summary of the plot. Notability means importance. What makes this topic important? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stopping by and cutting straight to the chase. That's the very crucial point that many people here seem to be ignoring. Yes, we can source the plot with some "secondary" picture books. That doesn't mean the topic is notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sourcing to meet MOS criteria. WP:PLOT, perhaps ironically, does not actually mention plot. It did at one time, but that did not prevail. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the real world information to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes. The sources in the article prove existence, but nothing more. Tellingly, there's a citation from American Comic Book Chronicles: 1965-1969, when the character was revived for one issue. I checked ACBC: 1940-1944 last night, which covered the time period where the character would have been most notable, and "Captain Flag" was not mentioned. Captain Flag was not mentioned in The Ten-Cent War, a book focused exclusively on WWII-era, WWII-themed comic books, nor in The Superhero Symbol, which has a chapter or two on the use of patriotic heroes. The average page views from 11/1/21 thru 12/31/21 was 7 per day, so it's a valid search term and I believe it's worth preserving the creators and debut issue somewhere. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not be opposed to a redirect or merge either, and amended my vote accordingly. Avilich (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He added another "g" to his name, wore a regular uniform (or uniforms), got promoted and served in the Korean War. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this another week post DRV so we don't end up back at DRV. Fictional characters are a complicated mess. Can we send them all to schools where they can earn Olympic medals at a place that may not be geographically recognized?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes per Argento Surfer. While the character is mentioned in some sources, none of those sources actually constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Several sources have been added to the article since the AFD started, but none of them appear to actually be significant coverage, and several of them are on a completely different character and don't even mention Captain Flag, so I'm not even sure why they were added. Rorshacma (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the sources are poor, but others have a page+ of material. We don't delete (or merge) because some of the sourcing is poor. In this case, we've identified sources that do cover the topic in depth. The only real debate at this point is if sources that are mostly (but not entirely) about plot are useful toward the GNG. It's a fairly novel argument to claim that they aren't, but I'm really not seeing any debate about having sources that spend significant ink covering the topic. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently sourced article to meet the notability criteria. I agree with Dimadick. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes, as per Argento Surfer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of the sources, they all are either indiscriminate collections of information, explicitly describe Captain Flag as "obscure" and "secondary", don't mention them at all, or are unarchived and therefore inaccessible. If Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, then why are we sourcing from indiscriminate collections of information? It just doesn't make much sense. casualdejekyll 20:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability on Wikipedia is a term of art that indicates if the WP:GNG or appropriate WP:SNG is met. Lots of detailed sources that call something "obscure" or "secondary" are better than a handful of sources that say "important" or "primary". Hobit (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  My argument here is based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is an explicit exception to GNG, and I quote: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." (Emphasis mine.) casualdejekyll 22:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Still the same problem as I see it. What makes this "indiscriminate"? The fact that some sources have used the term "obscure"? See WP:NOTPAPER. This isn't a database or something else that WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists. I'm not sure how your !vote isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The key is we have sources. That you don't consider the issue of import isn't very relevant. Even if the sources consider it minor, that's not something our inclusion guidelines really care about. Hobit (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  So, we're not allowed to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but we're allowed to build an article based almost entirely off of sources that ARE Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE (the only exception as far as I'm aware being ref 4). That's what you're saying here, at least. Note that as far as I can tell, all sources are simply just "Summary-only descriptions of works" (quote from, who would have guessed, Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE). If the only thing you can source is a summary-only description of the work, then how are you supposed to cite any statement that isn't a summary only description of the work? casualdejekyll 00:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  They really aren't. They include publication dates, authors and other things. The article, as it stands, is short, but covers lots of non-plot things. So can an article be written with our sources that isn't struggling with being pure plot? Yes, we have one. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Lots of non-plot things? Please name them. The only non-plot coverage we have is publication history, which is simply verifying the existence of the topic in the real world. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Yes the two paragraphs we have in publication history and the two paragraphs that form the lead are all non-plot. That's more than enough for a reasonable article. People claiming that the sources we have can't support anything other than plot are shown to be wrong by the existent article. Hobit (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I believe what Piotrus is asking for when he says "non-plot things" would include reviews of the material, analysis of the character's impact on other heroes, the relationship between this material and the creator's other works, or something notable from the publication history that's unique (or close to it). Since the publication date and creators can be sourced from the comic book, sourcing them from third party sources doesn't add anything to the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Argento Surfer Indeed. It's also common sense that any plot summary can be pointlessly padded with information about publication history in real world of the work it appeared in. That, however, doesn't make that work notable - it's just a WP:CATALOGUE-type of addition. Notability has to be shown through sources that treat the subject as important enough to discuss beyond a pure catalogue-like mention. Which is why the relevant policy is called WP:NOTABILITY not WP:EXISTENCE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Archie Comics. Maybe make a new section and title it "Miscellaneous Superheroes"? Fix it up a little, and rephrase the information in ways that are varied from the sources of information. I don't recommend removing information simply because it is obscure, but if it has any value. If the aforementioned "Captain Flag" article is not relevant to the comic publishers history, or doesn't contribute any worthwhile information, then I agree that you should delete it. However, obscure information has just as much place on this site as not obscure information because who is to say that it is any less useful than the most commonly known information out there? I advise that we stay wary and don't jump the gun when an article doesn't have popular information. GoofyDonut (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes as there is not enough to indicate notability of this fictional character separate from the larger cast of Archie Comics characters. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Captain Flag is listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica along with others. [6] Just the name, nothing else about him. Newspapers.com shows results to sort through at [7] but apparently my account expired. I just went to the Wikipedia Library page [8] and clicked the button to request to "extend" it. Anyway, from the sources already found, I say notability is already proven. If anyone has a working account to a newspaper search site, you can surely find more. Dream Focus 17:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you found one trivial mention, sources which you are not willing to look and are not even sure exist, and no rebuttal to the argument that the article fails the relevant NOT policy concerning fictional topics (which in turn invalidates notability altogether)? Avilich (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too am doubtful that a passing mention in Britannica and a search result (which may or may not be related to the character) could address the concerns discussed above. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment made by Hobit is a rebuttal to your argument. No need to just repeat what others have said. And I said the existing sources found and mentioned by others was enough to convince me, I just pointing to where even more things can be found should any have access. Some of the summaries that appear from search results for "Captain Flag" and "comic" are about the character. Dream Focus 22:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Piotr's counterpoint above. Which of the sources do you think provides the in-depth coverage required to meet WP:GNG? MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing is adequate to establish notability. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 01:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ulas Hayes

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

I was asked to review this article on behalf of CRM by 28bytes; after a thorough review of available online sources (including newspapers and books during the time period of Hayes’ life) I have been unable to turn up anything beyond quotes from Hayes and a few passing mentions in regional newspapers. Therefore, this article subject does not appear notable per our standards, and unfortunately appears unable to be retained on this site. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After quite a bit of searching, I've reached pretty much the same conclusion as the nominator. Wading through Newspapers.com, Google Books, etc. finds nothing that qualifies as the sort of significant coverage needed to establish notability. Mid-to-late-20th-century American history and politics is a field that tends to be well represented in these databases, so I'm fairly sure that this isn't a case where offline sources would make the difference. Although I'm certainly glad to reëvaluate if additional sourcing comes along, I think the Rev. Dr. Hayes is an example of a person who made a difference in the lives of those around him but who nonetheless hasn't attracted the coverage needed to satisfy our notability guidelines. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article makes no particular claim to notability (despite overcoming overwhelming odds against success) and I can find nothing about him, even in Proquest's historical newspapers. Clearly, this lacks substantial independent coverage in secondary sources. FalconK (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2022 (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 topic is notable, meeting GNG (not unanimously) and NBOX (unanimously). However, by strength of argument, BLPSOURCES is not met, HEYMANN has not occurred, and therefore according to cited BLP "#Proposed deletion of biographies of living people" applies as an expired PROD. As the topic is demonstrably notable, it can and should be re-created with suitable reliable sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Oliveira

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

I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that significantly discuss the subject. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results, some of them about other people with the same name. ... discospinster _talk 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and is currently unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep aside from the WBU title fight he fought for two legimate version of the world title which means he will have been in the Top 10 of each body at that time which means he will have passed the criteria. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of editor want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree he meets WP:NBOX, but my search didn't find convincing evidence that he meets WP:GNG and the article has no references at all. Meeting an SNG creates a presumption, but not a guarantee, of notability. WP:NSPORT says "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline." A similar discussion recently came up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Dias (mixed martial artist) that resulted in the article about a fighter who met the SNG being deleted. I didn't vote yet in order to give those wanting to keep this article a chance to garner some sources. If I were to vote based on the current article's condition, I would vote to delete it. Papaursa (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there appears to be mountains of material about him if you google him.--Donniediamond (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source. Could you provide a couple of others in the "mountains of material about him" you say are out there. My search found the one you highlighted, but mainly lots of routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. Coverage includes [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and there's plenty more. For those editors stating that he 'fails GNG', where exactly did you look? --Michig (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Most of those (ESPN, TSS, WBN, Guardian, BBC, Manchester Eve News, Eurosport) are reports about fights or upcoming fights. While they include some background about the participants, it's not significant coverage of the individual. ... discospinster _talk 20:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. --Michig (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional "Keep otherwise Delete: While there are sources "out there", that I think can satisfy the notability criteria, this 2008 unsourced article wades deep into failing WP:BLP and would qualify for a lot of content removal leaving a pseudo biography. It was tagged as having no references or sources so does not satisfy WP:BLPSOURCES (also referred to as "WP:CHALLENGE" and "WP:BURDEN") that states: WP:Verifiability, states that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation}}, that is also reflected in the lead. The sources provided by {{noping|Michig]] indicate there is notability, to pass GNG and I imagine SPORTSPERSON. Being a BLP the issues above is generally satisfied by someone adding the provided references (as inline citations) that we call a HEYMANN. Some have argued that "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article" but BLP's are very clearly not included. If everyone is too busy I will justifiably wish this be counted as Delete. Also, multiple sources (added inline) that might not provide proof alone, can satisfy the sourcing requirements. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Koded

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

Promotional article on a non notable singer who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns back hits in vendor websites, user generated sources, self published sources and a plethora of other unreliable sources without an editorial oversight. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking SIGCOV.--Chuka Chief_talk 15:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO/WP:SINGER as not subject of significant coverage/significant works. Such-change47 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2022 (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 23:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Ishbia

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

Lack of independent, reliable and significant coverage. Pure reference bombing. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability. A quick Google search couldn't find anything. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 16 January 2022 (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. Tone 09:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucra Cars

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

Non notable company that fails to meet WP:NCOMPANY, as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. WP:SIRS isn’t applicable, there is no WP:ORGDEPTH, a before search shows me no cogent sources, I see predominantly user generated sources, vendor sources, self published sources and a few press releases all of which we do no consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:PROMO. Nothing about this company anywhere outside of trade press. FalconK (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DTV Innovations

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

Very PROMO, does not meet WP:NCORP with no significant in-depth independent coverage. Last four edits made by a blocked sock farm. Deprodded in 2019. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article content is largely unreferenced, and the few references used are either press releases or primary sources. I was not able to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; can't find anything indicating its significance. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it has a lot of weasel terms. I.hate.spam.mail.here (This is YOUR page) (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per User:Cullen. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability or SIGCOV by reliable sources, mentions that I can find are surface-level. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete there's zero indication that this is notable and the chance that it will be kept is pretty much non-existing at this point. So it might as well be snow deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2022 (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 Operation Ocean Shield. Clear consensus that a standalone article is inappropriate, and a merger is required. No consensus on the target; I'm including Operation Ocean Shield in the closing statement only because XfDcloser will throw a fit otherwise. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 1 April 2010

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

Non-notable "naval engagement". Yes, this occurred, but this incident with Somali pirates is not a notable "battle". Additionally, there is no long term significance of this event. As an ATD, could be merged into Operation Ocean Shield. Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Nicholas (FFG-47), unreferenced and not particularly notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa and perhaps also to the Ship. Not notable enough to need an article of its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2022 (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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Youth Hunger Strike in Arizona and DC for Democracy

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

Sorry to relitigate this, but this was a two-participant AfD where the only Keep vote was from the article's creator. This article doesn't show persistent coverage or significant impact, without which it's just another protest (albeit one that made the news). It's a one-off story—it's a really, really interesting and inspiring one! But without reliable, secondary sources explicitly showing real-world impact or lasting coverage, this doesn't meet inclusion criteria. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I should remind all of those looking to get involved that you're not just looking for significant coverage, you're looking for persistent coverage in deciding whether this article should be included. Lots of incidents, protests, and negotiations make the news; for political theatre and events to make as standalone Wikipedia articles, they need either impact or coverage that extends not insignificantly beyond the event. This could even be merged into John Lewis Voting Rights Act as part of the larger story, but unless someone can show lasting coverage in its own right, merely passing WP:GNG is not enough here. To quote WP:PERSISTENCE: a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. This page was moved during the AfD from 2021 Youth Hunger Strike in Arizona and DC for Democracy to 2021 Arizona and Washington, D.C. hunger strike. TartarTorte 01:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first strike wasn't just covered all over the news, including on Washington Post, but it had created the impact of keeping the most significant voting bill since 1965 alive. The Senate will start to debate the bill on Tuesday 1/18. The youth has started their second hunger strike to call attention to the bill. The number of strikers has grown from 20 to 40. Whether the bill will eventually pass or not, these strikes had made a significant impact.

Please check out the coverage of these events on the reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.239.179 (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the hunger strikes will have no impact whatsoever on the Senate, the citations added to the article from multiple WP:RS certainly pass the threshold we set for notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, regardless of political impact or (more likely) lack thereof, there are enough citations to demonstrate notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know no one like endless relists, but since the first AfD closed as no consensus, and the two recent comments are from the last 24 hours, let's give it one more week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a promotional article about an ongoing promotional effort by college students. If it becomes genuinely newsworthy, it can be re-created. The references are mostly about national news headlines unrelated to the group. It is also likely that somebody working with the group is improperly contributing to this article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:22, 27 January 2022 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States casebooks in current publication

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

Fails WP:LISTN. (originally proposed by user:JBchrch) Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 00:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 00:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 00:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 00:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A suitably refashioned List of casebooks might fulfill some aspects of WP:LISTPURP but this arbitrarily defined list (why do we only care about the ones in print?) with not a single bluelink for the book (as opposed to editor or author) does not do anything for our readers. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprodded without explanation or improvement by Jim Grisham (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It almost makes me think that the user is just doing that to be disruptive. Should I report him to WP:ANI? It's not intractable, but it would be nice if the user would respond to us instead of forcing us to go through AFD each time... -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 10:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one book on the list has an article, Choper, Coffee, Gilson, and its just a stub without any references showing notability. Dream Focus 05:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the author/creator of this article and I agree it's pretty ridiculous. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 21:26, 14 January 2022 (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. Happy to restore to draft space if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FDA Special Protocol Assessment

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

WP:PRIMARY, seems to be a non-notable division. Originally proposed by User:TenPoundHammer. PROD was objected to at last moment. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page should be of inclusion or merged with an existing FDA-related page; however, one of the two external links are non-functional. It would be useful to include at least one or two reliable, independent sources, like this one for example: [18] or [19]. Multi7001 (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder due to lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into existing FDA page with the better external links. It reads to be an important part of the drug approval process that should be on Wikipedia somewhere. Perhaps an addition to New Drug Application Gusfriend (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability (only primary sources), and would be undue detail if merged to Food and Drug Administration. Sandstein 09:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Some time ago, I created Regulation of food and dietary supplements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. There should be a corresponding article on Regulation of pharmaceutical products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, of which this would definitely need to be a part. Something along those lines could be built around this in draft, and then restored to mainspace at a broader title for the expanded scope. BD2412 T 06:45, 29 January 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Mullon

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

Does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Current sources are either routine coverage or non-independent (interviews, sponsored, etc). MarioGom (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2022 (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 Motion Picture Association film rating system. There is serious doubt that this is independently notable (and very few defensible arguments to that effect), but even most "delete" opinions tell us that it should be covered in the context of the rating system. Sandstein 22:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One-fuck rule

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

There is a place on Wikipedia for discussion of profanity and how it affects MPAA ratings, and that place is Motion Picture Association film rating system. There is no evidence that this sub-issue of a sub-issue is significant enough to split off into its own article. Discussion at DYK speculates that editor who created an article did so in an attempt to get profanity on the main page. I have no idea what their motives were, and I have long been an admirer of a creative and boundary-pushing hooks at DYK. Where I don't think we should pushing boundaries and getting creative is in article titles. NONE of the sources cited name this rule as it is named by the article, so this is a case of Wikipedia creating a neologism, which should be out of bounds. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: at the time this AfD nomination was made, the article had a hook listed at Template:Did you know/Queue—I've pulled it pending the resolution of this AfD one way or another. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be a codified guideline. No reason to hold a page for a non codified guideline that seems to have picked up some steam in internet-speak. Ktin (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Motion Picture Association film rating system (the appropriate location as noted by the nominator) without using the term "one-fuck rule" unless it's in a quote or supported by substantial sources. The appropriate section would be Motion Picture Association film rating system § Language. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is part of a series of recent DYK submissions by The C of E somewhat littered with the F-word, to put the word on Wikipedia's Main Page. The editor is currently under restrictions for similar inflammatory editing problems at DYK. — Maile (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And how does that affect the suitability of this page for Wikipedia, beyond being a clear ad hominem deflection? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information is about the limit of PG-13 rating, so it should go to Motion Picture Association film rating system. Don't even keep it as a redirect because the title is a neologism. Neo-corelight (Talk) 04:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title is an WP:NDESC title because there is no official title for it, but the concept (or popular opinion of it) is that it does exist. There are sources that affirm it in the minds of the public that films can only say "fuck" once to avoid a harsher rating, more than enough to fulfil WP:GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
was the article created for a dyk submission? ~ cygnis insignis 07:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge without turning into a redirect. It doesn't seem like the term is widely used or would be a common search term for readers looking up the MPA BuySomeApples (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- (On the fence on whether to delete or merge after reading some of the newer votes.) BuySomeApples (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Objections to the title of the article as a neologism are without merit: the title has merely been selected as the name of an existing rule, if the title is the problem then another can be selected. The Rule itself is a pass for WP:GNG as it is the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. Particularly Along Those Lines: The Boundaries That Create Our World gives a full page of coverage to it, Sex & sensibility : reflections on forbidden mirrors and the will to censor also gives a page or so of coverage to it (but calls it the "automatic language rule"). Searching for the "automatic language rule" and "MPAA" brings up a number of hits (1 2 3 4 5 6). The rule has been around for a while is broader than just PG-13 rating decisions (e.g., there was significant discussion around it related to All the President's Men and its "R" rating). Suggest renaming to "Automatic language rule" as it appears that this is the common name, if more boring, for this rule. Merging to Motion Picture Association film rating system is not appropriate as it would be undue under that article and may result in an article that is too long. FOARP (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @FOARP: I would have no objections to a change of name of the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is obvious from the sources given above, that it is neither a seperate encyclopedic topic, nor should the topic be a separate article from the ratings article -- the necessary encyclopedic context is within the ratings scheme, which should include both explanation of factors and criticism of the scheme. (see also, WP:NOPAGE) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a separate page as the subject is already covered adequately at Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#Language. It seems an unlikely search term at the present title so I don't think a redirect would be useful. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, anything that needs to be said about this aspect of film rating can be said better elsewhere, we don't need a slew of micro-articles on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge This is textbook example of when WP:NOPAGE applies, as the content can be well covered in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect needed. This is not a particularly well-used phrasing of an MPAA rule. Some content can be Merged into the above article per the nominator's suggestion. It's also not clear to what extent this alleged guideline has been formalized by the MPAA, and the sources in the article don't provide details that can be used to verify this. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect - this is very obviously a topic that does not make sense to talk about in isolation, without relevant secondary material to justify there being any interest in it in its own right. Otherwise, at most, it should be a section on the relevant article about MPAA classifications. That being said, the objections to the redirect are specious: it doesn't matter if it's not a commonly used term, as that's the exact reason why redirects exist in the first place. All it would be doing it making it harder for people who have heard the term to find information out about it. Theknightwho (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The fact that the title contains the word "fuck" is irrelevant to anything, but while this is a real phenomenon with sourcing, there doesn't seem to be enough meat in it to justify its own article, and I also don't see enough that adding it to Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#Language would constitute undue weight. A lot of it is there already. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient substantial WP:SIGCOV to warrant an independent article. SN54129 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Motion Picture Association film rating system. The phenomenon -- or perceived phenomenon, given it doesn't track practice too well -- is actually quite well-known, but not covered in sufficient depth to produce a non-anemic article, or with sufficient separation from the broader topic to be better covered for the reader as a stand-alone article. As Theknightwho says, it doesn't particularly stand in isolation well. (Motion picture rating systems are a long-term interest of mine, if not one very reflected in my editing areas. If I thought a stand-alone for this was justified, I'd have written it.) Vaticidalprophet 00:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FYI, another term in the same vein that I came across today is the Mull of Kintyre test, which does have its own short section and redirect. Let's just do something like that. Theknightwho (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, I'd be more sanguine about the keep or merge arguments if this article had better sourcing, rather than to blogs and pop culture sites. The title is absolutely a neologism, and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. Ravenswing 15:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The sourcing isn't the problem. Several high-quality book sources were given above. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not completely without precedent; for example, here is an example of One Fuck rule in a 2020 news story. Here's another from a high-profile blog in 2014. It's a pretty obvious coinage, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Motion Picture Association film rating system. There is no doubt that there is some coverage about this (as demonstrated by the given sources), and many if not most of the delete !votes do not seem to make an argument why this should be deleted instead of merged (in fact, many of them explicitly seem to be arguing for actual merging, with arguments such as "No need for a separate page"...). The presence of the word "fuck" in the title has otherwise absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the issue. However, given the paucity of information in the current article, and the fact there is plenty of space at Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#Language to add this, WP:NOPAGE would apply. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RandomCanadian. This is a topic that has received coverage, but it's only part of the larger picture of the rating system. Leave the redirect in place because the term or close variants have been used in discussing the matter, and it therefore is a plausible search term. And redirects are cheap anyway. oknazevad (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: reasonable sources and a reasonable topic. The information is usable somewhere. More sources given above show room for expansion. AfD isn't the place to decide article title, nor the best one for determining scope of a subject. The closer should make sure to properly assess "delete" !votes that say a merge is acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, per Bilorv. -- The Anome (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. significant in the world, and a understandable title. The sources are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 16 January 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Singh

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

Being a ceo doesn’t translate to automatic notability, furthermore a WP:BEFORE search shows me hits in self generated sources, self published sources and primary sources which we all do not count towards notability. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO,lacks significant reliable secondary sources.Dan arndt (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2022 (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 00:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miklós Palencsár

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

Overt promotional COI article on a non notable business man who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus a GNG fail. They were indeed given an award but unfortunately a non notable award thus WP:ANYBIO fail also, the ref bombing is not only an attempt to create a false sense of notability but even the refs themselves are all unreliable. This is an WP:ADMASQ Celestina007 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am neutral on this subject. I would like to note that, although this does not necessarily guarantee exclusion or inclusion, this page does have an article on Hungarian Wikipedia, albeit it was made by the same person who made this article. Dunutubble (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:G11.-KH-1 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was on my watchlist as I have previously had it deleted it as a G11 speedy. It is a horrible COI mess about a run-of-the-mill businesssman. Edwardx (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Mosqueira

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Coverage is limited to mentions in passing, some press-release like coverage of him working on a major video project (and then quitting), plus an interview; all of this really focuses on Diablo III and not on him, and I'd argue that WP:NOTINHERITED is also an issue here. There is no indication he won any awards, and that his work and career have been subject to any in-depth analysis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a Polish book as a source (Krew, pot i piksele. Chwalebne i niepokojące opowieści o tym, jak robi się gry (Blood, sweat and pixels: Glorious and disturbing stories about how games are made), in which the author writes extensively about Mosqeira's move from Ubisoft to Blizzard and his subsequent work on Diablo III. That plus two magazine articles and a newspaper article about him and his work on various projects would be a clear case for a Keep. He was also for a time the public face of the Diablo III project during its development, and speaks French and Spanish, so was interviewed extensively by North American, European and Australian entities. I can add some of those as well if the article needs further bolstering. I can also add more details from the Polish book, but translating from Polish is a long andd arduous process, so if we have enough now, I'd prefer not to.Guinness323 (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why Polish translation? Blood, Sweat, and Pixels is an English book, AFAIK. Btw, I am a native speaker of Polish, so I can help here. Also, the English edition is at Z-library... I was able to access it within one minute. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear NAUTHOR pass (based on Montreal, Constantinople and Tribe 8. Also meets GNG, but that is less important in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2022 (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. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ben Het

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

Unnecessary fork from Ben Het Camp, which provides some expanded detail of the 3 March 1969 attack, but not enough to warrant its own page. There were multiple "battles" at Ben Het: the 3 March 1969 attack, the May-June 1969 siege, the April-May 1972 siege and the 12-13 October 1972 conquest of the base, all of which are detailed on the Ben Het Camp page. Any relevant detail should be merged into that page. Mztourist (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The infobox of the Ben Het Camp article featured a WP:RED to the previously nonexistent Battle of Ben Het article under Battles/wars, suggesting an article for the battle was desired. The battle is also detailed on the PT-76 article, which would lead one to believe it should have it's own article so as not to be exclusively spread across multiple articles. The notion that an article for the battle shouldn't exist due to an article for the camp existing that mentions the battle is a bit baffling, given there are numerous articles on battles for forts, castles and bases that exist in conjunction with the articles for the forts, castles and bases they took place within. For example, Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966) is allowed to exist alongside Tan Son Nhut Air Base, with the 1966 attack not being excluded to detail in the latter article.

In regards to there being multiple "battles" for Ben Het, generally when searching for the 'Battle of Ben Het' or reading mention of the 'Battle of Ben Het,' the tank battle of 3 March 1969 is the engagement you'll find. The 3 March 1969 attack is also the only engagement truly titled a "battle" that you mentioned, and if the siege and conquest were to warrant their own articles then they could be titled the 'Siege of Ben Het' and/or the 'Fall of Ben Het,' as many other articles do to differentiate between battles and sieges taking place in the same area.

To merge the article with the Ben Het Camp article would be contradictory to the precedence taken on a vast majority of other articles regarding battles for forts, castles and bases, and thus I suggest to keep it. UncleBourbon (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redlink just means that someone put square brackets around a term, thinking a page exists, it doesn't "suggest an article for the battle was desired". Your comparison to Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966) is incorrect, Tan Son Nhut Air Base was already a massive page, adding a large amount of specific detail relating to the 1966 attack would have just bloated the Tan Son Nhut Air Base page. There is no issue with having details of the engagement on both the PT-76 page and on Ben Het Camp, the issue is that you have created a fork with only a few more specifics than what was already on Ben Het camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone thought a page existed, and if the battle is significant enough to exist as a subsection of an article for a tank model that fought in it, then it is WP:N enough to warrant it's own article. For another more accurate comparison, you have Duc Lap Camp and the Battle of Duc Lap, as the Duc Lap Camp article is even smaller than the Ben Het Camp article, and again the Battle of Duc Lap article is allowed to exist alongside it. I could go on with other examples if you would like, since the problem you take with this article's existence truly goes against the precedent. "Only a few more specifics" is entirely your opinion; the Battle of Ben Het article mentions the forces stationed at Ben Het at the time of the battle, the activity observed prior to the battle, the names of participants and commanders within the battle, the order in which targets were sighted and positions they were taken out, the pursuit by the AC-47 'Spooky,' as well as various other details left out of the Ben Het Camp article.UncleBourbon (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is the order of creation. I created Duc Lap Camp several years after another User created Battle of Duc Lap, because Battle of Duc Lap didn't have detail of the camp itself including its history before and after that battle. A better comparison would be Camp Carroll created in July 2006 and then the creation last November of Surrender of Camp Carroll which was soon merged back into Camp Carroll and First Battle of Quang Tri. Ben Het Camp already states the forces stationed there, the names of the participants and commanders is trivia unless any of them received a significant medal, the order of engagement is stated on Ben Het Camp and the use of an AC-47 can just be added to Ben Het Camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the significance in the order of creation if we're discussing whether the articles can exist simultaneously. The point stands that if the Battle of Duc Lap can exist separately from Duc Lap Camp to provide greater detail on the battle, then the same is applicable for the Battle of Ben Het. You also haven't put the Battle of Duc Lap article up for deletion since it's details could all be moved to your Duc Lap Camp article, which is essentially what you're doing here. Information and significance are what matter, not date of creation. The fact it is the only true tank battle involving the United States in the Vietnam War, that there are two different articles already referencing it as the 'Battle of Ben Het,' and that it is well documented and of significance, makes it noteworthy enough to warrant it's own article for greater detail. Again, it is only your opinion that a paragraph on the Ben Het Camp article has sufficient detail, and that details such as participants and commanders are 'trivia.' The infobox alone for the Battle of Ben Het article has more details regarding the battle than the paragraph of the camp article, which is fine as it is an article for the camp, and not an article for the battle. It frankly makes no sense to turn a perfectly suitable full article of a battle into a drawn out section of your article on the camp it took place in just because you want the information there.UncleBourbon (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with you. Battle of Ben Het contains only additional trivia beyond what is contained on the Ben Het Camp page. There's clearly no point in us continuing this discussion as we won't reach agreement, so we will see how this AFD plays out. Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with User:UncleBourbon. One of so rare tank battles in Vietnam war. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Although relatively minor, notable as the only tank v tank engagement of the Vietnam war. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only tank v tank engagement, involving the US. The North and South Vietnamese had plenty of such engagements. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, let me rephrase that, it's the only tank engagement involving US tanks in the Vietnam war. However as such, this makes it definitley notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOPAGE, I think this should be merged as proposed by the nominator. Both articles are quite short, so no information will be lost, but this engagement will presented in the context of other related events. (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on Ben Het Camp proper. The majority of the border zone camps were subject to periodic attacks of varying severity so long as they existed (some even being under what might be considered a permanent state of siege). Merging this with the camp gives context to the engagement while still preserving its unique elements. Intothat darkness 03:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but also rename to include the date for clarity - the tank battle at Ben Het on 3-4 March 1969 is notable as the only US tank versus NVA tank battle of the Vietnam War and has received a lot of coverage because of that. See e.g., 1 2 3. The sources clearly distinguish this battle from the other battles that took part at the camp, and from the history of the camp in general. The nature of the Vietnam war meant that certain places were fought over all the time, but this being the case does not mean that there weren't much larger battles that were distinct from the continual drum-beat of combat around US/ARVN bases. "Ben Het Camp" is not a natural redirect for this subject and will surprise people searching for this specific battle, it is also not what we have done with Battle of Khe Sanh or the DMZ Campaign (1969–71) despite the existence of Khe Sanh Combat Base and Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone so consistency points towards not merging to the place where the combat took place. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Het Camp is a perfectly natural redirect and it would not "surprise people searching for this specific battle". The comparisons to Battle of Khe Sanh and DMZ Campaign (1969–71) are spurious as both were long battles/campaigns whereas Ben Het 1969 was just an overnight attack and trying to put either of those into Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone would completely overburden that page. Putting Battle of Khe Sanh (created in 2003) into Khe Sanh Combat Base (created as a redirect in 2007 and as a standalone page in 2012) would similarly overburden that page. Khe Sanh is probably the best known battle of the war, unlike the Ben Het attack which is relatively unknown (it has not "received a lot of coverage") and was just one of a series of attacks aimed at the camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much every book that discusses armoured warfare in general during the 20th century mentions the tank-battle at Ben Het. It being brief or long doesn't particularly matter. It being part of a series of attacks also doesn't particularly matter as the sources treat it differently. FOARP (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of "pretty much every book that discusses armored warfare" (none of which are on the page as refs) doesn't determine whether this should be a standalone page or a redirect. Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST, see the links above. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2022 (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 12:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Housing in the United States by state

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

Could in theory be a good article, but in its current form it is a list of links to categories for 38 states, plus two sentences introduction and three sentences about Wisconsin. Rusalkii (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep though it surely needs improvement. Helps the set of pages w/ the shared nav template hold together. Category pages are not a good substitute. – SJ + 22:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That was well-intended, but completely useless, at least in present state. The wikilings to categories should not be used. Basically, someone wanted to do something with this page, but then dropped it in a ridiculous state more than a year ago. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely incomplete article. Has potential, but needs a lot of work. Could go back into draft for more work, beofre going into mainspace again. if an article needs a bit of work to make it better, I sometimes jump in, but this would be *massive* to get it to the point to get it in shape. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not give us much information, needs work.Alex-h (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2022 (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/Connirae Andreas (2nd nomination)

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. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Morris (Business professional)

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

Resumé and promotional article on a Non notable businessman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them and also doesn’t meet WP:ANYBIO. A before search links me to primary sources, a plethora of press releases bordering on churnalism. I fail to see how holding executive leadership positions at non notable technology startups and Fortune 500 companies meets or is a requirement that demonstrates notability being met. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman lacking truly indepth coverage in reliable secondary indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Couple things- very little coverage in secondary sources, and it seems like the article creator has a COI, given that they tried to create an article for the business that this subject if an executive of... Just look at their contributions [20]. Definitely a Delete to me. Spf121188 (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think we need to create a rule that someone have say 25 contributions that are editing existing articles before they can create a first article. We have way too many drive-by contributors who start out either creating an article with which they had a COI, or who rush into creating an article without fully understanding the notability guidelines. At the same time we have an even larger problem of too many existing articles lacking even semi-adequate sources. The number of articles that have had a tag since 2009 or earlier, so for over 12 years, saying they have no sources is staggering.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet notability standards, appears promotional, Wikipedia is not a resume. Such-change47 (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2022 (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) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 02:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS LSM-355

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

Run-of-the-mill ship, just like lots of military equipment used consecutively by a few countries, but nothing remarkable. The awards are generic ones, given for "being there", and the sources are not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Some unaccepted military essay tries to claim that all commissioned ships are notable, but this is not an accepted (or acceptable) guideline. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - the ship served with four navies. It would benefit from the addition of a "Description" section, but needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Sourcing is solid enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Serving with four navies is irrelevant, military material being sold from one country to another and so on is normal procedure and doesn't make that material more or less notable. The sourcing is fan sites and databases. Fram (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Landing Ship Medium. "Served with four navies" is neither a policy nor SNG. If this was so special, then why is not an overflowing amount of RS to demonstrate such? The sources here are blogs and Facebook (seriously?). The only RS cited is Warship International, which lists a mundane transfer of ownership of the ship alongside a dozen other similar handovers/sales. the closest I can find to good sourcing is this, but this does not constitute SIGCOV and ultimately the subject fails WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles. See WP:MILUNIT #4, which, despite protests from one or two editors, is a long-accepted standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "We"? Our long accepted standards are WP:GNG, and to a lesser degree some accepted SNGs like WP:PROF, WP:CORP, ... Project essays are by definition not accepted standards but proposals, rejected guidelines, informal thoughts, ... Furthermore, your essay states "As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion" (emphasis mine). The likelihood has been challenged in these cases, just pointing back to the essay claiming that this makes them undeletable is circular reasoning of the worst kind. Fram (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - GNG is the standard; and there are going to be occasions when there just isn't the coverage. There is an alternative target of List of United States Navy Landing Ship Medium (LSMs) which seems to duplicate the lists in Landing_Ship_Medium. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Landing Ship Medium. At present, the subject of the article does not meet the GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (many of which mirror Wikipedia's content). WP:MILUNIT is only an essay and should not be given more weight than that. Pilaz (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone got a copy of LSM-LSMR Amphibious Forces, Vol. II. Paducah, Kentucky: Turner Publishing Company. 1997. ISBN 1-56311-389-9. - which is apparently where navsource gets its service detail from? Is the coverage there non trivial?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a little bit that can be cited to various editions of Jane's Fighting Ships.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Generally accepted that warships have their own articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep barely passes WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ship passes the GNG, and long standing consensus is that commissioned vessels are all notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LSMs are warships, moreover even commissioned into warfare and by several countries, aren't that notable enough? Delta (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been some canvassing to get the Milhist editors suddenly out in droves (on all these AfDs) after so many days? Anyway, a lot of people from a project parrotting that these meet GNG (without evidence) and that they have a local consensus to keep these, doesn't make these true or valid of course. Fram (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I haven't seen any indication that a standalone article is warranted here - the tidbits that are unique to this vessel could easily be incorporated into a class article (for example, see S138-class torpedo boat, where some of the ships have articles, but most do not). Some of these ships had notable service careers (USS Hunting is an obvious example), but the majority of them did not. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that any details or even mention of ships with redirected articles is being systematically purged from the class articles - see [[21]] - so information that is unique to this vessel will be lost with redirect becoming deletion. Presumably this new policy, which I haven't seen any discussion of, will also apply to all other class or list articles?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - I'm not getting a SigCov vibe from the sources I can view and hence fails GNG. I'm seeing it getting appearances in lists of ships but not much else. (Doubtful that " Treasury Decisions Under the Customs, Internal Revenue, Industrial Alcohol, Narcotic and Other Laws, Volume 97" contains more than a brief mention.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Landing Ship Medium. I disagree with those saying this passes WP:GNG as they are not addressing the lack of coverage in the sources used in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NOTABILITY, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Oakshade (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A misreading of GNG? Notability is determined by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention,". Many brief mentions do not add up to notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A brief mention is not a trivial one, if it addresses the topic directly and in detail. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No missreadinng at all. WP:NOTABILITY literally states Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.Oakshade (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources aren't in the article there' no evidence they exist... GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 01:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides passing GNG, there's no such thing as a "run of the mill" commissioned military war ship. One of the reasons of long standing consensus of retaining articles of commissioned military vessels is that it's literally impossible for there not to be extensive government reports on the proposal, planning, production, operation and long term analysis of such vessels.Oakshade (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires independence from subject. Government and manufacturers documentation would not count under that.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to a class page. RS-coverage appears to be limited to Friedman, which seems to be sufficiently non-independent to prevent usage in notability arguments, and Jane's Fighting Ships which seems like it could fall into the directories and databases exception of WP:GNG (see footnote 5). Admittedly, I don't have access to Jane's so I can't check and hence "weak". That said, this is more borderline than some of the others in the class. If someone can produce even slightly better sourcing, I'd likely go with (weak) keep instead. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Friedman is independent of the subject and would be a great source for the appropriate class article, and for a physical description of the ship, but its coverage of the history of this ship is limited to construction dates - as I added and transfers between users. The coverage in Jane's is also brief - dimensions etc, dates of transfer and the conversion to hospital ship (as added) - there is also an intriguing hint in the 1974–75 Jane's that the ship is "assigned political warfare personnel in addition to the ship's normal complement". The frustrating thing is the ship appears to have been involved in major events - the evacuation of what became North Vietnam by the French in 1954–55 and the escape of the South Vietnamese navy in 1975, but the current sourcing merly implies this rather than giving the article something that can be referenced.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has anyone checked Veith (as used in the LSM-110 article and claimed in the LSM-110 Afd)? ([[22]]) - I can't see the relevant bits of the book from Gooogle Books preview in the UK so cannot see whether there is useful discussion of LSM-355/Hát Giang/HQ-400Nigel Ish (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did, Veith doesn't mention it. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - If sources are not mentioning this particular ship in detail then how can we have an article about it? I would much rather see in prose a summary of this particular class of landing ships here, rather than an article with little to no information available on a ship. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it has enough coverage to satisfy the GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2022 (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!} 06:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Schaffer

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

Non notable conservative and Journalist. Fails WP:GNG DFXYME (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. DFXYME (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. DFXYME (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DFXYME (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is he not relevant? I in Germany know so do many others.Guess how I found this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8AC0:2B8:9180:E0FC:31E8:524C (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have been able to locate signifcant, reliable, independent coverage secondary to the subject here, here, here and here. Subject is notable due to significant coverage and hence this article ought not be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Such-change47. Kiwichris (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Such-change47. And i`d like to add what I was able to find in a few minutes: Highly relevant figure with more than 47,000,000 views on his own YouTube channels: ^[1], ^[2]. Repeatedly finds himself in high profile breaking news situations ^[3], ^[4] which end up being played on all major media; has appeared in high profile documentaries. ^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1AD9:150:3973:17B:D6FA:E555 (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ You Are Here. "7,830,041 views", Retrieved on 1/22/2022
^ Slightly Offensive. "40,176,703 views", Retrieved on 1/22/2022
^ EXCLUSIVE: Elijah Schaffer Interviews Alleged Kenosha Shooter Before Shooting [1],
^ Twitter Status, [2]
^ Tucker Carlson and Elijah Schaffer explore what really happened on Jan 6 [3]

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 03:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Old Catholicism

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

None of the sources given talk about the subject of the article. The subject clearly fails WP:NCHURCH and is possibly WP:Self-promotion. It is also now an unvoluntary WP:FORK as its original subject was deleted from WP recently.
From what I remember, it seems the article has received some copy-paste of some parts of the now deleted (see this AfD) article Church of the Holy Paraclete (see this page move), but there is no crediting. If one looks at the previous versions, it is obvious it is the same subject as Church of the Holy Paraclete (which I remember was at one point renamed "Church of the Holy Spirit" according to the now deleted article).
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This sems to cover attempts by the old Catholic denomination, Polish National Catholic Church to establish congregations in one state, some of which survive as part of the mother denomination, while others have gone their own way or dispersed. This is thus an article on an aspect of a small denomination, which we would normally keep, but can we find a merge target for it? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to further support my claim of WP:FORK, I now see that the name at the Wikidata item is "Chapel of the Holy Spirit" (see wikidata:Q28230654). Veverve (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Old Catholicism in the United States is not so prominent a religious movement that we need to cover it on a state-by-state basis, nor do there appear to be sources which so analyze it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are so many problems with this article that it is difficult to decide where to begin so I will start with the personal observation that I grew up in that area as a member of the Polish-descended Catholic community and never once heard "Old Catholics" mean anything other than "the little old ladies who came to weekday Mass to pray the Rosary." Moving on, I note that the supposed mother church for Old Catholics in Rhode Island is a closed church of a different denomination in a different state. Indeed, the article seems to be attempting an A:B and B:C therefore A:C type of argument through the Polish National Catholic Church. That the Old Catholic Church in the entire United States merits neither its own article nor mention in the Old Catholic Church article makes the notability of the denomination in the smallest state doubtful. The final nail in the coffin is that every apparent RS in the article does not refer to specifically Rhode Island Catholicism of any sort. Tl;dr version: Per Veverve's nomination. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 24 January 2022 (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 CNET. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cooley

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

Person has not come closer to passing WP:JOURNALIST since the page was first nominated for deletion in 2006. Despite being a high-level editor at CNET, sources about (not by) this person are scarce. If there is no consensus to delete, possibly redirect to CNET or Buzz Out Loud. KidAd • SPEAK 18:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 18:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 18:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a tough one. There's an article by another Cnet person about his 1988 Ford station wagon and literally hundreds of hits on articles he's written over the years. Based on the volume of work he's done, I think he might just be notable, or at least earn a sub-seciton in the main CNet article. He's given interviews for NPR as a tech expert, so he's somewhat well known in the media landscape.Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CNET. Coverage of the individual himself is limited to minimal author bios on various works he has produced. No indication in teh article or in searches that passes the GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:07, 24 January 2022 (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. Tone 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PASS (Performer Availability Screening Services)

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

I do not object against a redirect or merger but in itself this NGO cannot be a standalone as it doesn’t meet WP:NGO & because they grossly lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I could find is passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorted by State

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

[1] You Are Here. "7,830,041 views", Retrieved on 1/22/2022

[2] Slightly Offensive. "40,176,703 views", Retrieved on 1/22/2022

[3] EXCLUSIVE: Elijah Schaffer Interviews Alleged Kenosha Shooter Before Shooting [1],

[4] Twitter Status, [2]

[5] Tucker Carlson and Elijah Schaffer explore what really happened on Jan 6 [3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]