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 merge‎ to Illegal drug trade in China. Whoever does the merge should be aware of the creator's LLM usage. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China and the opioid epidemic in the United States

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

Page is a WP:POVFORK of the page Opioid epidemic in the United States, information from this article could be incorporated into that article, however creating a separate page just on this issue is entirely unnecessary when we already have Illegal drug trade in China. The contents of this article can easily be incorporate or are already incorporated into those two articles. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, Medicine, China, and United States of America. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article on the smuggling of fentanyl from China to the United States is strongly supported by high-quality secondary sources that establish the subject's notability and significant in geopolitics. Sources such as the Brookings Institution [1] and the Council on Foreign Relations [2] provide in-depth analyses of China's role in the global fentanyl crisis, detailing the inadequacies in enforcement of regulations post-2019, and the shift in trafficking routes that continue to impact the U.S. Furthermore, the German Marshall Fund offers a nuanced view on the fluctuating dynamics of U.S.-China cooperation on narcotics, emphasizing the geopolitical complexities that underscore the ongoing challenges in addressing this critical issue [3]. We can't possibly cover all aspects of this subject in the mother article, which is already bursting at the seams. This is a classic content fork project. FailedMusician (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then include it in the Illegal drug trade in China article. The first sentence "Smuggling of fentanyl from China to the United States has significantly contributed to the opioid epidemic in the United States, an issue that has persisted since the 1990s." reads as though China has been a major contributing factor to the opioid epidemic since the nineties - does not seem like a super neutral POV. Plus the article really only addresses fentanyl. Additionally not sure what the paragraph starting with "In a subsequent visit on July 6–9, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen..." has to do with the topic. If you remove extraneous information it is definitely trimmable to a section in a different article - heck even expand United States sanctions against China as you have already been doing. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge back to main article Some of this material is already there, and the rest should be. I note also that the title is misleading in that it treats the foreign relation aspect in general, not just about China. Mangoe (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Illegal drug trade in China I agree with the nomination the content could be better described there, and having the content there gives potential for a more WP:GLOBAL perspective on the issue. Jumpytoo Talk 04:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (partial) the subject is a synthesis and the article a fork. The China connection is already discussed in the main article. It shouldn't be much longer than that, but a limited merge might be ok. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge I agree with Draken Bowser - also am concerned an independent article will become a possible POV content fork. I don't think a bunch of neo-cold-war anxiety will benefit a neutral encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Illegal drug trade in China is almost exclusively about the trade going on...unsurprisingly... in China. This article is almost exclusively about the impact outside of China, and the geopolitical consequences with the US. I'm not entirely opposed to merging but it would have to be merged into the right article, and I don't think there is one. This article has enough content to stand on its own, and it currently respects MOS:SO given that it expands upon info in a timeline section: Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_States#2010s_to_present_(increase_in_fentanyl). The Opioid epidemic in the United States article is >13k words which makes it WP:TOOBIG for a merge that will respect due weight. Glad to see there isn't any 'neo-cold-war anxiety' present in the article when read. Tone is neutral and disinterested, in accordance with WP:NPOV policy. SmolBrane (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is true - Illegal drug trade in China also addresses trafficking within the Golden Triangle and deals with drug treaties and other international relations issues. Furthermore, there is no page that is titled "Mexico and the Opioid Epidemic in the United States" or "Afghanistan and the Opioid Epidemic in the United States" - most of the stuff that is covered in the article could be summarized in a couple of paragraphs and placed somewhere else. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial MErge to Illegal drug trade in China, being judicious about what we bring over per Draken Bowser. Pinguinn 🐧 03:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FORK, as I also think should be done in such cases. Please make it smerge. Bearian (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems likely that parts of this article may have been created using ChatGPT. Anyone merging will want to carefully scrutinize any material they retain. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and will probably need going through with a fine tooth-comb first, as the article creator has been busted for abusing LLMs to create content and a spot check already turned up one issue. Bon courage (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Irmas (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Borges

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

This does not appear to be any sort of notable person; the article is just an advertisement for his book and/or company. The article was created by a sockpuppet, which is not promising – in the sockpuppet investigation, Spicy said "fairly obvious UPEs" i.e. undisclosed paid editing, like this thing. Any media coverage discovered in WP:BEFORE is stuff like "I ate like Beyonce & lost 16 pounds in 3 weeks" that mentions this guy in passing. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Food and drink, Health and fitness, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borges does not inherit notability just because he has worked with notable people. We would need to see reliable sources give significant coverage of Borges himself. The sources I saw were either obviously unreliable or only mentioned Borges in passing when discussing Beyonce. – Teratix ₵ 03:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Teratix, notability is not inherited. The subject lacks significant coverage and generally fails to meet WP:N. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. his news is around being Beyonce's trainer, etc. I could not find any articles that are primarily about him. Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not appear to be substantial in-depth coverage of the subject themselves or their professional activities, with most coverage being brief and primarily in relation to their association with high-profile clients. X (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Teratix, subject has no notability of their own Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article lacks independent evidence of the subject's notability and appears to be promotional. Waqar💬 17:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Garrity

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

I couldn't find enough to show he meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Afghanistan, and Texas. Skynxnex (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: one of the sources is by, not about the subject. another source quotes, but is not about the subject. there simply isn't significant coverage. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable soldier/public servant. No SIGCOV of the subject, just brief mentions. Mooonswimmer 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single viable ref is a passing mention. Nothing else of significance. scope_creep^Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of National Weather Service Weather forecast offices

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Let'srun (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A nice referenced list to have. However, how is it kept up to date? — Maile (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – While I have my thoughts on this which I will try to add later, this article isn't very watched (fewer than 30 watchers), so recommend including discussion links elsewhere to encourage discussion. Master of Time (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Christian75 (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a reasonable stand-alone list. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons. Solid enough for a stand-alone list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lord (music)

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

The article has a promotional feel. I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject (or, frankly, any coverage). There is a reference in the article, but it's just album liner notes. toweli (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as a copyvio of [[4]]. The promotional reek of this article about a nn musician is exolained.TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is being updated. The article is informational including a Filmography that is supported by IMDb. 2603:8001:9C01:8114:FD7F:3767:969D:105E (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2603:8001:9C01:8114:FD7F:3767:969D:105EIMDb is not a reliable source per WP:UGC. Shadow311 (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the first source macworld is probably the most substantial coverage: 2 whole sentences, stating "Free Download of The Week" which I would say is very different to "Single of The Week". Allmusic does credit him in places as engineer/instrumentalist but the reviews on those releases don't mention him at all, and even if they did it's not like these are hugely notable albums. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Max Silvestri

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

Not notable - no significant coverage of the subject and possibly promotional Pprsmv (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, United States of America, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a strong keep, but there appears to be sufficient notability - The sources in the article currently are not useful due to being interviews or dead links, but there are some reviews of his work that can be found with minimal effort that tend to indicate notability (Exclaim, The Diamondback, Vulture) - There are also interviews, Q&As and other sources, but generally they are not as strong as the 3 reviews above to establish notoriety. Shazback (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. None of the sources in the article meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, the above sources, one may meet SIGCOV. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Appears to be part of a database of actors, questionable SIGCOV	https://exclaim.ca/comedy/article/max_silvestri-jfl42_the_garrison_toronto_on_september_26
Promo, "people to watch" type article	https://dbknews.com/0999/12/31/arc-lvfrh6zdvvdzjmqjjc3mgs7o3a/
Promo, "people to watch" type article	https://www.vulture.com/2014/12/11-best-stand-up-specials-of-2014.html

Ping me if other sources with SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 13:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:SIRS is the correct standard for evaluating these sources, since the article is not about an organization or company.

I'm surprised that a review of his show by Exclaim! doesn't attain SIGCOV. Exclaim! is recognized as a perennial source by WikiProject Albums since 2009, a view which was supported on the Reliable Sources discussion board as recently as 2020 [5]. The article is by a staff author, not an external contributor, and is well over the WP:100WORDS guideline, even after excluding the paragraph talking about the opening act.

Regarding the other two articles, what makes them WP:PRSOURCE ("promos") or on what basis are "people to watch" type articles excluded? As far as I can see, the Vulture article is not identified as a press release, does not appear to be churnalism (I can't find an article with similar wording) and is identified as being written by a staff author. It's short, but as Vulture is a perennial source [6] I am surprised 100+ words is so easily dismissed. The Diamondback article does not appear to be churnalism, but as it's a less reputable source & authorship is less clear (DBK Admin, incoherent publication date) I understand this one is more open for discussion.

I haven't been involved in many AfDs, so more information on these topics would be useful for me going forwards. Shazback (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta

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

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Taiwan, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a defacto consulate, and not the same level as an embassy. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles regarding the Taiwanese offices in Ho Chi Minh City and also São Paulo. Would those also fall under this blanket reason? Toadboy123 (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if they fail GNG, yes. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toadboy123 embassies, consulates and other diplomatic offices must meet WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to merge? Also of course ATD is only part of the deletion policy. The eighth point at WP:DEL-REASON which describes valid criteria for deletion, states "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is a valid reason to delete. AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect gives editors like Toadboy123 (talk · contribs), the article's creator, the option of doing a selective merge of content to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions. Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta discusses the subject's location; how it was established on 1 March 1979, the day after the signing of this communiqué; what its former name was; what states it represents; and the cultural center it oversees. Some of this content could be merged to the target article. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham, Inc.

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

Fails WP:CORP. Found only one independent source with in-depth coverage: https://archives.lib.duke.edu/catalog/gothaminc. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and United States of America. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. There's literally no content in the article, just a list. Sources are all press releases. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really, no reliable secondary sources available. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant

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

Non notable topic, not an encyclopedia article but a hagiography. Nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual. There are and have been many people who are or were good with horses. Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird. Polygnotus (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is just the standard story people use to make heads of states seem cool, more a metaphor for their leadership of their country than a thing that they pretend actually happened. Famously, Alexander the Great tamed Bucephalus and George Washington tamed a colt. All so-called untameable horses that were tamed by a horsewhisperer with near-magical powers. Polygnotus (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“

I appreciate the fact, and am proud of it, that the attentions I am receiving are intended more for our country than for me personally.

”

— Ulysses S. Grant

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Military, Politics, United States of America, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, the content tone is atrocious in places and looks more like a student essay/WP:SYNTH that looked for references that just merely mentioned horses and Grant. That doesn't matter as much for AfD, but in looking through those sources and content, there really isn't a case made for notability at all. This source just by title is the closest there may be at trying to even hint at WP:N despite the superlatives, but that seems like an isolated case and more of a WP:INHERIT issue tied to Grant's notability that would get an occasional book like that. If there is anything to mention about the subject, it can be handled at the BLP, but I don't see this being a likely search term needing a redirect/merge either. KoA (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source you mentioned, by Dowdall, is self-published. That is, it was published by HistoryEye, and looking up HistoryEye on the Web [7], we find that it is "managed by Dublin-based genealogist, Denise Dowdall." According to WP:SELFPUBLISH, if material in a self-published source is worth citing, one is expected to find the same material in a more reliable source and cite it from there instead. This goes for all 11 of the citations of Dowdall in the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is an artifact of poor quality coverage of a supposed arrest of Grant for speeding in his carriage that got a flurry of attention as a side story to Donald Trump's criminal charges. Not a notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, we have to wonder if this nomination to delete presents its own anti-nationalist bias. Given the wording, i.e."myth", "hagiography", "nationalistic drivel", this seems to be the case.
The article is sourced by multiple reliable sources used in the Grant (featured) article itself, and in other articles about Civil War. It may come off as a "hagiography", to some, simply because Grant was much more than "good with horses", but because he was markedly exceptional, beginning in his youth, often considered a prodigy, and there are several reliable sources to support that. As a cadet Grant set a hig jump record at West Point that stood for more than 25 years, that is also not a "myth". His experience with horses involved him with Lincoln, not to mention in exceptional feats during the Civil War, all reliably sourced. Because he was a renown horseman, he received them as gifts, while in the Civil War, and in retirement on his world tour from the Egyptian government and from the Sultan Abdul Hamid II.
It is by no means a passing coincidence that a memorial to Grant is a statue of him on a horse, or that a mural inside the dome of Grant's Tomb is of Grant on horseback. It is understood that this topic, like many that involve US history, may not appeal to everyone, but it certainly is so by people intereseted in Grant, and the Civil War, and there are many, and it ties in with Civil War history, and Grant's overall biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This anti-nationalist (aka pro-factual) bias is the same bias that would make me remove claims that Kim Jong-Il made 11 holes-in-one at his very first round of golf. The examples given in the article are not proof of exceptional skill, they are clearly made up stories to make him look cool. There is no way Ulysses had the most exceptional horsemanship in American history, and there are no sources for that claim (as noted on the talkpage). Polygnotus (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every recent biography of Grant devotes space to his horsemanship. The tone of the article may need some work, but trying to dismiss the topic as "nationalistic drivel" misses the mark entirely, as does attempting to link it to Trump. Intothat darkness 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have time this evening to follow up by examining your citations, but will try to get to that later. AfD discussions often turn on the quality of the sources. If sufficiently many reliable, secondary sources give significant or in-depth coverage to the topic, not just passing mentions, then the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. That's the one-sentence summary; what "sufficiently many" and "significant or in-depth" actually mean in this case perhaps can be answered only by looking at the sources.

"Reliable secondary" sources include the likes of Catton, McFeely, Smith, White, Chernow. You should specifically be circumspect about the use of sources such as Brisbin, Fuller, Headley, Grant's son, and other contemporaries. The quoted passage from Brisbin in the "Military" section is evidently hagiographic, and even just including it in the article betrays a generally hagiographic approach.

The question is not about the horsemanship; it's about the coverage of the horsemanship. Through an assortment of anecdotes passed down through the years, we can be fairly sure that Grant was an accomplished horseman. But how much attention do the serious modern biographies or the modern Civil War historians give to this topic? The answer to that is what determines whether or not this topic warrants an article of its own. And if it does, the sources for that article had better be good ones, and they had better be enthusiastic about the topic. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both Smith and White mention Grant's horsemanship over twenty times in their biographies, often at length and at various points during his life. I'd certainly say it's not a trivial subject. Intothat darkness 17:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources exist so has significant coverage in reliable sources. Article quality (whether it is hagiographic or not) is completely irrelevant at AfD. Summary style says that notable sections of articles can always be spun off into child articles. Deletion claims under vague assertions of What Wikipedia is not ie I just don't like it are always suspect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep U.S. Grant's horsemanship is indeed quite notable, established by ample sources. I also agree that the nomination to delete this page is flawed by sheer, blind bias. TH1980 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an American equestrian, I strongly dispute this interpretation and reading of the article, and vote to Keep the article as a result. The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant is particularly notable, especially among U.S. Presidents, and appears to be written and intended for primarily an American audience. However, even many Americans are unaware of Grant's exceptional equestrian skills, which have also been noted by several historians. Additionally, "according to Wikipedia policy, editors should only nominate an article for...deletion under limited circumstances, such as pure vandalism, and not mark legitimate pages without good faith discussion". (See: Deletion of articles on Wikipedia.) I also strongly dispute the assertation that the article is "nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual", as the topic has been covered by both biographers of Grant, as well as other professional historians. Obversa (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ As noted by User:Intothatdarkness, both biographers and many professional historians have covered the "Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant" as a notable topic. While the article may need to be overhauled, the topic is notable in of itself to warrant its own Wikipedia article. I would also note that the Wikipedia article for Cincinnati, Ulysses S. Grant's primary Thoroughbred mount and favorite horse during the American Civil War, also ridden by Abraham Lincoln, was already merged into Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant some time ago. Deleting the page would be a disservice to not only the topic itself, but also the decision to merge the two articles. I also agree with User: Gwillhickers in questioning whether this suggested page deletion is in good faith or not, as Wikipedia policy dictates. Obversa (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Obversa: So you are admitting that you refuse to follow WP:AGF? So you are saying that, just because we disagree, I must be of bad faith? Polygnotus (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reply comes across as aggressive and uncivil, as well as your comments on my User talk page. Please do not comment on my User talk page, and keep discussion civil, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you. See: Wikipedia:How to be civil or Wikipedia:Civility. I stand by what I said in my original reply, and still vote to Keep the page based on my previous reasoning. Obversa (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well sourced and easily meets GNG, and per discussion and the historical fact that Grant was both known for his horsemanship and his horses. Besides, if he were alive today, and faced with the politics of 21st century America, he'd be a jockey. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article needs a rewrite but the sources exist and don't appear, at a surface level review, to be synth. We don't delete for bad writing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polygnotus — The fact that you automatically equate anti-nationalist bias with facts only serves to demonstrate, further, the lack of objectivity with which you assessed this article. Grant's horsemanship is largely a positive affair, and simply because there isn't coverage of his failures or short comings with horses and horsemanship is for the simple reason that there are no such episodes. His horse did lose its footing once, fell over, and landed on Grant's leg, but that was not Grant's fault entirely, if at all. — I once had a history professor claim, that history is mostly "written by the winners of wars", to which I commented, "what would history read like if it was only written by losers". In any case, much of history is written objectively, and again, simply because an account of a particular chapter seems positive, it doesn't automatically mean it's less than factual or over stated..-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone else. Thank you for your support. I am perfectly willing to improve on any sentence(s) or paragraph(s) that may need it, and am perfectly open to fair suggestions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INDENT. Ad hominems and straw man arguments make your argument weaker, not mine. What would history read like if it was written by the horses? Polygnotus (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy was point on, given your assessment. The only straw man around here was the one you stood up in front of this article.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough indents! Polygnotus (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

giddyup? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've mislaid my copy, but as additional source British military historian John Keegan discusses Grant's horsemanship in some detail in his 1987 book The Mask of Command ISBN 0-7126-6526-9 and compares it to that of the Duke of Wellington, another noted equestrian. Narky Blert (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

"Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird" - Okay? We don't delete articles for being weird to readers born outside the US, as far as I know. This AfD reads as reflexive anti-nationalism. That isnt a bad impulse, but I believe it is misplaced here.

I don't personally care for his horsemanship, but I've read enough biographies of Grant to know that it's important to every biographer of this massive figure in American history. Calling it nationalistic drivel unworthy of an article by comparing it to horses - horses that have articles of their own (you linked Alexander's horse, and here's Washington's horse)- seems to negate your point. Myth or no, it is a notable subject covered by reliable secondary sources. Comparing it to North Korean leaders' alleged golf prowess is also off-base - because Grant was actually good at riding horses.

I can't find good cause to delete this article. Though I agree the article certainly needs clean up. Happy to contribute to a clean up. Carlp941 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We must bear in mind that a "nationalist" is someone who loves and is loyal to one's own country. This doesn't mean that there is a dislike for other countries. Calling someone a "nationalist", by using terms like "nationalist drivel", "myths", etc, reveals a hatred or contempt for a given country, and in that case this is not good. Now we have the same apparent tendency behind the complaint just made on the Grant Talk page, here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (having already !voted). This discussion reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George H. W. Bush broccoli comments, a 2020 nomination which the community found to be ill-judged. Narky Blert (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The writing isn't great, but the subject is notable -- which is what matters here. Grant's horsemanship is no mere myth, it's something his scholarly biographers all mention. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Refocus, Rewrite: The information is worthy of being an article. I would focus on Grant's use of the Union Calvary during the Civil War. Confederate Calvary under Van Dorn (Holly Springs) and Forrest, may have influenced Grant to use Union Calvary under Sheridan. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have anything to do with Grant's use of cavalry. It's focused on his horsemanship, which isn't the same thing. Intothat darkness 13:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalry has to do with soildiers on horses. Grant was a soildier and a General. He convinced Lincoln to appoint Sheridan, head of the Army of the Potomac Cavalry. After Forrest and Van Dorn attacked Grant in Mississippi, Grant learned the importance of having a strong cavalry. I respect your opinion. I understand what you are saying. Your point is taken. This was just a suggestion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying and respect your opinion as well (although Grant's larger fight was to get Sheridan appointed to command in the Shenandoah Valley, and Sherman was the one who developed an obsession with Forrest). But we already have some serious feuding going on the article's talk page. Trying to add cavalry in would in my view just make things worse. And for the record, Grant didn't champion cavalry in any major way after the war, nor do historians write much about his overall use of cavalry being visionary or exceptional. He understood cavalry, including its limitations, and was very good at using it in the wider strategic sense...as he was with all his forces. Intothat darkness 23:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Five Forks was a Union victory in April, 1865. Sheridan led the Union Cavalry. Grant's most humiliating defeat was at Holly Springs in 1862, when Confederate General Van Dorn and his Conferderate Cavalry sacked Holly Springs, Grant's Union supply depot. Grant believed cavalry should be under stong leadership. That is all I am saying. Aside from this, I am for keeping the article, but trimmed down and rewritten. I hope this issue can be resolved in the near future. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say at this point the article is clearly a Keep. But the campaign has now moved to the article talk page. Intothat darkness 14:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wretha Hanson

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that she was an alternate vice-presidential candidate in one state for a minor fringe party's presidential campaign, which is not an automatic notability freebie -- it could get her an article if she were shown to actually pass WP:GNG for it, but it is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from GNG. But there are just three improperly-formatted footnotes here, all of which are to primary or unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all, so she hasn't been shown to satisfy GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have independent sources.Rustypenguin (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Keep arguments, while thoroughly researched, do not address the P&G-based issues raised by the Delete views. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Impure Reason

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

Fails WP:BOOK, only 5 citations in google scholar, none of which are reviews and 3 of which are by the author himself. Appears to be a vanity page. Psychastes (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Psychastes (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I can find is a few citations and a mention in a bibliography of work on Kant. The best is this which mainly focuses on another of Bartlett's books and notes "This is not my field and I haven’t tried to tackle the book, but have exchanged ideas with Steven about promoting it. You see, he has had an extremely difficult time trying to find anyone to review the book." Shapeyness (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any reviews of the book besides user reviews and a few brief mentions here and there. As it stands, it appears the book is not adequately covered from independent pubs failing WP:BOOKCRIT. X (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. As a graduate student in philosophy, I hope Wikipedia will keep this article. It is of great value to me and my seminar group members. This philosopher's book is important. It is very long and complex, so this well-researched article is very useful. It can benefit a lot of students.

50.78.191.225 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For these reasons:

The notability of the book has been confirmed by world-famous philosophers, including: (a) Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker [8], one of Germany's leading philosophers of science and physicist, who contributed the book's strongly endorsing Foreword; (b) renowned American philosopher Nicholas Rescher, who praised the book: "I admire its range of philosophical vision"; and (c) celebrated German philosopher Gerhard Preyer [9], who commended the book as "an impressive, bold, and ambitious work. Careful scholarship is balanced by original analyses".
As Brian Martin mentioned, it is difficult to find book reviewers willing to review a 900-page book. However, Wikipedia's standards for a book's notability admit exceptions. One of these is: A book that "is included in Project Gutenberg or an analogous project does not need to meet threshold standards" (Wikipedia:Notability (books)). The book was peer reviewed and included in the University of Pittsburgh's PhilSci-Archive [10], which offers "a stable, openly accessible repository in which scholarly articles and monographs may find a permanent home," analogous to Project Gutenberg.
The book is not a vanity publication. By the author's choice, the book was published as a benefit to the public at cost by a nonprofit publisher to make the nearly 900-page printed edition of the book affordable [11]. The book is also made freely available as an eBook through several archives, including PhilPapers, where since the book's publication 3 years ago, more than 2,500 copies have been downloaded [12].
Since the book's Wikipedia article was posted 12/2021, the article has had more than 5,800 pageviews, indicating the article's utility to Wikipedia users.
The article documents the evolution of the book over the course of previous publications by Bartlett spanning a period of more than 50 years. This information is found nowhere else and is valuable to professionals in philosophy.
Further supporting the book's notability, major research libraries in the U.S. and Europe have acquired copies of the printed edition, including Harvard, Wesleyan, Fordham, University of Illinois, Northwestern, Stanford, University of Washington, Utrecht University, Leipzig University, and University of Paris [13].
A translation into Spanish of the book's Introduction has been published, indicating growing international recognition of the book's importance [14].

Toh59 (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any of these points address the requirements of NBOOK. (Toh59, you might find it helpful to read WP:ATA.)

The quoted endorsements are not, as far as I can work out, from reviews. These opinions need to be published somewhere (not as WP:UGC) to "count" here.
It is not typically hard to find reviewers for academic monographs, since relevant academic journals often review them as a matter of course. Also, the threshold standards that are waived for Project Gutenberg books have to do with requirements like "it has an ISBN", not the notability standards we discuss here. The inclusion in PhilSci-Archive is not relevant to notability.
This has nothing to do with wiki-notability, i.e., coverage in secondary sources.
This has nothing to do with wiki-notability, i.e., coverage in secondary sources.
This has nothing to do with wiki-notability, i.e., coverage in secondary sources.
Being collected by libraries is a threshold standard (i.e., if it wasn't collected by libraries, we'd be much more confident it was not notable), but not a notability indicator in itself.
Being translated is not direct proof of notability, though it is usually the sort of thing that results in the generation of reviews (which are proof of notability)

Despite the poor argument above, I am open to the idea that this book may be notable. I have not done a search myself for sources, and there may be reviews in paywalled academic journals.

More intriguingly, the IP editor's mention of a "seminar group" suggests that this book might satisfy NBOOK#4, The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs. Toh59, 50.78.191.225, if you are able to provide syllabi or course listings of classes at multiple schools which have used this book, that would provide a rationale to keep the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked OpenSyllabus and there are two books listed there with this title, but they're by other authors, so it's not this book. Psychastes (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. The limitation insisted on here, that a book's endorsements must come solely and exclusively from reviews, is unreasonably restrictive. When a published book has a Foreword or Introduction written by a world-famous scientist or philosopher, as in the case of C. F. von Weizsäcker, by industry-wide standards this constitutes a major endorsement of a book. Secondly, a book's commendations that are published as an integral part of a book, for example, on the book's cover, back cover, or inside pages, qualify by those same standards as recognized endorsements of a book. Von Weizsäcker's very strongly commending Foreword, along with the commendations made by celebrated philosophers Nicholas Rescher and Gerhard Preyer, are all recognized without question as endorsements of the book.

1. You wrote, "These opinions need to be published somewhere (not as WP:UGC) to "count" here." User-generated content as understood by Wikipedia means "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated." The endorsements listed under (1) are by no means "user-generated": they do not comprise content from websites, but are, as required, published endorsements (in both the printed and the eBook editions). They were clearly not generated by Bartlett or content from websites, but were contributed by widely recognized scholars. To verify these published non-user-generated, endorsements, a copy of the published book containing von Weizsäcker's Foreword can be downloaded here [[15]], and a copy of commendations published as the book's back cover is available from [[16]], p. 849.
2. The threshold standards that are waived for Project Gutenberg books – like possessing an ISBN (the book possesses ISBN 978-0-578-88646-6) – can justifiably be said to apply to the book in question since the objectives of the PhilSci-Archive are analogous to PG's. Since the threshold standards do not apply to PG books, they would not apply to Bartlett's book in the PhilSci-Archive as an analogous repository.
This is simply not the case when it comes to 900-page books, as recognized by Brian Martin, and attested to by Bartlett himself: "to interest philosophy journal editors to review such a long book can be challenging. When the author asked the world-renowned Review of Metaphysics to consider reviewing the printed edition of Critique of Impure Reason, the editor responded by saying that it would not be possible to find a reviewer willing to read and review such a long book. If published for the first time today, Kant’s own Critique of Pure Reason would have a hard time finding willing reviewers" [[17]], p. 17.
Was not intended as a response to wiki-notability, but as evidence that the book is not a "vanity publication." It was published for the benefit of the public, with no financial benefit to the publisher or author. The eBook edition alone shows that, especially for a book with this large number of pages, it has a significant audience. Wikipedia's commitment to serving the public good and to provide a useful educational resource is relevant.
Has the same intent as 3.
Has the same intent as 3.
I agree, this meets an additional threshold standard, one that we ought not to ignore, especially since all of the universities that have added the book to their collections are known as major research institutions (and are not, for example, small public libraries).
Educators and scholars would definitely disagree with this claim: Being translated is a sign that a work is recognized as sufficiently notable and important to merit translation. Again, (2) applies here: Reviewers of extremely long technical works, even when translated, can be very hard to find.

Toh59 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: An additional and central reason, not previously mentioned in this discussion:

Much of Bartlett's notability is due to his many publications. Of his publications, the massive Critique of Impure Reason has been recognized as the culmination of Bartlett's work: "a great book, the fruit of a lifetime of research" in the words of American philosopher Martin X. Moleski [[18]], p. 849. The present article documents the importance of the book as the end-result of Bartlett's research over a period of more than 50 years. The importance, complexity, and length of this major work warrant and call for this separate article. Toh59 (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion (delete) is unchanged by Toh59's rebuttals, which continue to misunderstand wiki-notability and WP:NBOOK. Note that Toh59 already provided a bolded keep !vote before the relisting, so the above should not be counted a second time.

(To engage a bit with Toh59's arguments: The forewords etc are indeed published but they are not independent: for a source to show notability it must be all three of wp:reliable, wp:independent, and wp:sigcov. Moreover, we don't actually care what people say, just that people have said a lot of things, so praise of the book is not relevant if it isn't from a review or other form of reliable, independent sigcov. The quote from Martin X. Moleski is also from within the book itself, and not independent. Toh59, it seems like you are putting your energy in the wrong places: if you can provide 2 book reviews or proof that 2 different schools have taught this book, the article can be kept.)

As far as I can work out, zero sources have provided for notability, and the investigation of NBOOK#4 was also a bust. There is no policy-based rationale for a keep. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You state, apparently without misgiving, the following policy: "we don't actually care what people say, just that people have said a lot of things, so praise of the book is not relevant if it isn't from a review or other form of reliable, independent sigcov." If what you state here is a guiding principle in Wikipedia, then this reduces a book's notability to a simple standard of how many heads we can count who are talking about a book, and dismisses whether a book has been endorsed in its Foreword by a physicist and philosopher with a reputation in same ball club as a Heisenberg, Jauch, Bohr, or Einstein. The counting policy would in this case give more weight and credibility to head-counting regardless of qualification, while dismissing the judgment of those best qualified to form an opinion.

WP:NBOOK advocates a rational policy: "The criteria provided by this guideline are rough criteria. They are not exhaustive. Accordingly, a book may be notable, and merit an article, for reasons not particularized in this or any other notability guideline….

Regarding academic and technical books, which the book under discussion clearly is, Wikipedia's policy is also reasonable: "Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail.

—It is just this – common sense – that is needed in the exclusionist push for the article's deletion. For academic books, the WP:NBOOK policy goes on to state: "In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, … whether one or more translations of the book have been published…." –And, as has been pointed out, since Bartlett's book appeared in 2021, one translation has already been published.

Given the weight placed on reviews, you've also stated: "It is not typically hard to find reviewers for academic monographs, since relevant academic journals often review them as a matter of course." As Brian Martin and Bartlett have both noted, what you've said is simply untrue: Some disciplines offer many outlets for books to be reviewed. A book in physics, for example, has many more review opportunities than a book in philosophy.

Since you want quantitative data, here is a time-consuming test that I've made, and hope you are open-minded and willing to make it yourself: I've searched for reviews of any books in philosophy, books that meet the following criteria: (1) published within the same time-frame as Bartlett's Critique of Impure Reason (i.e., since the Fall of 2021), (2) containing a minimum of 800 pages, and (3) representing new work by a single author -- that is, excluding reprinted editions of long classical works and edited collections of papers by multiple authors.

I was not able to find a single work that meets these criteria by having been reviewed at least once. If this is indeed a fact about reality, then to require of Bartlett's book that it meet a standard that is simply not met by any comparable book in the real world, is to impose an unrealistic and unreasonable demand.

The article that is facing cancellation has already served more than 5,800 readers (how, we of course cannot know), an average of more than 4 pageviews a day. For a book whose title is far from sexy, but evidently "intellectual and technical," we may reasonably conjecture that the article possesses some interest or some value to a surprising number of people. Since the information found in the article is to be found nowhere else, bringing together in a single documented discussion of Bartlett's work over a 50-year period, pressing the delete button ends this. What is the public benefit served by deleting it, weighed against the potential value to Wikipedia users of keeping it? Toh59 (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure if the article we have is a genuine work of WP:OR or just a result of a newbie editor not fully understanding how citation works on wikipedia, but this article is not a neutral summary of the book and its reception or academic legacy - all of the citations that aren't to the book aren't actually to sources that directly support the information in the article. For example, in the background section, we have Bartlett's doctoral dissertation A Relativistic Theory of Phenomenological Constitution: A Self-referential, Transcendental Approach to Conceptual Pathology. This work presents within a phenomenological framework a logically compelling method that makes it possible to identify and correct conceptual transgressions that are self-undermining. This is the first work in which Bartlett describes the project of a "critique of impure reason." There are two footnotes here - both to the dissertation itself. There is no secondary source linking the dissertation to the book that is the subject of the article; the article isn't even citing Critique of Impuree Reason itself for the idea that this book grew out of these sources. Much of the rest of the article is only sourced to the book itself, and has strongly non-npov phrases like the book proposes a new and revisionary philosophical understanding. The entire last section appears to be back-cover blurbs and other marketing material - these are not acceptable for wikipedia articles on books.

All of this is to say that even if the book is found to be notable, I think we're looking at a WP:TNT delete. But is it a notable book? Well... half of the citations to the book are by the author himself. I found a review that looked promising - but it's also by the author. It seems like there has been a concerted but ineffective effort by this scholar to promote his book. I'm not saying our article is one such attempt... but I'm not not saying that either. Delete. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asilvering, you wrote: "the article isn't even citing Critique of Impure Reason itself for the idea that this book grew out of these sources."

You'll find a detailed description of the direct evolution of the book from Bartlett's doctoral dissertation on the first two pages of the book's Preface (pp. xxix-xxx). Toh59 (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Grandstaff

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Tracy Grandstaff * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Daria Morgendorffer for single character notability.
SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote at the RfD, the page is not suitable as a redirect to any target. Jay 💬 21:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With coverage in TV Insider, Yahoo News, Vice, and TV Insider (again), I see notability for Grandstaff. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage of someone with a fairly notable voice role Claire 26 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is decently sourced and meets the WP:NACTOR criteria. Absolutely no point in redirecting anywhere else. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Grossman

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

I don't think an Emmy nomination is enough to hit WP:NACTOR BrigadierG (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. BrigadierG (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But he has played one of the central roles in the most popular US soap opera for the past five years (which became an Emmy nomination). Wikipedia has articles about actors with far fewer credits. And I looked at his imdb pages and apparently he has also done film roles.--Pisces (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. One click and found lots of potential sources. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google result sheet isn't exactly brimming with high-quality sources, but the nomination statement doesn't even contain a reason for deletion (we have plenty of pages for actors who have never been Emmy nominated), hence keep. Geschichte (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Albert

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

Lacks significant coverage, though his company Design Projects is an extremely generic name. No possible redirect as his company does not have an article. He seems to have worked mostly on B movies. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Advertising, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Design Projects Incorporated was formed on February 10, 1978 in California, (see https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business) and was closed on June 1, 1994.

Design Projects first client was Universal Pictures, and also did advertising, design and packaging for 20th Century Fox, Warner Home Video, Columbia Pictures, as well as international distributors, starting with Best International Films and Producers Sales Organizations, and including Goldcrest and ad campaigns for Sanrio Films while they had a Los Angeles branch office.

It also created ad campaigns for many independent film distributors, such as Group One, New World, Film Ventures International. We also

Prior to 1978, I worked as a freelance designer for Universal Pictures, Filmways, as well as Universal Music.

Richard Albert RLA2024 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with zero evidence of notability. Promotional article created by a single-purpose/COI account with no viable coverage at all (search turned up mostly an architectural firm with a similar name). Heck, the only source cited therein doesn't even mention the subject nor his company. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 18:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Article lacks solid sources, lacks evidence of notability. Edit history suggests massive COI problem. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Edwin Fulton

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

This article does not meet general notability guidelines and lacks sources. The one source the article does have is dubious as well. Samoht27 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Fiji. Samoht27 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, excessively lacking proper sources. Noorullah (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mom, no WP:GNG. Poorly written article, but with no sources outside of the article as well. Contributor892z (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:OR. The only source is a directory listing. When we have a page with only one source, it is tantamount to original research. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Found no source to defend, not notable. Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found a few thing on Google with passing mentions but nothing of substance. Fails WP:NBIO. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any reliable sources Waqar💬 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, SIGCOV, OR, GNG, etc. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Indonesia–United States relations#Diplomatic missions.. Star Mississippi 18:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of the United States, Surabaya

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

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Indonesia, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4 of the 6 sources are primary. Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indonesia–United_States_relations#Diplomatic_missions. Reywas92^Talk 14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indonesia–United_States_relations#Diplomatic_missions. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ashby

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the current sources, the first was written by the subject himself, and the second is a brief mention quoted from a press release. A BEFORE check revealed some quotes and namedrops but little else. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Law, and Politics. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no claim to notability. TJRC (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:MILL, and my own standards for lawyers. Yes he's been mentioned in two news articles, but that's not significant coverage. Many, perhaps thousands, of lawyers are involved in politics. He doesn't pass my standards for lawyers by a stretch. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination)

AfDs for this article:

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

Micro-denomination of three churches with no reliable sources to establish notability via significant coverage. All existing sources fail to establish notability:

Link - Primary Source
Link - Appears to be a reliable source with coverage on page 15, but note on page 2 that the author of the coverage on page 15 is/was a senior leader within the subject of the article and thus this source is not independent.
Link. Self-published source of questionable reliability, not updated for a decade.
Link Primary source
Link - Erroneously cited and fails verification. The citation describes as "Doctrines of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church"; the actual title of the paper is different.
Link - Fails verification for notability; does not reference subject.
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages. Fails verification for notability.
Link - Primary source

Editors arguing for "Keep" in the 2022 non-consensus AfD discussion depended heavily on 2 and 5; however, as I've shown here, 2 is not an independent source for notability, and 5 fails verification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either a walled garden type or passing mentions in directories. This is yet another non-notable splinter Calvinist group. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As this is a 2nd nomination, would prefer a more explicit consensus to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct micro-denomination that existed for less than 10 years. It is not included in any of the authoritative encyclopedic sources (e.g. Melton). Can find no sources to establish notability under GNG or NORG. Existing sources in the article are unreliable or unverifiable. My analysis follows:

Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages
Link - Primary source
Banner of Truth magazine. This magazine is not available online (see here) and thus this citation is unverifiable.
British Church Newspaper. Likewise unavailable online and thus unverifiable.
Link - Primary source
Link - Discussion board; user-generated content.
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - Self-published primary source

During the 2006 AfD, which resulted in no consensus, those arguing for "keep" tended not to make policy-based arguments. Additionally, they specifically pointed to the British Church Newspaper and Banner of Truth Magazine citations as proving notability. After 18 years, however, these publications remain unavailable online (including in the Internet Archive) and thus cannot be verified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Invalid reasoning. A source that is not online remains verifiable by a trip to a library. Dead-tree sources are perfectly legitimate. And a denomination being defunct really doesn't matter. If it was notable once, it remains notabvle. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the 2006 discussion, this is the full text in one of the dead-tree sources: "On January 13-14, 2006, a new Presbyterian denomination was formed. During delegate meetings in Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted the name Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS). The founding churches came together because of perceived equivocation towards important biblical doctines and because of tolerance of excesses in contemporary worship in other Presbyterian denominations." Sounds like WP:TRIVIALMENTION to me. I've made every effort to verify its existence; however, the comprehensive Banner of Truth magazine archive does not include this citation (see page 99, where no such article is referenced in the April 2006 issue). The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who added the material to add a verifiable, reliable source, and this isn't. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either a walled garden type or passing mentions in directories. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This new denomination was an admin action by 7 churches. They changed their name and 10-15 years later changed it again. The refs don't stack up to notability. Desertarun (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Ivanov (model)

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

Non-notable model, fails WP:NMODEL. Both references are from 2013 (one is broken). Doesn't seem to have his models.com profile updated since 2017. Does not meet wp:ANYBIO or wp:GNG. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, Fashion, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and United States of America. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to USS Saipan (LHA-2)#1980s. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise Anorak Express

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

Not notable. No coverage in secondary sources. Entire article is copy/pasted from [19]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Norway and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Saipan (LHA-2)#1980s as an WP:ATD. Not independently notable. Jfire (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Competitive Technology

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

fails general notability guideline. every source in the article is primary. ltb d l (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Business, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Per @Ltbdl stance. It lacks notability and it is not yet ready for inclusion on Wikimedia. Let's give it a year and see. Fugabus (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable secondary sources and it does not even meet notability guidelines per WP:GNG. It doesn't fit for an article. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knightquest

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this meets WP:NFILM / WP:GNG. Kept at 2006 AfD, but standards were considerably lower then. Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. There's a paragraph in this The Weekly Standard article: [20], doesn't count as significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If not kept (and I am no sage of SW lore), merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits as an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits (which I think should split out), as it has won an award. If more secondary sources can be found, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits. There is very little on this. It gets a mention in an issue of Premiere magazine,[21] in a piece talking about approaches to franchise copyright infringement. It is also mentioned in this paper,[22] which looks at the phenomenon of fan films. No citations of that paper mind. Nothing here makes it notable in its own right, but the paper shows what is notable: fan films. This is held up as an interesting example of these. As such it really should be briefly covered on the cultural impact page, and it could also be mentioned on any other page about fan films. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Webster University#Campus. I see a general consensus to Redirect and no additional support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Webster University campus locations

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

Unencyclopedic content per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Also fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Lists, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Webster University#Campus. If it doesn't exist there, merge the citation so the source of the full list is still available to readers. ~Kvng (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a redirect, it's not a plausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
/agree but redirects are cheap. // Timothy :: talk 06:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Redirects are cheap. Fails NLIST and CLN as a stand alone list. List entirely sourced to a single page on the subject website. // Timothy :: talk 06:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David McGarry

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

An unsourced article, and there is nothing that I could find online that would allow David McGarry to meet notability requirements for musicians. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Video games, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nomination. InDimensional (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced BLP. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heights and weights of US presidents

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and failure to meet WP:LISTN. In addition, we also already have Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States: This list is already included as part of the aforementioned article. Weight isn't a notable detail about these people, either. Samoht27 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I simply created the list because I was unable to find any website that allowed me to compare my self to a US president. Also if we are arguing that this is trivial then I feel that US presidential nicknames would qualify in that category more than this would. I would also like a specific reason for deletion because I feel that it is currently based off of their being a similar article (Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States). I think this article is a valuable supplement as the Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States article dives deep into comparison of heights amongst candidates this article over the broader scope of the presidents general body size. Pickup Andropov (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are US presidential nicknames trivial? They are often important aspects of the presidents campaigning, or important aspects of how the presidents are viewed in popular culture. Furthermore, there being a similar article is a valid cause for deletion, since such articles serve as a Redundant Fork. Samoht27 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Reviewer here. I wasn't aware of Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States when I accepted the draft, which was my mistake. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States, as this list is already part of that article. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have a list for height and the weight is a trivial aspect. The weight being included in the title makes it a bad redirect to a list of only heights, so just delete it. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. Ben Azura (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think height or weight are notable characteristics of US presidents. JIP | Talk 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork of a list. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Buddy Story

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

Found zero evidence of notability myself. Mushy Yank added a Variety article which mentions the film, but only very briefly, so I don't take it for much. And even then, if that's all there is then I don't see why this should've been dePRODded in the first place. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I deproDed the page because... the film might be notable (see my edit summary; and deletion did not seem uncontroversial). This is a released film with a notable cast, including a very notable actress (and, before anyone adds a link in caps to a WP essay, no, notability is not inherited but a notable cast contributes to a film's potential notability). The production received coverage (https://www.jpost.com/jewish-world/jewish-news/filmmaker-marries-hollywood-to-tikkun-olam#google_vignette; https://www.mtv.com/news/jic2e3/elisabeth-moss-a-buddy-story-trailer; https://www.slashfilm.com/520699/a-buddy-story-trailer-elizabeth-moss/) but they're not reviews. Is it significant enough? I don't know. But a PROD does not allow discussion, does it? Is there more? Maybe. This AfD might be the place to present other sources (NB- I've added a few tiny things, including the sources linked here). Is there an ATD? Maybe. Same answer. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete doesn't seem to meet WP:NF. It was missing from two of the cast's filmography tables so I added it in, noticed that Elizabeth Moss and Torah Feldshuh have both made more recent films that don't have articles so unless anyone can find better independent sources I don't think this needs an entry. Orange sticker (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Slash Film and MTV are RS, but they only briefly talk about the film's trailer, which I don't think help meet film notability. Those are about all I can find as well, I don't think we have enough for film notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Davis Jr. (presidential candidate)

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

Very minor candidate who appeared on two primary ballots. Received less than 4000 votes out of nearly 20 million cast. Lacking significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the content or sources is substantively biographical. Just some dude who took advantage of easy ballot access. Reywas92^Talk 16:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots. Geotubemedia (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. I think a redirect would give an undue indication of notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots as a viable ATD. Per nom. and others, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (No prejudice against the recreation of a redirect from the redlink if desired, but delete first as I see no value in holding onto the edit history behind a redirect.) Fringe candidates for president are not "inherently" notable per WP:NPOL just for existing, and have to show some evidence of actually passing WP:GNG on their sourceability — but this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with no GNG-worthy sourcing shown whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots, he's a minor candidate known only for being a minor candidate. Samoht27 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots.GobsPint (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots: Good ATD as it's a valid search term. Regarding GPL93's point, redirects do not imply that an article ought to exist or that the subject is notable. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Rcats like {{R from child}}. In response to Bearcat's point, the preferred ATD is redirect, not delete, red link, and then create a redirect anew. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mastrogiorgio

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor whose career has been a string of tiny roles and insignificant voice acting gigs. Fails WP:BIO. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Video games, Comics and animation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Starring roles in My Italy Story, Rocky the Musical, and Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories. The reviews for My Italy Story seem to be only ones that mention his performance (Hartford Courant review the only one that isn't a permanent dead link: [23]). --Mika1h (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBIO, I don't see any sources indicating significant coverage. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Seattle

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

Consular office that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Lacking in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Sources at the article are mostly irrelevant, such as an opinion piece in a newspaper about Taiwan and China and a transcript of President Carter's address about recognition of China. AusLondonder (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Taiwan, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete nothing to suggest notability for this topic. Mccapra (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a defacto consulate which is less notable than an embassy. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions per Cunard as WP:ATD. Redirects are cheap. Jumpytoo Talk 04:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cunard a# ATD. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for supporting a redirect as an alternative to deletion! Cunard (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Babcock–Macomb House. BusterD (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C.

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources and no in-depth coverage available. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Ivory Coast, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Babcock-Macomb House, its location. The fact that it is now the embassy is stated there. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Babcock–Macomb House per Mangoe. Excellent example of a subject that benefits from consolidation with an article covering the same topic. BD2412 T 16:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Summer Obsession

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

Article about a band, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims here are (a) being booked to play a major festival tour but then not doing it because their stage was cancelled, which is not a free pass over the touring criterion as they obviously can't have gotten coverage for a tour that didn't happen; (b) releasing one album on a major label, where NMUSIC requires two albums before the mere existence of albums becomes a notability clinch in and of itself; and (c) placing songs in video games and compilation albums, which is the one criterion in NMUSIC that explicitly undermines itself with a "not enough if it's the only criterion they pass" stopper clause.
But this is referenced solely to an AllMusic profile, which is a valid starter source but not enough all by itself, and since all of this happened 15-20 years ago a Google search is only landing me directory entries and primary sources rather than WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access than I've got to archived US music media coverage from the naughts can find enough proper sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy footnote. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fin Leavell#With The Summer Obsession. Fails both WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a tough one on account of the difficult-to-Google name and the age, but the Allmusic entry accurately reflects that this band did tour nationally in the late 2000s and have a reasonable level of visibility in the scene at the time. Redirecting to Leavell's discography doesn't seem to be very helpful to users. Unfortunately, a lot of the independent press of that time is no longer online (I'm fairly certain they got written up in Alternative Press, but their online archive doesn't go back that far, and I definitely recall that they were reviewed at Absolute Punk, which is no longer operating), but there is still a little out there - besides AMG, there's [24], [25], [26], and [27] (note that Exclaim! is international coverage). That's enough to squeak by for me, especially on the reasonable presumption that there are offline sources to supplement. Since they toured and released their album in Japan, we might also want to look for Japanese-language sources; this might be a Melee-type "big in Japan" situation. Chubbles (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one will meet WP:MUSICBIO for being on several major labels (Virgin Records, Universal, EMI Music).Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the Allmusic entry, there is the Allmusic review. In addition to that and the other aforementioned reviews, I found one in The Oklahoman [28] . Geschichte (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: due to plenty of reviews in publications, national tours and major labels. It's not strong notability, but it does seem to scrape by. InDimensional (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A discussion about a possible Redirection can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States of America Computing Olympiad

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated a year ago and the result was no consensus, because an organization that is the main feeder competition for the IOI has to have sources. I agree, but really, there is nothing, I've tried. I propose redirection to International Olympiad in Informatics. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a couple of news sources I found (however, they aren't in-depth):

- https://www.oregonlive.com/my-north-of-26/2015/06/daniel_chiu_from_catlin_gabel.html

- https://www.ahwatukee.com/news/article_ae8b9bf0-f355-11e4-a52a-a7cc90dfff19.html

- https://scnow.com/news/local/clemson-university-to-host-usa-computing-olympiad-for-top-high-school-students/article_b3187844-0e21-5ed9-877c-8158b66bc8f9.html Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Staraction's sources. I feel there aren't too many sources outside of WP:PRIMARY, but what they provided, looks like it's enough. Conyo14 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I'm suspicious of new accounts that immediately seek an article's deletion but this is a Soft Delete so the article can be restored should valid concerns arise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Selby (psychologist)

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

Nominating this article for deletion because it does not meet the notability guidelines. No reliable sources are referenced or can be found online. Alexwiki0496 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Business, Spirituality, Psychology, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject spectacularly fails WP:GNG despite the effort to inundate the text with pseudo-sources. The fact that the text has been created, curated, and posted up by a kamikaze account, the same one that provided the (perhaps, self-) portrait, is typically a warning sign. A pachyderm from the land of Prom. -The Gnome (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very strange that the article title has the disambiguator "psychologist" but it doesn't mention what qualifications he has in psychology. Could it be that that is because he has none? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Fuel Formula

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

The last entry in the now-depopulated Category:The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends episodes (other episodes and story arcs proved to be non-notable and got redirected after prods and AfDs). This one, being the first story arc, is... well, longer than many others but still does not show why it is notable. We have a gigantic plot summary with poor references and my BEFORE fails to find much of use. I suggest redirecting this one as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be OR. I can't find much of anything for sourcing, but this much info had to come from somewhere, so I'm lost for how it got so much detail. Regardless, no sourcing is no sourcing and a delete. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tire-pressure monitoring system. Daniel (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 138

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

Wikipedia is not the Federal Register. There are a large number of articles like this one which should also be evaluated for notability, I encountered this article through New Page Patrol. No secondary coverage present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Mangoe (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Tire-pressure monitoring system, which is what the safety standard regulates. There is some secondary coverage in Google Books, the Internet Archive, Google News and Google Scholar. There is at least one full article on the standard: [29]. We do not have a policy or guideline that says we are "not the Federal Register". Also called FMVSS 138. James500 (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am persuaded that this topic satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain This is one of many article on an automotive safety standard. Like many stub articles, it could benefit from being expanded but I see no reason to delete or merge.Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you try a policy based argument, please? How does this meet WP:GNG? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tire-pressure monitoring system. There are an insane amount of regulations about there, many of which recevive some coverage, but very few need articles, especially when we have a great target article like this – Tire-pressure_monitoring_system#Firestone_recall_and_legal_mandates already has this content and can acommodate more so a separate page is not necessary! Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as an WP:ATD, given the case made by Reywas92.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Welborn

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

He doesn't seem to meet WP:ENT / WP:GNG. Working actors, but not the significance of roles needed. Also currently an unref BLP. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage. Does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Articles that have been proposed for deletion are ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With roles as "guy at cafe" and "angry cop" as examples, he's very much not notable. Character actors usually aren't notable unless you have extensive biographical articles about them that we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Hurricane Hugo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA Flight 42

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

Barely intelligible. From what I've gathered, a Hurricane Hunters flight had an engine failure in flight during a mission, but was still able to return to base and land safely, see Hurricane hunters#Other incidents. This does not merit a separate article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Barbados, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hurricane Hugo. The subsection of NOAA Flight 42 already explains in detail what happened. I don't really think a separate article is needed.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and delete, possibly WP:SALT. This is such a minor incident, with no loss of life, as to be a footnote. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Song Haus Music

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

This article on a USA-based record label, created in 2010, is unreferenced. Per WP:Before no sigcov found including in searches in both the wikipedia library and standard search engine, except a passing mention in Billboard ([30]). Subject fails to meet notability guidelines. As there aren't guidelines in place for record labels - I expect WP:NORG applies. ResonantDis_tortion 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, and United States of America. ResonantDis_tortion 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This company shares a warehouse with two other record labels: Metallic Blue Records and Rewind Records. [31] StonyBrook _babble 22:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

146th Air Support Operations Squadron

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

It exists but there is limited coverage (article currently unreferenced, with some possible sources which could be added). I couldn't see that it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG in its own right, or a suitable merge target. Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick WP:BEFORE shows plenty of sources exist. [32][33][34][35][36] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources are really independent of the subject. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hawkeye7, though this page does need some cleanup Claire 26 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to review sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Redirect to 137th Special Operations Wing is cheap and keeps the entire page history intact. We don't conclude keep on an article which has no reliable independent sourcing, no matter how many bolded keep assertions are made. I assert redirect to the parent unit's page until direct detailing in multiple and diverse reliable sources is presented and inserted. BusterD (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major unit with plenty of sources. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Major unit? Eight aircraft? What sources do you have that this is a major unit. Assertions are not proof. At the risk of being accused of !voting twice, there are zero sources applied to the page, and none of the links provided by worthy Hawkeye7 meet independence of the subject. Even a wp:sportsperson requires at least a single source which directly details. Here we have none, nothing, nada. This discussion cannot be closed as keep without sourcing which meets RS. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not have to be applied to the page; it is sufficient that they exist. I have supplied a short list of web sites (eg [37]) referencing the subject and the claim that they are not wikipedia:Independent sources is the only assertion without proof here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the presented sources meets independence because (as you are fully aware), each is an official US military source. "Official United States Air Force Website" on the bottom of each of these af.mil sources makes them connected. ok.ng.mil is another connected source. afspecialwarfare.com is a third. www.dvidshub.net actually says it's a US Department of Defense website. The burden is on those asserting keep who must demonstrate such sources exist, User:Hawkeye7. I'm only asking for IRS; that's policy. I don't dispute the unit is verified; I merely hold to standards of inclusion to which the community has agreed. BusterD (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "major unit" in British military terminology (I'm British) is a designation for a battalion-sized unit commanded by a lieutenant-colonel. In other words, one covered by WP:MILUNIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that definition; I'm often woefully underinformed, which why I try to rely on policy, guideline, and inline citation. I was confused (by what I thought of your use of a superlative). Every editor in this discussion is a more accomplished content creator than I am, but nobody has actually applied these connected sources to the pagespace. For my part I'm only on this page as a passing editor looking to close a triple relist; during my reading I developed an opinion. I wasn't going to supervote but I also wasn't going along when I disagreed in principle. I'm not going to force this issue further. BusterD (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I've added a few independent reliable sources [38], [39], [40] to help pass the the GNG guidelines. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women

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

Nothing in the article or my BEFORE suggests this meets WP:GNG (or WP:NFILM). Nothing in GBooks or GScholar (well, one mention in a German book?). Maybe there is some coverage in National Lampoon (magazine) ( September/October 1994), but it is a parody magazine, so not sure if it is reliable, and even if there is something there, GNG requires multiple sources (so at least one more). Can anyone find anything to rescue this - or failing that, suggest a valid redirect target? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hello Piotrus, I should think that even if the National Lampoon is a satirical magazine, it is significant coverage. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Forget what I said, it's obviously a primary source....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a few things. A redirect (many targets can be considered) is also possible. Opposed to Deletion. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides the reviews already in the article, there's this, this, this, this and this which is enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find independent sources. Does not pass WP:GNG Hkkingg (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hkkingg Take a look at what @Somebodyidkfkdt found. It looks promising, although sadly the last three seem to be empty? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TWL doesn't provide access to the last three unfortunately. There's also this, this, this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful. What would the redirect target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~Delete~~ There are just two significant articles on this movie (that I can find). One is a full paragraph in TV Guide from 8/20/1994. The other is the LA Times article, which is genuinely substantial. This movie gets continued brief mentions in video guides, but almost nothing else. Hard to see this coming even close to meeting WP:NFILM Oblivy (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Did you look at the sources found above? And are the sources you found oline and linkable for others to review? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus sorry I just did. The Entertainment Tonight article is lengthy, but I don't know if it counts towards the nationally known critics factor. The TV guide article is paywalled above but another TV guide article from the same date is here[41]. The video guides are available at archive.org. Oblivy (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Playing the devil's advocate (since I am the nom), I think that we have enough sources to show this meets GNG with SIGCOV, although I did not access your sources (but coverage in LA Time, which you call substantial, is pretty good). I'll ping User:Cunard in case he can locate it and quote it/link it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, LA times is source #3. Oblivy (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to comment. There's little of substance except in that short period of 1994, but Cunard brought the sources. There's a common sense reading of GNG that could easily prevail here and I'd be fine with keeping the article. Oblivy (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bell, Miles (1994-08-19). "'Attack of 5'2'' Women'". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 333, no. 30. pp. 12, 16. ProQuest 2362086371.
  The review notes: "Julie Brown casts a long, amusing shadow in Showtime's head-strongly dumb "National Lam- poon's Attack of the 5'2" Women," an umbrella title for two films. The kicky pair of satires within spoof two of the media's recent bete noir bad girls, skater-agitator Tonya Harding and impromptu surgeon Lorena Bobbitt, whose fictional counterparts are both played by Brown. Yes, nothing is sacred and all bets are off as "Attack" goes on the offensive, seizing the public personas of Harding and Bobbitt to transmit a picture of cheesy, pulp aspirations, where fame and lame are interchangeable and mass communications is the twisted funnel through which rattles the news. ... Ah, but an instant before this, the missus learns that her recently repaired hubby has been cheating again. Ouch! Sophomoric and crude, and way too long, "Attack" manages to play as a fun-dumb damning of the media-rama."
2. Hiltbrand, David (1994-08-22). "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 ft.2 Women". People. Vol. 42, no. 8. p. 12. EBSCOhost 9408227615.
  The review notes: "In this daffy double-header, Julie Brown spoofs two of last year's tabloid inamoratas. First, in an utterly unruly farce, she plays Tonya Hardly. The chain-smoking, asthma-atomizer-sucking, overweight skater is consumed with jealously for her competitor Nancy Cardigan (Khrystyne Haje). ... While this pair of infamous headline-generators present perfect targets for Brown's raucous, ribald satire, the fact is that both episodes seem a little dated already. Nothing goes stale faster than a juicy tabloid scandal. Grade: B+"
3. Schwarzbaum, Lisa (1994-08-19). "Feminine High Jinks". Entertainment Weekly. No. 236. p. 46. EBSCOhost 9408227610.
  The review notes: "In NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ATTACK OF THE 5'2" WOMEN (Showtime, Sunday, 8-9:30 p.m.), the very funny, very brazen star of Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful, the wicked 1991 parody of Madonna's Truth or Dare parody, sinks her fangs into two notorious women of recent headlines, figure skater Tonya Harding and spouse mutilator Lorena Bobbitt, and doesn't let go. As she did in Medusa, Brown ... sticks closely to the original text; in this case, her text is the chronology of Harding's bumbling plot to sideline her hated rival, Nancy Kerrigan, and Bobbitt's bumbling plan to sideline her hated husband, John Wayne Bobbitt. ... That Attack of the 5'2" Women flags is due to its length--90 minutes is a hell of a long way to go for two jokes--as well as to the datedness of its situations. There are no two recent, overreported media stories richer for comedy by and about women than those of Harding and Bobbitt, and, consequently, we've already seen and heard a heap. This quarry is too easy. In the name of comedy sisterhood, Julie Brown should lace up her bustier and work at a tougher assignment--say, whipping sketch comedy into shape. She TV: C+ At-tack of the 5'2" Women: B-. "
4. Willman, Chris (1994-08-20). "TV Reviews : '5 Ft. 2 Women' Doesn't Measure Up as Timely Satire". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review ntoes: "For, though everyone would recognize John Wayne Bobbitt (or Juan Wayne, as his wife calls him here) as the funnier figure from his subsequent deadpan attempts to cash in on his celebrity, Brown hogs the comedy in this half with her Venezuelan accent and a macha swagger that doesn’t quite square with anyone’s worst picture of the real Lorena. As a targetless spoof, it’s, well, satirically challenged."
5. Taylor, Jonathan (1994-08-19). "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "Brown’s brilliant Madonna satire, “Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful,” and her campy novelty hit songs like “Homecoming Queen’s Got a Gun” point to her obvious skill. But “Attack of the 5’2″ Women” comes off no better than a latter-day National Lampoon, where the philosophy has descended to the point where anything is allowed, and it would be good if at least some of it were funny."
6. Mendoza, Manuel (1994-08-21). "Tonya-Lorena sendup is a mean-spirited letdown". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "The humor in "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story" is broad - Ms. Harding's behind, for instance, is the target of many a joke. And the panting media, perfect prey, escape virtually unscathed. Ms. Brown plays both women as conniving, clueless and exceedingly tacky. The adjectives "gross" and "cheap" also come to mind - for example, when, in trying to attract "Juan Wayne," Ms. Babbitt licks a jukebox. Meanwhile, "Tonya Hardly" cuts her pizza with her skates, while her ditzy competitor "Nancy Cardigan" endorses pork with the line, "It's really neat." Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women isn't."
7. Richmond, Ray (1994-08-19). "Television - HBO 'Enemy' Remake Wages Uphill Battle". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "This elevation of tackiness to an art form is what we get from Julie Brown in "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," a rousing 90- minute double feature of rude, crude and lewd that premieres at 8 p.m. Sunday on Showtime. Brown portrays Harding (called Tonya Hardly here) and Bobbitt (Lenora Babbitt for these purposes) in a pair of satires that prove as side-splitting as they are over-the-top. ... "Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women" is undeniably sophomoric stuff. Yet it's often so funny you have trouble catching your breath."
8. Laurence, Robert P. (1994-08-18). "Tawdry events turn into comedies - Harding, Bobbitt inspire outrageous minimovies". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "Under the umbrella title, "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," Brown presents "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Gave Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story." ... Her method is simple. Beginning with stories we all know, she takes each somewhere beyond the truth, twisting here, adding there, being careful to offend just about everybody at one time or another. And yes, both are very funny -- if you're not the sort to be easily outraged."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard and other editors earlier in the discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 23:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Political and Legal Education

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

according to https://web.archive.org/web/20061019054352/http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EPTW/eptw8/eptw8l.html - the IPLE is a programme of study developed in New Jersey - not an organisation. The reference is dated 1995. This is the reference that I can find to IPLE. That suggests it was not widely used. On that basis, I suggest this page is deleted. Newhaven lad (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, Education, United States of America, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Source searches are demonstrating that this may meet notability requirements. I have copy edited the article to denote that it is an educational program, rather than an organization. Additionally, regarding the nomination, the degree to which a program is used has no bearing on notability for topics. Below are a few sources to consider:
Huberman, A.M.; Miles, M.B. (2013). Innovation up Close: How School Improvement Works. Environment, Development and Public Policy: Public Policy and Social Services. Springer US. ISBN 978-1-4899-0390-7. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
Park, J.S.; United States. Office of Education (1978). Education in Action: 50 Ideas that Work. DHEW publication ; no. (OE) 77-01018. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
United States. Office of Education (1974). Innovative Education Practices: 1974. Innovative Education Practices. The Office. Retrieved April 22, 2024.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar. [42], for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer. There are a lot of other sources. James500 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changing from my earlier !vote of delete per WP:HEY. Sources provided above by Northamerica1000 and James500 make a convincing case for passing WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I'd love to see more sources, especially from non-government entities, to further cement notability, this does pass notability per NA. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak and reluctant keep. While I question the scope of this program and therefore wonder how notable it really is, it does appear to pass based on available information. If it really is a program affecting numerous areas, this article needs a lot more information. My Google search for this institute did not impress me but did show there is some legitimacy to it. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The sole Keep view did not provide any valid argument. But without quorum, this can only be treated as a contested PROD. Feel free to renominate in a month. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Siraj Akbar

AfDs for this article:

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

This BLP, created by a SPA Jarisful (talk · contribs), appears to have been authored by the subject themselves, as he's an experienced editor. This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Internet, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP but the article needs to be improved by removing unsourced and primary sources. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:JOURNALIST so what's the point of cleaning up BLP ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - subject passes WP:JOURNALIST as he is widely cited and interviewed by International and Pakistani media. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you voting twice? While it's clear he's a journalist and may be frequently cited or even invited on TV talk shows, but having a WP BLP requires meeting WP:GNG criteria. Whether he meets that is unclear to me, so if you think he does, you'll need to provide evidence of coverage right here. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging @Mar4d: as they stood with strong sourcing in first AfD. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ethical to invite those who previously voted "keep"? It could be considered canvassing. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not unethical as they earlier hammered by strong sourcing. You too can invite, it's no wrong man. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided by Mar4d weren't particularly robust. Mar4d presented 04 references. Let's assess each of them. The Diplomat and [DW sources consist of interviews but they don't directly discuss the subject. While Al Jazeera only mentions him in passing. Only the BBC story offers some coverage of the subject, but it alone isn't sufficient to establish WP:N because it lacks significant depth.

And no, I don't feel the need to invite anyone here because I generally try to steer clear of such actions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion needs more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just wanted to point out that although @Twinkle1990 voted to keep the BLP, they only cited WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:JUSTAPOLICY and didn't provided solid reasons backing their stance. In my last comment above, I've thoroughly evaluated each and every reference cited on the BLP and none of them passes WP:SIRS. I'm mentioning this because sometimes AfDs are closed with no consensus due to lack of participation, leaving the BLP on WP unnecessarily which is a bit frustrating. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship

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

Fails WP:GNG —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - This is an exchange program through the US State Department. Granted, the article needs work, and needs better sourcing. But this is a very impressive program. It would be a shame to write this off. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some valuable links to YouTube info created by the Fellowship program. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on whe wording and sourcing. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Do Not Delete - Work in Progress: This was inadvertently and prematurely deleted yesterday for copyright errors. I am currently reworking this article in my personal user space, to avoid misunderstandings over sourcing, etc. This is an important article that needs work. Please have patience, and I'll get the article in better shape. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see you say that I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article could benefit from a through revision, the subject itself is notable enough. TH1980 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just did an edit update of this article. The lead is now more informative about how this program originated, complete with sources. And I've done a sample list of US and foreign universities which act as hosts. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just went through and reviewed the edits made by Maile. Not a single source supports notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are primary sources (e.g. the authorizing legislation), or they are not independent (State Department webpages or the webpages of Humphrey Fellowship sponsoring institutions), or the coverage is trivial (single references to someone in the article being a Humphrey Fellow). The MPR News source fails verification. My BEFORE search turns up nothing else useful for establishing notability. (One potential source is here, but it is published by a Humphrey Fellowship sponsor institution and I don't have access to the actual text to validate whether it is independent.) Failing the unearthing of significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources, this doesn't clear the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This feels like PROMO for a US gov't program... Sourcing is solely to universities around the world, or the US gov't. I tried a Gscholar search, but anything not published by the US gov't is very hard to find. One mention of funding in a medical study, but I don't see any critical discussion of the program. I'm amazed it's been around for 40 yrs or so and there is no analysis of this fellowship. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [43] but it's on the ed.gov web domain, I'm not sure if it's independent of the gov't or not. This [44] in a Malaysian journal... Jstor has nothing, using the Wikipedia Library link only brings up the case study listed in my first link. There just doesn't seem to be anything about this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reviewing additional feedback, I continue to find the rationales for keep insufficiently policy-based ("this is an impressive program," "the subject is notable enough"), while the sources (both in the article and beyond) simply don't support notability according to policy. The sources added by one of the editors arguing for keep are primary or trivial, and the Youtube links are promotional. I encourage the closer to review the sources! Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., Dclemens1971, and Oaktree b. Fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. BusterD (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church

AfDs for this article:

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

Micro-denomination with perhaps nine churches as of 2014, per a self-published source (citing other self-published sources) that is no longer available online. Citations are exclusively to primary sources, to self-published sources, or to outdated sources of questionable independence and reliability. Participants in the 2022 AfD discussion did not delve deeply into the validity of the sources cited as applied to WP:NORG, which I will do here:

[1]. Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.
[2]. Self-published book; does not illuminate notability of subject, just reference one of its views and its existence.
[3]. Blog/opinion post; does not meet reliable source criteria for establishing notability.
[4]. Dead link with no archived version.
[5]. Book published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.
[6]. Portuguese-language source; cannot tell if it is self-published. Regardless, it is not significant coverage and merely notes the existence of the subject.
[7]. OPC General Assembly minutes and thus disqualified as primary source.
[8]. Personal blog; self-published source.
[9] Newsletter published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.

I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An editor has updated the link in footnote 4 to a live link. It's here -- it appears self-published but has no author listed. It appears impossible to validate its reliability, and moreover it only mentions the subject of the article in a single trivial mention on page 96. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pretty much fails notability as shown above in the source analysis; primary sources, blogs or un-RS. I don't find anything about this particular outfit. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna Vollmer King

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

WP:BLP of a writer and organizational founder, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, neither writers nor founders of organizations are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about their work -- but this is referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about other things or people, which is not what it takes: we're not looking for sources in which she speaks about someone or something else, we're looking for sources that are about her.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to show much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A BEFORE search turns up no sources that pass GNG.Dclemens1971 (talk)

Keep. This person is notable. Upon seeing a few sources like The Denver Post, one of the major news publishers. You can see a full detailed paragraph is covered.

"Shauna King, president of International Medical Relief, said about 20 people will go on this mission, including doctors, nurses, medical students, a disaster and refugee trained psychologist and Kelly. Several more have applied, King said, such as oral surgeons and other medical providers.

International Medical Relief dispatched a crew to Lesvos over a month ago to organize lodgings, a clinic station, transportation and line up interpreters.

Roughly 1,500 refugees arrive in Lesvos on overloaded boats on a daily basis, King said, and most are there temporarily."Larvatiled (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King is referenced in a single paragraph of a much longer local human-interest story (here's the link; actually published in the weekly local Broomfield Enterprise, a sub-brand of the Post but not the Post itself) focused on a local resident going on an International Medical Relief trip. All it says about King is that she is president of IMF; it quotes her speaking to other topics but contains no additional details that would help us know why she is notable. It is by definition a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and thus not appropriate to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People don't become notable on the basis of sources in which they're speaking or writing about other things, they become notable on the basis of sources in which they're the subject that other people are speaking or writing about. That is, not sources which quote her statement on a mission: sources in which other people are talking about her. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I found more information on her uncle (a Catholic priest) than on her in my search. If I cut the middle name I get social media profiles and information on an unrelated Shauna King. -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Childs

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

Fails WP:GNG; no WP:SIGCOV; most recently edited by someone with an offensive username. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, United States of America, and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find much information about him, beyond the fact that he's a theatre director. There is a passing mention in a brief Playbill article, which states that he is directing the play, but that was the only source I could find about the Casey Childs that matched the article's description. The other sources were about various different people named Casey Childs. Bandit Heeler (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I object to the fact that the majority of the nom relates to the fact that one of the edits to this article was by User:USAstinks ("most recently edited by someone with an offensive username"). That is an argument to avoid. The user did not create this article, and in fact they made only one of the 65 edits to this article over the last 16+ years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. While I do believe that the article fails notability, I don't think the fact that one of the (not main) contributors to the article has an offensive name is a relevant point in a deletion discussion. Bandit Heeler (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is not very relevant, but i do agree with the point that there is not enough information about him. Kasphero (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Primary Stages. There appears to be a painter called Casey Childs who is more notable per the online coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ebb and Flow

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article. I couldn't find any significant coverage on the web; it's tough to search for them as their name is shared with a few other groups, but by including band members I found only a very brief Q&A on sfgate.com and an album review on aural-innovations.com, neither of these seem like WP:SIGCOV and nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:BAND InDimensional (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. InDimensional (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio here which states that they had a nationwide tour which is one of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's just not enough to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but it's looking like No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The thing about NMUSIC is that it says artists who meet one of the criteria may be notable, not that they must be notable or must have articles. If you have a nationwide tour but fail to generate any press, that's practically the definition of failure to be notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World in Your Home

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

I couldn't establish that this programme was notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some content and some citations to the article. I hope that those will help. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on newly added sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For a lost 1940s TV show, we at least have a claim to significance, record on where it aired and some of what it contained, and a review. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per HEY. Sources have since been added and show a variety of coverage from when the show aired that establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Findlay Warriors

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

No evidence of notability, no indepth references about the team, apparently unknown whether they even played a full season, and claims about becoming the Dayton Jets unsourced and unverifiable[45]. Fram (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Ice hockey, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references to the page. The claim of them becoming the Dayton Jets comes from the main page Continental Hockey League (1972–1986) though where that was sourced from, or if its even accurate, I don't know.PensRule11385 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: The added references don't support the notability of the subject, and it is very hard even to argue in favor of notability if there aren't even sources verifying the team's record. This should be redirected to the main Continental league article. Ravenswing 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - team record was in the Decatur paper. Received decent amount of coverage in it. I’ve looked at it before, but can’t now as newspapers.com is temporarily inaccessible through the Wikipedia Library. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 22:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to shift my view to keeping if actual sources providing significant coverage are cited. Ravenswing 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While newspapers.com brings up many fairly WP:Routine mentions: ([46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]), I think it is worth noting that these are all out of town newspapers, and unlikely to report anything in depth on a one year team that was a bottom dweller of the league. I am unable to find a good archive of The Courier (Findlay), which leads me to believe that WP:SIGCOV is likely to exist, but is not easily accessible. But obviously, that assertion on its own doesn't hold much weight, and I'm not willing to definitively say it does. IceBergYYC (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No consensus to delete after one month of discussions and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Colorado Physical Therapy Program

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

Despite being a large article, it appears to have been mostly edited by COI editors and contains original research that isn't backed up by sources. The far majority of references are simply from the university's website, and as such notability isn't proven due to the lack of outside sourcing. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, United States of America, and Colorado. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - and selectively merge any content with reliable independent sources to University of Colorado School of Medicine. As the nominating editor stated, article seems promo and lacks secondary sources. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eejit43, thank you for the valuable feedback! I am presently retrieving outside sources to backup the information presented in this article. I am aware of the problem of promotion of interests on WP and how many hide their identity. My hope is that being transparent will help, along with the pending external citations that will demonstrate impact and notability both locally and nationally. Mikepascoe (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

An initial draft of the article had 31 cuanschutz.edu (internal) sources + 23 external (independent) sources = 54 total.
The present version now has 19 internal + 42 external source = 61 total.
The percentage of sources from the university website (Eejit43's original comment) has decreased from 57% to 31%.
Further improvements can be made, thank you for your continued review

Mikepascoe (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not really seeing any SIGCOV from secondary sources. A selective merge might still be the best way forward.-KH-1 (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, could you please explain what a selective merge is and how this is a good way forward?

I'm also not sure how to satisfy the SIGCOV (significant coverage?) requirement. There are several external sources discussing the Program now from refutable sources. Do you have an example of a source that meets SIGCOV from other Wikipedia articles?

Thank you very much! Mikepascoe (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. It would also help if an editor(s) would address User:Mikepascoe's valid questions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (bluegrass musician)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has no sources and no indication of notability. It was nominated for deletion nearly 20 years ago and has not been improved since it was created in 2005. The subject does not meet any of the guidelines listed in WP:NMUSIC nor WP:NBIO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneirinn (talk • contribs) 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aneirinn (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is important to note that the WP:NMUSICIAN requirements have gotten much tougher since 2006, when this article survived an AfD discussion pretty much because the gentleman was visible on the Internet. Meanwhile, the current version of the article could possibly be speedy deleted under WP:A7 because it makes no attempt to say how/if he is notable. At any rate, the gentleman is a perennial sideman and local performer who is surely good at what he does, but he has not received the in-depth media coverage that is necessary here, and is only visible in typical streaming and promotional services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Byron Berline~~: I searched but could not find in-depth coverage about Moore. It's not an easy search because of his name and he's played at many bluegrass festivals so a lot hot hits to wade through but I did add a couple sources at least for verification. He was in Berline's band California which won International Bluegrass Music Association Instrumental Group of the Year three years in a row and Moore is mentioned in article. He also taught mandolin to Nickel Creek's Chris Thile and Sean Watkins which might qualify for WP:NMUSICOTHER #3 or #5 but I think that's a weak claim. S0091 (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments below. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I voted to delete above, but if this keeps getting relisted with no further progress then we will probably end up with a pointless "no consensus". Therefore I would support the Redirect suggestion above if nobody else votes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. S0091 has made a valiant effort but I don't think this is a good redirect. If you searched for John Moore and were redirected to this article, I think you'd feel more confused than informed. (Sorry, Doomsdayer520, but I think even "no consensus" would be better than this confusing redirect.) -- asilvering (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first choice is still Delete and will I stick with it now that I have some support. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No backsies @Doomsdayer520. :) Actually, I agree with @Asilvering it's not a great redirect as there is no content to preserve in the event sources become available and a weak target so flipping my vote to delete. S0091 (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AmericaSpeaks

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

Article with a promotional history; this version started out simply as a copy of a promotional version deleted as spam, and it hasn't gotten any better. There's no proof or even indication that this was ever a notable organization by our standards, and the lack of references reflects that. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A closed org with no significant coverage in a long time. Clear failure of WP:10YT Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and 10YT. By the way, a related AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/California_Speaks Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since its closure in 2014, there has not been a single reliable source covering the organization. It fails WP:NCORP's inclusion criteria. Nitish shetty (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant standard is WP:ORG as it was a nonprofit, and there are many reliable sources covering the organization since its closure in 2014 cited within the article per my comments below. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. and others. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Sal2100 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sal2100: Request reconsideration in light of the below. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See below, !vote changed to "keep". Thanks for pinging me. Sal2100 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG and WP:HEY. The article about this nonpartisan non-profit organization has now gone through a complete WP:TNT, with all the promotional, unsourced content removed. (Drmies and Graywalls rightly got the ball rolling with removing content that should have been removed years ago.) There are numerous articles covering AmericaSpeaks in independent, reliable secondary sources including academic journal articles and books, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED interest over time. Among the most in-depth analysis is Francesca Polletta's chapter, "Publics, Partners, and the Ties That Bind" which appeared in Inventing Ties That Bind, a book published by the University of Chicago Press in 2020 and published by Chicago Scholarship Online in 2021. Another article is "Balancing the Books: Analyzing the Impact of a Federal Budget Deliberative Simulation on Student Learning and Opinion" by Dena Levy and Susan Orr, which was published in the Journal of Political Science Education in 2014. Another is the chapter "A Political Life Transformed" by John Gastil and Katherine R. Knobloch, which appeared in their book Hope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back Into Politics, which was published by Oxford University Press in 2020. (All articles are accessible via Wikipedia Library or its partner publishers.) There are many other sources now cited in the article besides. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cielquiparle and WP:HEY. With recent modifications, the article now passes WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although at the time of the nom it didn't look very promising but rn I can vouch for it to be kept. X (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

Sorted by State

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