Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

WP:AFD/USA

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

General

Christine Axsmith

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

Textbook WP:BIO1E. Was in the news for one blog post that got her fired in 2006. No notability as defined in WP:BIO, such as WP:SUSTAINED otherwise. Longhornsg (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Meets all three criteria of WP:BLP1E. Barely scrapes by GNG either way. C F A 💬 23:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tables of historical exchange rates to the United States dollar

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

WP:NOTDATABASE. Seemingly arbitrary selection of dates, with little context and mostly copied from an external site. Seems like a Wikidata thing, not really an enwiki thing. Mdann52 (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTDATABASE absolutely applies here. CoconutOctopus talk 23:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Techno Squirrels

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

As much as it pains me to nominate my electronic rodent brethren (lol) for deletion, I was unable to find any sources other than the one I added yesterday while searching — it also does not provide significant coverage of the subject. The band fails the notability guideline for musicians. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:00, 19 July 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. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biden crisis

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

This article's subject is inextricably linked with the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, which is covered in a dedicated section there. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there are times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times, and I believe that this page should be redirected to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw, which covers this topic in the context of the broader campaign. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Events, History, Politics, Popular culture, United States of America, and Delaware. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete/redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign was already redirected, and the creation of this similar page without a consensus to split is entirely inappropriate. Reywas92^Talk 14:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The context of the campaign is irrelevant here. This article is explicitly not either of the two list articles that were created weeks ago because it covers a larger scope. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy delete/redirect to the main Biden 2024 campaign page, or at the very least, significantly overhaul the naming ("Biden crisis" is too vague/not clearly the proper name per secondary sources, "Joever" is just internet slang, not really used) Reflord (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/redirect to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw, WP:NPOV violation in the title. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw per nom. and others. I agree that the title violates WP:NPOV and that a standalone page is unwarranted per WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with age and health concerns of Joe Biden. While I don't see this as an immediate WP:NPOV violation, there is merit behind the fact that there is a crisis among Democrats regarding Biden's electability – even among former President Barack Obama.

Bourne Ballin (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article, merge content with age and health concerns of Joe Biden and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign User:WoodElf 17:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw. As noted above, this was already determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign. I don't see anything to merge. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Users who are pointing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign have not read the article. This is not a list of Democrats who have called for him to withdraw, this is an article about the internal considerations within the campaign. That includes campaign decisions and information on how such a process would occur, including the presumptive virtual roll call and Schumer's decision to delay it. Should he withdraw his nomination, this would be a great article to cover that. Nowhere in this article will there be a list of every representative, or senator, or news organization, calling for Biden to drop out. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the title is not intended to be WP:NPOV. I have internal opinions that I have expressed before on Biden withdrawing, but I have set those aside for this article. The title is supported by three references, and there are additional sources—such as NPR—that have used the specific term "Biden crisis", with additional sources—such as Politico, CNN twice, and The New York Times—describing this as a crisis in general. Google Trends data shows that this is not an arcane term. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a word on this page needs to be on a separate article, it can all be covered in the campaign article or related pages. I'd suggest expanding Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw with these sources and proposing a split on the talk page rather than creating another overlapping page. If he withdraws, 2024 Democratic National Convention would be a good place for the subsequent procedures. Reywas92^Talk 18:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom -1ctinus📝🗨 21:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Michel

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

Doesn't seem to have received significant coverage. All I could find on this player was a 1961 Chicago Tribune newspaper article that he was playing in goal for an amateur team participating in the National Amateur Cup, which is barely a passing mention. Another site suggests a date of birth for this player, but that's all I could find, other than a Czech namesake who ran for political office in 1989. C 679 13:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United States of America. C 679 13:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 13:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States men's international soccer players as possible search term. Giant Snowman 17:24, 19 July 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 speedy keep‎. Nominator withdrew and the redirect vote was striked out. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 23:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Henson

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources utilized all lack independence from the subject. 4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Television, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jim Henson Company -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - I have added a number of news articles covering Henson. These include coverage of her being named president of The Harvard Lampoon, work at Warner Bros., and Columbia Pictures.^[1]^[2]^[3] The articles date back to 1982, and are an indication of significant coverage that spans multiple years, well before she became CEO of the Jim Henson Company. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The three New York Times sources added by DaffodilOcean clearly provided enough SIGCOV on the subject person and satisfied GNG, not to mention her numerous executive producer roles which should fulfill WP:CREATIVE. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear meets SIGCOV. pburka (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would withdraw but we have a vote for a redirect. I support keeping the article based on the excellent sourcing improvements made to the article. Thanks to all who worked on it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Klemesrud, Judy (1982-05-16). "AT HARVARD, SHE RULES LAMPOONLAND". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
^ Sims, Calvin (1993-08-10). "COMPANY NEWS; Columbia Pictures Selects A President for Production". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
^ Weinraub, Bernard (1994-04-04). "She's Young and Smart, But Not Too Smart to Lead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

Keep: Since nomination, many reliable sources have been added to the article. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Randall Terry 2024 presidential campaign

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

No established notability. Additionally Broden, Terry, 2024 election subjects, and the Constitution Party all have their own articles that can handle what little notable content exists on this subject SecretName101 (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with the current piece on Randall Terry or related topics. Terry's campaign itself is not notable. Broader articles can cover the details of his 2024 run for president, so a standalone article for this campaign is not needed. Merging the content would keep all the information, put it in a better place, and keep the platform concise and focused.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have definitely nominated it for a merge rather than deletion if there was any measure of content in the article.

But with the article at 2,614 bytes (a stub to end all stubs), merge vs. deletion is a difference without a distinction. SecretName101 (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Don't do this crap, just because the major candidates have separate pages for their campaigns doesn't mean any campaign needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Randall Terry#2024 presidential candidacy per comments of SecretName101 and others. A standalone page is unwarranted per WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American propaganda in the Mexican–American War

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a trainwreck of an article. It has been appropriately tagged as being written like an essay, lacking notability, and possible original research. This simply is not an encyclopedia article at all, and the references are pretty threadbare. It was nominated for deletion twelve years ago, but comments about biting the newbies and allowing it time to be developed led to a "no consensus" result. Well, it's been twelve years and the article still has all of the same problems, so I don't think waiting is the correct strategy at this point. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mexico, and United States of America. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would normally advocate for cleaning up the article itself, but the entire article needs to be rewritten. It consists entirely of WP: OR. Because of this, WP: TNT applies here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator reasons and follow up comments by HyperAccelerated — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with the nom and others. If there's any reliable, sourced information worth saving it could easily be added to the Mexican-American War article (which is likely where this belongs in any case).Intothat darkness 12:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete My first impression is that it is possible to write a good article on this notable subject. Now to read with care... Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC) But this article doesn't seem to address its own subject. It says a few things about the Mexican-American War's proponents and opponents in the United States but doesn't talk about the war's propaganda. Delete without prejudice. Though I'd also support Draftify if there is anyone who volunteers to work on it until it's presentable. Otherwise, blow it up and leave room for anyone who wants to start over. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Sherman

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

Sherman is a political candidate, and all coverage of them stems from that candidacy. If they are ultimately successful, an article can be created. Could be mentioned in Third-party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election or Green_Party_of_Alaska#Elections but I don't see any other path to biographical notability. Star Mississippi 02:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, and Alaska. Star Mississippi 02:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's a legitimate candidate, duly elected by the Green Party of Alaska. All the other past years Green Party of Alaska candidates have their own Wikipedia articles. I don't see how we can delete this candidate's article, if the Green Parity has nominated her. It could be argued to delete, but Wikipedia doesn't come across well if they disqualify the officially elected candidates. — Maile (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being nominated by a minor party in a single state does not equate in any way to automatic notability. Curbon7 (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't even have ballot access and have been decertified so I'm not even sure duly elected is accurate in this case. If you think WP:NPOLITICIAN needs addressing, I'd be thrilled to have that discussion somewhere appropriate, but that doesn't make a case for Sherman but rather for further cleanup. Star Mississippi 10:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ETA on GPA OSE: Cynthia McKinney was a six term House member, Jill Stein received extensive coverage outside of her campaign and then we have Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader. (David Cobb may need discussion, it takes more of a look than a quick scan). Jasmine Sherman has not yet attained coverage the way any of these have. I know you know this, you've been here approximately forever. But I still don't see merit here. Star Mississippi 11:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to 2024 Green Party presidential primaries. The AK state party's previous candidates were also national candidates or otherwise notable outside this nomination. All coverage is about her participation in the primary, for which she got a whopping 72 votes, rather than substantively biographical. Reywas92^Talk 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable minor political candidate, long way from notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Green Party presidential primaries#Declared candidates as an alternative to outright deletion. Per nom. and Reywas92, subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Green Party presidential primaries#Declared candidates. No coverage other than in the context of the primary; and almost no coverage in the context of the primary either. Possibly being on the ballot as a presidential candidate in one state does not automatically provide notability. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect, I absolutely hate deleting articles but there is a strong lack of sources to prove her notability. The only reliable source I could find is from the The Nashua Telegraph Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well Hung Heart

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find plenty of reviews, but they're on blogs. toweli (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Democrats of America

AfDs for this article:

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

Most articles cited on this page are either pages from PDA's own website or articles about its founder. I can't find anything much better on Google; most coverage of PDA is passing mentions of it, usually when PDA teams up with a bunch of other progressive groups to release a "__ progressive groups call for __"-type press release. Previously nominated for deletion 18 years ago; I think it's time to reassess. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump

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

Was this article made in haste? I think it would be much more prudent to discuss this subject matter within the context of existing articles first before further muddying the waters. TNstingray (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Yeah I was just about to do this. There's basically no information about it right now, it does not warrant an article. Not news. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep it because the secret service might use Iran as a scape goat for bad protection LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't really see the need for this as a standalone article now because there isn't much information about it from RS, just mentions of it. If I had to pick a side, I would lean toward deletion. This can be mentioned in other articles as it is relevant.

In the future, if this becomes notable enough as a standalone topic, we can revisit it then. JMM12345 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep it incase more information comes out and if any statements from the Iranian Government come out as well LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of us can predict the future. If that happens, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. JMM12345 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Iran, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this deletion as I think the user is biased to both the secret service and trump and is attempting to censor something LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FUTURE, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:DEADLINE. There is no rush to create these articles just to speculate on unconfirmed possibilities for the future. Also, please don't accuse people of random conspiracy theories. They're not helping anyone and are disruptive. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of bias, you literally created your account today to stir up non-encyclopedic discourse, including the repeated violation of WP:FORUM, one instance of which I have already reverted ~~and another which I am leaving on this article's talk page for now as public record.~~ TNstingray (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Background of Assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Clearly there isn't the content to support a standalone article at this point, so would be better merged with existing article on Trump assassination attempt. CNC (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now see this is already referenced in the Background section, so can simply be Deleted CNC (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. The retaliation by the Iranian government is planned in response to the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani ordered by Trump's National Security Council. It therefore targets not only Donald Trump, but also other former US officials [1]. This is important info, but it does not seem to qualify for a separate page yet. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is currently poorly written, the references to significant coverage in reliable sources are strong. CNN also published a lengthy article about this topic. This AfD should run a full week, and we can see how coverage of this develops. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MVBW, and the fact that we don't have any details anyway. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS By the time this election is over, there will have been a whole lot of so-called plots directed at both candidates, maybe even on a daily basis sometimes. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is literally nothing in WP:NOTNEWS that says this article is inappropriate. That policy language says Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. The policy forbids original reporting by Wikipedia editors, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, Who's Who type coverage and celebrity gossip. Nothing else. None of that is present in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it is too s, oon for a stand-alone article here. Other than the recent reporting that there are rumors, we have no information. I have no specific opinion on what the merge target should be yet; hopefully in the next few days there will be sufficient follow-on reporting to determine that. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Cullen328, this is essentially guaranteed to have enough information to merit a standalone article in the next few days (even a short one); and we can always merge it back to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani or some related article if for some reason that doesn't happen. The news on this just broke 4 hours ago, it's patently unhelpful to be pouncing on AfD's that quickly before this has even had time to marinate. WP:CONFUSESTUB applies; as does WP:ITSINTHENEWS (especially the cautionary part saying The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. There are a variety of reasons an article may be written about a particular event, and this must be taken into consideration when a news event is sent to AfD.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sounds reasonable. I am not opposed to "keep" as my second choice. My very best wishes (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. There seems to be a lot of non-policy based arguments for deletion of articles based on their current state, regardless of their notability, which is really the only concern here. "Keep" arguments like the user is biased are exactly as meaningful as "delete" arguments like a whole lot of so-called plots directed at both candidates: zero impact. Full length stories on this assassination plot are currently found at all tier 1 news sources including The New York Times, AP AP, Reuters, CNN, and a "live updates" sub-site at NBC News. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or merge per MVBW. It sounds like this is already mentioned in the background section of the Qasam article, so it could also just be Deleted. However, there is not enough prose to support a full article at this time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there ends up being significantly more information released on this plot. Estreyeria (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not enough content to support an article yet. The details are fairly vague at this point, even with the above sources. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CNC. Her Pegship (?) 17:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge. Unless there is evidence they actually tried to assassinate him, this is just an - albeit very delayed - reaction to Qasem Soleimani's murder, and in my opinion not notable on it's own. As noted by the NYTIMES article, Iran has been wanting to get revenge for a while.

In the very unlikely event this turned out to be related to Thomas Matthew Crooks' attack, then it should be merged with that article. If Iran actually does something, then it should be put into it's own article.

If none of that happens, most of this should be merged into Qasem Soleimani, and the details around the Secret Service's increased security should be added to the Trump Assassination article.

That said, I believe we should wait before making a decision, and allow more time for discussion and new evidence to arise. 174.61.187.77 (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify as it seems a bit WP:TOOSOON - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Callahan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Not all senior government officials are notable enough to justify a WP article. Mentions of Callahan in WP:RS are WP:TRIVIAL related to his WP:ROUTINE job duties and not WP:SIGCOV focused on Callahan that would establish his notability. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Healthcare

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

WP:ADMASQ WP:NCORP. Created by a single purpose account whose career on Wikipedia so far is making a series of edits over 13 minutes. While a few non-related changes were made, the primary purpose is evident. Lots of PR Newswire results, some non WP:SIGCOV level of magazine coverage. I conducted some, but not exhaustive WP:BEFORE search and NCORP appears to fail. It appears to be a non-notable likely promo article. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Machine in the Garden (band)

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

No reviews at AllMusic: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/machine-in-the-garden-mn0000220430 and otherwise lack of WP:SIGCOV. References requested since 2011 yet none present. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 16:44, 15 July 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. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMUSIC with no notable discography, chart activity or awards, in addition to poor sourcing in article as stated by nom. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 01:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The band's website lists many reviews, but WP:RS is a problem with most of these. My own search came up light, with mostly just [2] Geschichte (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ivory Tower (album)

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

I'm not sure if this album is notable. There's a PopMatters review and there's a brief review in HM (magazine) (page 32). According to the Wikipedia article, there's also a Kerrang review, but I wasn't able to find it; according to oldies.com music mail-order company, it at least contained the words "Taking driving riffs and breakdowns from emo and the huge radio-hugging choruses of, say, Journey or Mister Mister, Orange County quintet Takota are on to a winner on this, their debut album." Other than that, there's a Punktastic review, consisting of 10 adjectives, there's an Alternative Vision review (listed as generally unreliable on WP:A/S), and there's a NeuFutur review, a publication I hadn't heard of until today. toweli (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was a pretty good BEFORE, which it would be good to merge into the Takota article at least. There is also supposed to be a review printed in this edition of Burn. Geschichte (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Services

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

Ordinary, run of the mill rehab for the local community that has no place on a global scale encyclopedia. Fails WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Graywalls (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it clearly fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Renaissance House

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

Run of the mill social services/rehab/treatment serving the local community that we can expect every medium to large cities to have. The NJ.com source is about a roundtable that was held at the organization but not really about the organization. An article like this has no place in a global scale encyclopedia. Graywalls (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and New Jersey. Graywalls (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jessup (writer)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a writer of speculative fiction. I have found and added one reference, but it is either an interview or an article by a friend (named author who introduces the article, but the bulk of it is by Jessup). The article already references the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which I think is a reliable source, but as the only reference which demonstrates notability I don't think it's fully evidenced. The article only needs a couple of reviews from reliable sources to meet WP:NAUTHOR, but I haven't been able to find any. Unless anyone else can, I don't think the article meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Two book reviews [3] and [4], there might be more. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've added the PW review to the article. Haven't added the other as it is just one sentence. Tacyarg (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one sentence? Try [5] Geschichte (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added that to the article. Tacyarg (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw (as nom) - two reviews found by Oaktree b, article meets WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still need at least some material to source the biographical stuff. Or, it could just be removed.

I found more reviews, including another one in PW and one in The Future Fire [6] Here is a shorter one in Reactor (magazine). The next one is from Wired, but is primary, starting off with "My friend Paul Jessup": [7] Had you heard about Werewolf News? Me neither. (Blog, not reliable.) Geschichte (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, one of the above-cited reviews is a Kirkus Indie review, which does not count towards notability per WP:KIRKUS. On the other hand, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, mentioned in the nomination, is most certainly a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the earlier mentioned reviews, Publishers Weekly reviewed more of his novels (link 1 and 2) while I also found other reviews out there (link 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) along with the previously mentioned short interview in Wired and this article in the Washington Post. Overall, there are enough reviews and press coverage to meet our notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Scholars (band)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Punknews staff review of their only album. AllMusic has a rating for this album, but no review. toweli (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Wimmin

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

Non-notable vocal group. Did not find any reliable sources about the group online. GamerPro64 05:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United States of America. GamerPro64 05:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Littlest Man Band

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There's this in The Reader (newspaper) (which directly copies much of the text from the Wikipedia article) and a review by Punktastic. A possible alternative to deletion is a merge/redirect to Scott Klopfenstein (although I'm not sure if he himself is wiki-notable either). toweli (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unfortunately a failure of GNG here, with too few reliable sources to build an encyclopedic article. The review in Punknews is a user review. Geschichte (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of trees of the northeastern United States

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

A guide article that violates WP:NOTGUIDE. dePRODed in 2018 with the rationale "valid information". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Organisms, and United States of America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Who thought that Wikipedia was the proper venue for something like this? 9t5 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unvarnished field guide key, not an encyclopedic article. NOTGUIDE indeed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Elmidae's statement and WP:NOTGUIDE Lordseriouspig 07:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTGUIDE. ADifferentMan (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can be copied to Wikiguide if someone cares to do so. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikiguide? SEWilco (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Procyon117 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bduke (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & weak delete - I believe that this article could be converted from a Guide to a description of the characteristics that distinguish the trees from one another. That would be encyclopedic, I believe. However, it should not be a synthetic derivative from the sources, but derived directly from sources. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden's July 2024 press conference

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

This is yet another WP:NOTNEWS article created about Biden's cognitive wellbeing through WP:RECENTISM. A press conference, no matter how few he has held, is a WP:ROTM event that will not pass the WP:10YT. Not every thing that is said or done needs to be documented on Wikipedia, let alone receive its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If sources eventually indicate that this was historically significant to the presidential campaign, then we can describe it in the article on the presidential campaign. As it is, it's a pile of news-cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Washington summit and add section As most of the point of the press conference was it was a part of said summit and other leader comments should be added as appropriate, but this needs a shorter summarization. Nate • (chatter) 16:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also sensible. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonder how many press conferences there have been in history. Did we declare war or did Nixon resign again? OK with a section in 2024 Washington Summit if it focuses on the summit, or the presidential campaign if it stays in the news. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need an article for Donald Trump's press conference where he talked about killing COVID with bleach and UV light? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the witch turned me into a newt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we need an article on President's Trump statement about COVID, bleach, and UV light because the exact details are being confused by various external articles, social media posts, and so on. There is a midpoint between two polar opposite views on the strange statement. Starlighsky (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a solo press conference that connects to earlier historical events where a U.S. president had made mistakes as well as the issue of presidents who did not run for the next term, which has happened twice so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really an argument that the topic needs to be covered in an article of its own, though. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect to 2024 Washington summit per MrSchimpf. Per nom. and others, case of WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge to 2024 Washington summit. BD2412 T 18:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2024 Washington summit as others have said. The press conference is one of the biggest headlines out of the Summit, so a mention is warranted there, but as it currently stands there doesn't seem to be enough for a standalone article. If this particular press conference eventually seems to have a significant effect on Biden's campaign/the upcoming election, then a separate article could be warranted, similar to Dean scream. Sewageboy (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Age and health concerns of Joe Biden (currently nominated for deletion but likely to be kept). This would be WP:UNDUE at 2024 Washington summit. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it would be undue at the 2024 Washington summit, where it was held and what it was about? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article about the press conference isn't really about the content of the conference but about Biden's health. The NATO summit is its own topic, notable for reasons unrelated to Biden. A very brief mention might be appropriate, but the bulk of this article clearly doesn't belong there. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good reason to delete and rewrite it for a merge into 2024 Washington summit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Merge whatever you want, but people need to stop making separate pages for every thing that happens in the news. Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable event. One out of many press conferences given by the President; had he not flubbed so much during the debate with Trump, this wouldn't even be talked aobut. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete for reasons said above. Not notable enough. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to 2024 Washington summit for reasons noted above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTNEWS. Might be able to be mentioned in a sentence somewhere on the campaign. Might. SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Age and health concerns of Joe Biden and 2024 Washington summit. This event alone is WP:NOTNEWS, but the content fits well into these other articles. Malinaccier (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: editors are divided between Delete and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MILL. Just another press conference; only related to the summit by virtue of happening at the same time, so a merge makes little sense to me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Age and health concerns of Joe Biden

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

Unnecessary content fork, inappropriate WP:SPINOFF, hyper-fixating on the news-of-the-hour. There's nothing here that cannot be covered by a short mention at Joe Biden, and a bit more at Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Note that there was once at attempt at a similar article for Mr. Trump, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump. Zaathras (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zaathras (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale, as well as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOPAGE. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing !vote to Keep after finding the numerous subsequent arguments persuasive. ~~This is clearly heading into WP:SNOW territory.~~ A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as the article stands it would warrant deletion, but I think the issue is article worthy in the wake of his debate performance. This is the most embattled a (presumptive) nominee has been since the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape incident in 2016, which has its own article not to mention that Biden has been dogged with questions about his cognition since even before he ran in 2020 and up until recently was dismissed as bad faith attacks by his opponents. In the last week, that is no longer the case.
If the article can be fleshed out, it should be kept. PaulRKil (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is this article going to have any staying power? If anything else develops on the subject, perhaps more can be added. I support Draftify at this point until/if more can be cohesively developed on this subject. BarntToust (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think life (events) will quickly develop this article. Unless Biden resigns, the days and months will roll on and every health incident will be scrutinized. When he resigns, health problems will be the reason for his resignation – an important event and also a detailed analysis. There is no need to rush into deleting the article. Then we will need to restore. Wikipek (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and consequently restore Health of Donald Trump, which was merged/redirected pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump. Both articles covered much the same kinds of concern. BD2412 T 15:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with this. Trump and Biden's health and age have both been extremely scrutinized over the years. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creation was a bit hasty and puts us in news territory, which is not great, but if GnocchiFan keeps adding 1-2kB a day it will be hard to justify deletion(they're the one who created it). The Trump matter needs its own discussion, it's an old one and tit-for-tat is a bad look. Trump doesn't have the media jumping on him for this, and he didn't stand gerbil-eyed with his mouth agape at the recent debate. [8] SmolBrane (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmolBrane: The significance of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump is not with respect to the tit-for-tat issue, but with respect to the specific points of discussion raised there that are applicable to this discussion, specifically the assertion made in that discussion that we should not have any freestanding articles on the health of current public figures, and that Wikipedia should follow the Goldwater Rule prohibiting medical professionals from commenting on the health of public figures who they have not personally examined. A great many participants in that discussion supported imposing such a rule, which would obviously vitiate inclusion of comparable medical opinions about Biden absent personal examination. I opposed the imposition of that rule in the Trump discussion, and would oppose it here equally. We are in an historic moment of having two octogenarian presidential candidates, and the Trump article, at the time of its deletion, had dozens of high-level sources commenting on issues with regard to Trump's health, so it is a fair bellwether for the admissibility of the Biden article. BD2412 T 18:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply uncomfortable turning this AfD into a discussion about that other guy's AfD. WP:WAX applies and I'm not convinced the situation with Biden is adequately symmetrical for Health of Donald Trump !votes here. Once this discussion closes we could have a similar one regarding Trump imo. Note that Biden wasn't mentioned once on the Trump AfD. Regards SmolBrane (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmolBrane: The shared underlying questions remain open, however. 1) Should Wikipedia have articles on the "health" of living public figures at all? 2) Should Wikipedia be bound by the Goldwater Rule, which prohibits reporting opinions on the heath of individuals by persons who have not conducted an examination of those individuals? BD2412 T 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The irony being--the Goldwater Rule article on this wiki allocates its largest section to a particular former American president(and no one else), observed by someone on the talk page as essentially a coat rack. The goldwater discussion should occur elsewhere if it's going to be a policy. This is headed for a speedy close. SmolBrane (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With how his health and age might end his time in office, I think you have to keep it. Vinnylospo (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the insistence that it be improved to the point of being brought in line with the encyclopedic nature and aims of Wikipedia. I was a proponent of the creation of this article, but it really was launched too quickly and improperly. As I said on the talk page for Mr Biden's campaign, it's good if it enables us to analyze his health and its implications quickly and in real time, in a way that wasn't possible in the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the highly consequential nature of his health, but it can't be treated as a joking matter. At the very least, better must be done for a leading image than to employ a picture of Mr. Biden standing before his lit eighty-first-birthday cake. 216.255.100.62 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's representative of a strategy from the administration and campaign - treat the age issue with humor. We aren't saying it's funny or not funny, it's just emblematic of part of their strategy and consequently part of the page. Maybe not first image, though. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is part of a research project, not a marketing campaign.

So long as it's here... Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will move this image further down to the part of the article which refers to the White House response (I think the joke birthday is relevant there). Feel free to choose another image for the lead and add some further detail if you see fit. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rubbish at image procurement and insertion. Anyway, wouldn't the thing to do for an article like this normally be to use a picture of him that would normally be used otherwise, his official portrait or a picture of him stumping, or something of the like? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, or Merge, as was done with AFD Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump (ended up a merge). If we do less than that here, it looks like we're playing politics in favor of the other candidate. — Maile (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it really looks like we're are playing politics in favor of other candidate. However, after making the article more neutral (adding opinions about the lack of health obstacles, of which there are many) and perhaps changing the title ("Age and health of Joe Biden"?, "Health of Joe Biden"?), the article can be kept. The topic is very widely discussed, attracts attention and causes consequences at the center of the election campaign, unlike in the case of Donald Trump. Wikipek (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to change to Age and health of Joe Biden when this AfD is over. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the course of the conversation concerning the health of Mr. Biden is such that discussion on his age is going to be part of and in tandem with discussion about his health, since the end she has already attained has implications for his current health, and maintaining it is key to furthering his age. Since the two subjects have been introduced as a duality, the thing to do is to build both aspects up, so that each can facilitate the furtherance of the other. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore Health of Donald Trump - Both have received significant coverage in reliable sources and are likely to do so well before and after the current debate news cycle. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above Keep both. Fodient (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign, List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign and 2024 United States presidential debates#Reception and aftermath. Each of the articles are rather weak to stand on its own merits (with the 1st and 2nd article falling under WP:REDUNDANT), but, given that the health concerns described in this article have come to a head in the current political controversy, these 3 articles could together provide cogent context and information regarding the current state of Biden's campaign as described in WP:MERGEREASON. Meanwhile, the section on the June debate on the 2024 article is large enough, at ~3500 words, to be arguably eligible for WP:SPINOFF, especially when accounting for coverage of previous presidential debates (e.g. 2020 United States presidential debates#October 22 presidential debate (Belmont University) at ~1,500 words). Much of this undue weight is due to the sheer length of the "Reception and aftermath" section (~2000 words), which this article would merge neatly with and provide appropriate context for. Baldemoto (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those subjects don't have a whole lot to do with one another. How can they stand as a solid unit together, and how would it not eventually makes sense to split them as the topics are grow too big to fit into one article going forward? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without the media coverage and analysis that has transpired over the past 2 weeks, this topic would not be notable enough to warrant an article under WP:GNG. The reason why this article would be considered notable is because of the June presidential debate, and the flood of consistent news coverage, discussions, and analysis that transpired after the fact. This is plainly evident in the fact that 12 of the 34 citations in this article were written in the past 2 weeks alone. This article is also relied upon to provide the background for Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign. Therefore, it makes sense that these articles should be merged, with this article serving the purpose of providing appropriate context. If the article becomes too unwieldy, it would likely be due to the constant stream of new calls for Biden to step aside, which could remain separate in an article reminiscent of List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Baldemoto (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article will continue to be improved with the increasing amount public interest in his high-profile gaffes both domestically and abroad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZR1748 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is more than sufficient independent sources and coverage now for this. It is impossible to miss, but the original section should still be retained, at least in large part, on the Public image of Joe Biden page. That should not be entirely removed from that page for this page's creation. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an excerpt from this article on the public image of Joe Biden page, which I think is appropriate if this article stays. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this is a big deal--involving not just Biden but many Democratic leaders, and Republicans too, as well as a lo of reporters and physicians. I think it will permanently change how Americans evaluate older politicians. Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant matter and has been covered in the media extensively. TheInevitables (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only has concerns regarding Biden's health been around for a good while now through reliable coverage but this matter has only increased now that many Democrat leaders have called for him to drop out of this year's US election following the June debate with his health being the common denominator and rationale. I propose bringing back the Health of Donald Trump article for the same reasons that I have already described. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the article about Donald Trump's health should have been deleted either. In this case the coverage is even more universal, and until the election will probably get too extensive to just merge it into the main article without bloating that one. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a distinct and separate topic, and should not be deleted or merged with the article on his calls to drop out. Both should be kept as articles, as the latter is a recent phenomenon, while his age and health has been an issue/discussion for multiple years. (Ageofultron 17:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems to mirror the same discussion happening on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Calls_for_Joe_Biden_to_suspend_his_2024_United_States_presidential_campaign

Whoever closes that should close this Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As just an occasional contributor to English-language Wikipedia (active mainly in German-language WP and on Commons), I will formally abstain here (as I'm not familiar enough with en-WP's practices), but my impression is that this article as well as Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign are rather short (when compared to the Joe Biden main article), not many language versions of Wikipedia have decided to split these topics into separate articles (in this case, only French and Finnish Wikipedia, and in the case of the other article, only Icelandic), and it would make more sense IMHO to incorporate them into the main article and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the correct place for this information as well. I think I remembered hearing that Ronald Reagan had age and health concerns at the end of his presidency, but I can't see that article being kept if it were created now. SportingFlyer T·C 09:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic was already a subject of discussion in the media before the June 2024 debate, but this topic & the closely related topic Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign have been sucking all the air out of the room ever since then. At least in America's news media, concerns over Biden's age (and by extension his political future) even managed to palpably overshadow the news about the stunning election results in the UK and France. It's hard to argue this is a non notable subject. I'm surprised this is even at AfD. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just an essay. There's no reason why this shouldn't be included somewhere on the site, and some of it can be merged, but I think we're confusing news and political commentary with encyclopedic content, and I think this fails the 10 year test. SportingFlyer T·C 09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign. The topic of his declining health and overall viability doesn't need multiple articles. Swinub (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Public image of Joe Biden. Absolutely no need for a separate article here. Can also be merged to the Calls For page. Again, we do NOT need this many separate pages covering closely related topics. Reywas92^Talk 14:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator’s and BD2412’s rationales, and Reywas92’s recommendation. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with preexisting pages on the topic, most notably on the Joe Biden and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign pages, or any of the other pages mentioned by previous commenters. BootsED (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious politically motivated content fork. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article wouldn’t be super noteworthy had it not been for the June debate performance. The president had experienced widespread questioning from those on both sides of the aisle as to whether or not he is fit to continue holding office. NathanBru (talk
Delete - severe violation of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NEUTRALITY to dedicate an entire page to a right-wing political talking point and treat it as fact. There's no page about age and health concerns of Ronald Reagan, who was reported to be senile in office and actually had Alzheimer's. Jaydenwithay (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jaydenwithay: We do, however, have articles on the Health of Abraham Lincoln, Health of Pope John Paul II, Health of Adolf Hitler, and so on, so these certainly can stand the test of time. We could have an article on the health of Ronald Reagan. It just needs to be written. BD2412 T 18:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge Where Necessary There's really no context to this article. It's definitely an important note in the conversation of Biden's current term and campaign, but in a vacuum it doesn't make any sense other than as an extension to those other articles. What happens to this page when he eventually dies? Doesn't pass the time test here. ⠀^tomástomás_tomás⠀talk⠀ 04:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this topic meets GNG. Biden's health and age concerns is squaring up to be a major issue in the 2024 election and thus has been subjected to significant attention in reliable sources, especially post-debate. There's no article where this can be comprehensibly covered without creating undue weight. Therefore, this fork is appropriate. R. G. Checkers^talk 05:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a similar article is made called Concerns that Donald Trump is a narcissistic moron. The fact is, this is an unnecessary content fork, we could create endless fork articles about the pros and cons of the major party candidates that get press coverage, as well Concern that a worm really ate RFK, Jr.'s brain.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Milowent: Not to belabor the point, but the last version of the Health of Donald Trump article that is proposed to be restored in tandem with this article being kept had some discussion of armchair evaluations of Trump having narcissistic personality disorder, as well as commentary on Trump's own estimations of his genius. I think this would qualify for your "similar article" proposition, but for the title. BD2412 T 17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that context, BD2412, i don't think "Health of Donald Trump" is anywhere remotely similar, but i need an article titled Does J.D. Vance Know Trump Almost Had His Last Vice President Killed? to feel this should stay. I fully admit to having a very biased view of Trump, which is also 100% correct.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything needs an article Cwater1 (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, indeed False or misleading statements by Donald Trump is already an incredibly long article and some people are saying it will become our longest article ever. We will see.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, this article has received steady coverage for quite some time now. Concerns over Biden's health have been raised since the start of his 2020 campaign, it's hardly "news-of-the-hour". Additionally, Wikipedia is built off consensus, not precedent. The deletion of a similar article on Trump is irrelevant.

Slamforeman (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is so much independent coverage of this that it clearly passes WP:GNG as a standalone topic. I am not concerned that this falls into WP:NOTNEWS as this has been an ongoing concern since the previous election, and as BD2412 pointed out, there are articles on the health of other leaders whose time has long passed. The last concern is whether this ends up being a WP:POVFORK, but I don't see why careful editing cannot end up in a balanced take on the subject, and merging with another article does not really change this. Overall, I do not think there is a strong policy rationale to delete the article. Malinaccier (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE into Public image of Joe Biden. CNC33 (. . .talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — At best, an unnecessary article. At worst, a BLP violation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely factual information such as Biden catching Covid and coverage of his performance at the debate can, and should, be included in his page backed up with impartial citations. These matters do not need a separate article and nor does there need to be one about Trump's health. Wikipedia is in danger of becoming so American-centric and partisan that it will lose further credibility with the wider world. There are plenty of forums on the internet to compile opinions on Biden, Trump and whoever else. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia for the world not an online battlefield for American politics. Shrug02 (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Public image of Joe Biden, while technically WP:GNG, not every BLP violation needs its own spinoff article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has plenty of good sources that easily satisfy the WP:SIGCOV requirements. ADifferentMan (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Public image of Joe Biden. I can't imagine any reason why this would need its own article when it's an aspect of the target article. There are no size concerns at the moment, so this fragmentation of content provides no benefit whatsoever. That's why we have WP:PAGEDECIDE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands, this article offers little information but a lot of text. We all know about his gaffes and general mental decline. Yet, this article cites the same points over and offer and lists an endless amount of examples. All of this can be presented in small and condensed form and give the same amount of information. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Saipan International (badminton)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:EVENT. The winners are already covered in base article Saipan International (badminton).zoglophie^•talk• 06:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Badminton, Oceania, and United States of America. zoglophie^•talk• 06:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keemokazi

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

Nothing here to meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Entertainment, Syria, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Video games, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability criteria (WP:GNG). The only sources I could find were interviews and press releases, which do not confer any notability. ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Jerabek

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

Poorly written promotional article about an academic not shown to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO. The page's sole purpose appears to be to promote an educational model with little peer-reviewed research to back up its efficacy.Blanes tree (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Angela Jerabek just won the James Bryant Conant award, given to one American educator annually in recognition of their contributions to American education. Previous awardees include Thurgood Marshall, Fred Rogers, Claiborne Pell, and Miriam Wright Edelman.

The American Institutes for Research reviewed the BARR model for three years, across three separate studies funded by the U.S. Department of Education, and found it to improve educational outcomes across numerous measurements. AIR's scale-up study, for example, was an independent review of 21,500 students in 69 schools. Most educational models cannot withstand this level of scrutiny. Among their findings:

"The BARR approach had substantial and statistically significant impacts on the proportion of students who passed all their core courses."

"BARR significantly reduced chronic absenteeism."

"The BARR approach improved teachers’ collaboration with their peers, their data use, and a range of other teacher outcomes."

Here is the report. Here is the actual PDF report.

This model was also the only educational model to move through all three stages of federal government review in the I3 program. This article from the widely respected industry publication The Hechinger Report (a publication of the non-profit Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media) outlines the general failure of the 170 educational grantees to meet the program criteria. The one exception: BARR. It names the BARR model as the "poster child" for what the grant was intended to fund.

The above reading of this article is factually uninformed about how educational models are reviewed and how important the BARR model is nationally at this time. Gtatum (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Gtatum (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I am uncertain about the Conant award. But the NPR piece included in a bunch of refbombing at the bottom [9] appears to be a start towards WP:SIGCOV for a GNG case. I also see a MinnPost article [10] that looks like reasonable coverage. I agree that the article is in somewhat poor shape, although I don't think it's so bad as for WP:TNT. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the BARR model (which does not have an article). This NPR [11] and sources 16, 17 talk about it, more than about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable for her impact on education, and her work has broad and independent coverage. She got the James Bryant Conant Award, a special honor for educators. She designed the BARR model, which the AIR has hailed as successful. This shows her impact on education through successful federal programs and gives hope for future reform in that field. This award and the impact of her work meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMIC. --AstridMitch (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page is poorly organized, but that just means it needs editing. The award in question is given by the Education Commision of the States, a nonprofit established in 1965 by John W. Gardner and Terry Sanford. This award was established in 1977. It's pretty significant. See here: https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/Awards-History.pdf. Qflib (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some editing. Still needs work but at least now it's organized. Qflib (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that The article should stay. it meets WP notability guidelines, the sources are reliable and her influence and achievements are Worthy of Wikipedia documentation. Yakov-kobi (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Rugby League

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

Article has minimal sources and said sources only talk about exhibition games ahead of planed launches of the competition. Google search only bring up the Wikipedia page, Facebook page, and USARL Page which has nothing on it. Fails WP:GNG. Mn1548 (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Illinois, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey

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

I had an undisclosed conflict of interest when I created this article. My supervisor has asked me to request that the article be deleted on this basis. I am sorry I created it. I hope this process will be simple. Thank you. A loose necktie (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think you can just tag this article CSD G7 since you were the creator and prime contributor to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Important People (2023 TV series)

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

Can't find it passes WP:GNG. Literary no review at all. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and United States of America. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Sourcing from the CBC is an interview with the host, but talks about the show. The Variety article shows this is up for an Emmy award and briefly talks about the show, also showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep? So you aren't sure for Keep? All interview is primary, not mounting to WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviee is with the person, but it supports an article about the tv show. The Emmy nomination makes it notable rrgardless.Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction: The show has only been submitted for Emmy consideration; the official nominations won't be out until next week. That's why I didn't mention it anywhere in the article yet. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can wait until next week I suppose to see if it makes the final list for the award. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article creator here. Honestly didn't expect it to get to get promoted out of the draft space; I wasn't sure if it had enough, so I submitted it to get insight on areas for improvement, maybe see if coverage increases substantially should that Emmy nod go through. I'm not going to weigh in on whether the article should be kept since I'm obviously a little biased (though I will say starting a delete discussion minutes after someone accepts the draft doesn't seem kosher), but if it does get the axe, I'd prefer it get moved back to the draft space so I can continue source-hunting and working on improving it. Thanks much. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage cited shows it meets the requirement for GNG. I cannot understand the nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which coverage? Please enlighten with STA. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what STA is. Examples of significant coverage and significant mentions, see page for sources of some.

Very Important People has seen host Vic Michaelis interview an assortment of characters that really can’t be described in just a few words. From Vic’s Ex-Step Grandmother (Lisa Gilroy) to Mental Health Advocate Tommy Shriggly (Zac Oyama), every improvisor brought a uniquely wild energy to Dropout’s short formseries, matched by Michaelis’ ability to perfectly adapt to every situation while keeping up their host persona. After being given full makeovers—including makeup, prosthetics and costumes—comedians come up with a character to sit down for a fully improvised interview.
(Deadline)

unique interview series
(Variety)

A sort of elevated reboot of an older CollegeHumor sketch, Very Important People tasks improv comedians with giving spur of the moment interviews after sitting through some truly incredible makeovers: ones that throw costumes and even prosthetics at blindfolded guests, leaving them transformed into aliens, misshapen body builders and, occasionally, screaming cavemen. That leaves Michaelis as the host: a character also named Vic Michaelis, though here they're playing a journalist who is in no way, they stress, the same person as themselves. That unflappable cable access-esque character is drawn from Michaelis's love of TV personalities from Carol Burnett, to Mary Tyler Moore, to Lucille Ball: all the "very physical femme comedians."
(CBC)

Dropout loves improv, so what better than to gather the cast, give them complete makeovers, and have them interviewed by Vic Michaelis, where they create their character based on the makeover they were given! (...)Very Important People is hilarious. It lets the cast get into their element and do what they do best. There are so many unforgettable and hilarious moments throughout the show, from mental health advocates to the second pig of the three little pigs. The show has a vibe and a type of humor that you can not find anywhere else, and for that, it definitely deserves a watch.
(Afterbuzz)

an improvised interview show, for the Outstanding Short Form Comedy, Variety or Drama Series category, as well as submitting its host, Vic Michaelis, for Outstanding Actor in a Short Form Comedy or Drama Series.
(134th St)

We don’t often talk about the niche streaming services at ScreenHub, but I can tell you right now that Dropout is definitely worth your time and money. Featuring improv comedy shows, live DnD games, and unique game shows lead by some of the funniest people in the US right now, this rebrand of College Humour has some excellent and unique offerings that set it apart from other subscription services. My favourite of the bunch at the moment is Very Important People, a show where comedians are put in a mystery costume and must come up with a character on the spot, before being interviewed, in character, by host Vic Michaelis.
(ScreenHub AU)

Mulligan also recently appeared on Dropout's Very Important People where Vic Michaelis and another comedian sit down for a fully improvised interview. The comedian who is the guest on this talk show has had a complete make-over with costume, prosthetics, hair, and make-up all changed to create a character who they will have to originate backstory for on the spot. Mulligan joked about how he doesn't remember anything from his time as Augbert, but praised Michaelis.

ScreenRant

And I will leave it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The show doesn't currently (article or elsewhere) have significant reliable independent coverage sufficient to meet GNG:

The CBC interview would be non-independent by default but some of it has additional significant independent qualitative coverage. (Y)
The Variety article only has passing coverage N
The Deadline interview is non-independent N
The Observer is a student newspaper and I believe while independent/reliable should have low weight (xref WP:UNIGUIDE) (Y)
The Polygon article is non-independent N
The Webby's award is a public web-vote and not the expert-voted Webby award, and is thus insufficient/unreliable for consideration of acclaim/impact. Even if it were the expert-voted Webby award I think it would be low weight given how many Webby awards there are (see the popup menus from the category sidebar at https://winners.webbyawards.com/winners) N

That said, I think it has a reasonable chance of an Emmy nomination given that its category is such an oddball one and there will be 5 nominees from only 22 on the longlist even before considerations of the 24000 eligible voter pool potentially skewing slightly in favour of Dropout, and Dropout fans really liking Dropout shows. If it is, then between the nomination and the second season and the awards We may sometime actually get sufficient independent qualitative coverage, but unfortunately it's not there yet for me.

(BTW, for anyone unfamiliar with the show, youtube has the first episode - enjoy)

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update on this: The list for this year's awards has come out, and no Dropout productions were nominated. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The CBC article alone makes this pass GNG. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 06:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - entire AfD discussion seems to be in wrongway. The nomination was placed per lack of notability per minimal criterion but some are commenting that the CBC interview alone passes the criterion. Is it a rationale AfD discussion? If so, then we have to accept many AfC drafts with single coverage. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, redirect to Dropout (media company) § Current and upcoming as an ATD. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For Indian TV Series, we don't accept any draft not meeting WP:THREE concluding WP:SIGCOV. Then why this one should be exempted? I wished for a fair debate which is not yet demonstrated. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divedapper

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

Draftification was undone so I'm bringing it to AfD. Both the sources used in the article and the sources found online as part of WP:BEFORE are uniquely interviews with the founder, with no sign of independent notability. In particular, WP:ORGCRITE is not met because of the lack of secondary sources. I suggest a Merge or Redirect to Kaveh Akbar as WP:ATD. Broc (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and United States of America. Broc (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not correct that "sources found online as part of WP:BEFORE are uniquely interviews with the founder." Only three out of the eight sources are, and those are interviews with NPR, The Indianapolis Star, and a student newspaper of Butler University, each focused on a festival organized by Divedapper.

It is also incorrect that "WP:ORGCRITE is not met because of the lack of secondary sources." In fact, all of the sources used are independent and third-party sources. None run afoul of WP:NIS. For them to be "primary sources," that would indicate that Divedapper owns or has financial or legal interests or ties to these sources. Nothing I find in my research suggests so.

Can the page Divedapper be improved upon? Absolutely. As can any other page. What has no basis in facts is the notion that it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

If it does fail to meet any criteria, one would expect a proper notification to that effect. Instead, Broc commented out the magazine's logo and did not state that he did so in the Edit Summary, which I found suspect and led me to conclude some bad faith at work. I took a look at their Talk page and found that they had used such "unorthodox" --- their own words --- methods before and a User had complained about it. In that case, Broc moved an article to AfD; but when there was no consensus, Broc voted "Keep," and then draftified the article. A User described the move as "misleading." In response, Broc wrote: "I understand I might have bent the rules of the process a bit." If all editors bent Wikipedia rules at will, then the purpose of the site is defeated.

"Misleading" and "bending the rules of the process a bit" are descriptions I'd use for Broc as it concerns Divedapper. I'd very much prefer for things to be done in the right manner. I'd say "Keep." LityNerdyNerd (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Santa (upcoming film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM as release date not announced. Existing sources are nowhere than procedural announcements only. WP:DRAFTIFY should be the better option. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has been accepted through AfC. Filming has started. Even if this is never released, cast and director are extremely notable and most of all, coverage presented in the page or existing online is sufficient to satisfy the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films says:
Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. ...
Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.
The sources verify that the film commenced principal photography in March 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. The production is notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources.
Sources
1. Ho, Rodney (2023-03-16). "Jack Black, Farrelly Brothers reunite for 'Dear Santa' comedy shooting in metro Atlanta". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The article notes: "Jack Black is back in metro Atlanta to shoot the Farrelly Brothers Christmas-themed comedy “Dear Santa.” ... Black was seen in downtown Decatur last week shooting the film and he posted an Instagram photo from the set teasing the movie’s thematics in what appeared to be a Christmas village. ... Others in the cast include Robert Timothy Smith, Keegan-Michael Key, Brianne Howey, Hayes MacArthur, PJ Byrne, Jaden Carson Baker, Kai Cech and Austin Post."
2. Kroll, Justin (2023-03-15). "Jack Black & The Farrelly Brothers Reunite For Christmas Comedy 'Dear Santa' At Paramount". Deadline Hollywood. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The article notes: "The movie centers on a young boy who, in writing his yearly note to Santa, mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Black recently teased the project on social media when he posted a photo of him posing with Christmas decorations with no context — it got everyone talking about what it could be."
3. Couch, Aaron (2023-03-15). "Jack Black, Farrelly Brothers Team for Paramount's 'Dear Santa'". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  Thea article notes: "After more than 20 years, Jack Black is reteaming with his Shallow Hal filmmakers the Farrelly Brothers for the Paramount comedy Dear Santa. The feature centers on a child who intends to write a letter to Santa Claus, but mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Bobby Farrelly will direct and produce, with brother Peter Farrelly producing along with Jeremy Kramer. The Farrelly brothers penned the script with Ricky Blitt, the writer behind the 2005 Johnny Knoxville feature The Ringer. The story came from an original idea from Dan Ewen, known for the John Cena comedy Playing With Fire."
4. Bedard, Mike (2024-06-03). "Jack Black Is Unrecognizable As Satan For A New Christmas Movie". Looper. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The article notes: "Following his previous Christmas movie, 2006's "The Holiday" — where he was half of one of the most memorable holiday movie couples ever as Miles — Jack Black is dipping back into the Christmas spirit with a decidedly different project and character. Now fans can see him become unrecognizable as Satan on the set of the upcoming flick, "Dear Santa.""
5. Hedash, Kara (2024-04-03). "Post Malone's Next Movie Is More Promising After Road House's $85 Million Success". Screen Rant. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The article notes: "Next up, Post Malone will star in the upcoming Christmas comedy Dear Santa alongside Jack Black and Keegan-Michael Key. It's unclear who Post Malone will be playing in Dear Santa, but the movie's premise will undoubtedly catch attention, considering it follows a young kid who accidentally writes a letter to Satan (Black) instead of Santa ahead of the Christmas holiday. The movie also reunites Black with the Farrelly Brothers, who collaborated together on 2001's Shallow Hal. Dear Santa will be another chance for Post Malone to showcase his comedic chops while also trying his hand at a Christmas movie for the first time in his acting career."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dear Santa to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: both keep votes appear to have missed the films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines part of NFILM. Is the production itself notable? I don't see any evidence that there is, which would make this an improper AfC acceptance and lead to redraftification until we have a release date. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? I don't think Cunard nor myself have missed that part, no. Cunard even quoted it VERBATIM in his !vote. Rather, maybe you missed the part in our !votes when we found it is notable, explained why and/or the evidence presented by Cunard above, present in the page or existing online Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard quoted it verbatim, yes, but his sources don't address it at all? All of these quotes he's pulled are basically "this movie is coming up! it's started shooting! here are some guys who are in it!" That's not the production of the movie being notable. That's simply people saying that the movie is currently being produced. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources discuss the film's production ("Jack Black is back in metro Atlanta to shoot the Farrelly Brothers Christmas-themed comedy"), its plot ("The movie centers on a young boy who, in writing his yearly note to Santa, mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead."), its director and producers ("Bobby Farrelly will direct and produce, with brother Peter Farrelly producing along with Jeremy Kramer."), who wrote the script ("The Farrelly brothers penned the script with Ricky Blitt"), and background about the script ("The story came from an original idea from Dan Ewen"). There is enough coverage about the film's background to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard, saying "Jack Black is in a place to shoot a film" is not discussing the film's production. For one, it's not discussing, in any sense of the word; it doesn't tell us anything about the film's production other than that it's happening. The "production is notable" part of WP:NFILM allows us to have articles on films that are not out and are not likely to come out, but are nonetheless notable. Like The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, which spent decades in development hell before finally coming out in 2018. The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film) is another example - you can see on that article that almost all of the content we have is about the production of the film. These are examples of films where the production is notable, which is completely different from "the movie was mentioned in the press while it was in production". -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of one that is still unreleased, as another example: Coyote vs. Acme. -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might have enoough to pass GNG, but it's simply a news story at this point. Might never get released. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC

Draft until it's a bit further in the production cycle. TO9SOON. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The production itself meets WP:GNG. See above sources by Cunard. C F A 💬 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The film has notable individuals attached, including Jack Black and the Farrelly Brothers, and is backed by Paramount Pictures. However, its current state lacks comprehensive secondary sources that offer in-depth coverage. Improving the article with more references from reliable sources can bolster its credibility and notability. Yakov-kobi (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like it was taken straight from ChatGPT. Did you write this comment yourself? C F A 💬 19:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see several Keep and one Draftify !votes. Draftifying the article does not seem like a good option to me, as the nominator's rationale is based on TOOSOON. The article would essentially just sit in draftspace until a release date is announced. The content of the article would not see a great difference, and I do not see why this wait cannot be done within the mainspace. The subject film commenced filming last year, satisfying NFF. Some of the Keep !votes are based on GNG, but the coverage is a bit weak imv, only covering the basic production details. However, I agree that the notable cast and crew should be sufficient to meet NFO. So I believe the film has enough notability to warrant an independent article, and it is never too late to file for an AFD if the film ends up being scrapped. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory Response Network

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

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

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

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

~~Comment~~ Weak keep Upon a preliminary look, it doesn't seem very informative, well sourced, or well written. Now to check if other sourcing exists... Okay, we could use the official site to at least clear up what the LRN is. Google Scholar shows that a number of research teams have written evaluations of the LRN: Public Health Reports, American Society for Microbiology, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness... USA Today printed two opinion pieces from the same author on the subject [12]. Okay, I'm feeling weak keep. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep For reasons given above. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

FASCIA (database)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Security Office

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is (a) a real functional part of the U.S. federal government (albeit distributed across multiple arms of government), (b) serves a crucial part in the keeping of secrets, and (c) attested to by multiple reliable sources. — The Anome (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide the multiple reliable sources that establish notability? The ones currently in the article are not secondary sources that we would use to establish notability, nor do they include WP:SIGCOV of the article subject. Longhornsg (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a short article. Thus Merge to Classified information in the United States while also copying the data to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of State and National Security Council. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if even one Wikipedian volunteers to do the legwork. I took under ten minutes and hit up Google and Google Scholar. I found several sources that look promising and linked to them on the article talk page here: [13]. I have not perused any of these sources in detail, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them aren't usable, but I'm satisfied enough that enough reliable sourcing to justify an article on this topic exists. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided are either additional recitations of the same definition that do not address WP:NOTDICT or are WP:TRIVIALMENTION that do not address WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer's Network

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Security Operations Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al Qaeda Network Exord

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

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

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

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

Keep: Covered in foreign media [14] and some journals [15], [16]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Merge with War on Terror: Articles/journals linked are really just trivial mentions; seems pretty WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Fails GNG on its own. Better off in a broader article. C F A 💬 23:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VanGrunsven RV-2

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

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

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

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

[edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator[17] is one of the worst examples of biting I can recall seeing. And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[:1-1] Klemesrud, Judy (1982-05-16). "AT HARVARD, SHE RULES LAMPOONLAND". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

[:2-2] Sims, Calvin (1993-08-10). "COMPANY NEWS; Columbia Pictures Selects A President for Production". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

[3] Weinraub, Bernard (1994-04-04). "She's Young and Smart, But Not Too Smart to Lead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

[1]

[2]

[3]