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

I Love the '90s (American TV series)

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

This is one of a set of articles on a TV show. Note that all of those have only one single reference--look at I Love the '90s: Part Deux, and you will find a little pop culture article that really only helps I Love.... The articles themselves are nothing but catalog info at best, all OR/trivia. One of the articles was created by a sock, User:Leviathan648, but I haven't checked them all. A redirect would be fine. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: these articles are the longtime hobby horses of this editor, going back years; note the edit summaries in which they threaten other editors (see this one). I think I'll ask for a range block for disruptive, unverified, trivial edits if they continue. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I Love... In this form, it's literally a 'type-what-I-see' recap, which we long ago depreciated as not proper, nor sourced, and there are surely non-SEO sources for this show where we can write a short and descriptive summary of each episode. Right now though it just is not a proper article style at all. Nate • (chatter) 21:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage exists: https://www.today.com/popculture/vh1-its-too-early-love-90s-wbna5345119 ; https://www.mlb.com/reds/tickets/concerts/love-the-90s ; Richards, R. W. (2021). Cinematic TV: Serial Drama Goes to the Movies. United States: Oxford University Press, p. 40, for example. Also WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Today source is okay, but that mlb source isn't even close to significant coverage. You don't have enough to meet the GNG yet... Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, History, and United States of America. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nom seems to have struck a nerve as 2603:6000:D2F0:3680:CCCB:404C:672A:58C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is actively trying to restore unsourced content. Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Andreas: The Original Mixtape

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

Both of the references in the article are dead links, and the most significant coverage I was able to find is in an article by Pitchfork ([1]) which has some sentences about the mixtape. Other than that, I was only able to find mentions such as [2]. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Young Maylay. toweli (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. toweli (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Tail Records

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to the band Uncle Bonsai, as both it and Yellow Tail Records were founded by Andrew Ratshin ([3]). toweli (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and Washington. toweli (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BenchWarmers DVD Magazine

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

I wasn't able to find any coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Music, United States of America, and North Carolina. toweli (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bench Warmer International

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

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. toweli (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Companies, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found a couple passing references (single sentences saying so-and-so had appeared on one of their cards) but nothing close to WP:SIGCOV. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of antisemitic incidents in the United States

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

Following a disagreement over BLP and NOTNEWS concerns, a large portion of this article was removed and a discussion was had as to what list criteria it should use. After discussing it on the talk page, I do not think this article, or any article attempting to quantify something as broad and vague as "incident" should exist (of which we have at least two others, one about xenophobia in venezuela and a similar one referring to Islamophobic incidents)

The intended scope of the page - any "incident" described as antisemitic by anybody, it seems - is so impossibly broad as to be unencyclopedic. There are tens of thousands of antisemitic incidents in the US that have been reported in the news. Perhaps hundreds of thousands. We cannot list everything ever described as antisemitic by anyone. Further, a lot of the sources used to classify antisemitic incidents have come under fire lately for classifying more disputed ones related to Palestine as antisemitic, when these are not agreed upon. I don't think the NOTNEWS is as big of an issue as the list does not inherently have to abide by that, but the massive scope of this is an issue plus the BLP concerns that come with listing someone's actions here not on the base of any criminal conviction but on the strength of anyone calling it that.

If we limit it to just incidents with articles, as is sometimes done when dealing with articles with particularly broad scopes, we are left with just a handful of incidents, some of which are themselves non notable, the other of which are antisemitic terrorist attacks/shootings, which is notable, but these are listed on another page so reducing it to that would make it just a worse duplicate. The ones that have their own pages, are notable, and are not duplicated on another page number less than five. Hence I would argue delete, but in any case even if not deleted something must be done about the scope. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Judaism, and United States of America. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep encyclopedic list and notable incidents by and large. Meets WP:NLIST, oppose change to scope. Andre🚐 22:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not encyclopedic to list every single thing that has ever happened in a country with 300+ million people that someone has called antisemitic. Also BLP concerns. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misinterpreted Mr. Andrevan’s point. Steven1991 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Only a few of them have a page, so they are not mostly notable incidents. And most are so small scale as to be unencyclopedic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read NLIST, it doesn't require that. Andre🚐 22:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the guidance on selection criteria for lists.
Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. - this is not

As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive.

Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence.

This current article's scope has more potential entries than is encyclopedic.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would see the current article is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. If not, please explain why not. editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items emphasis mine. I also don't see how the list is an indiscriminate one, it's limited to incidents described as antisemitic. They're also topically relevant. Andre🚐 22:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What organization objectively defines antisemitism? People have many varying definitions of it. An article mostly made up of incidents of NOTNEWS crimes like vandalism and assault is not encyclopedic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An organization doesn't need to define it, what matters is do the RS describe it that way, absent any meaningful contradiction. NOTNEWS is an altogether different argument than NLIST. For example, we could adopt a time moratorium to avoid RECENTISM and say that new entries need to have at least 14 days before being added. That's not an AFD argument against notability, that's a content discussion at editors' discretion regarding the WP:LISTCRITERIA. Remember that is about WP:V. However, crimes and vandalism and assault aren't always covered in RS and they aren't always described as antisemitic, that is why the criteria here aren't indiscriminate. So long as we apply those criteria rigorously, we are being neither arbitrary nor capricious in doing so, and proportionate with our weight. If the President describes it as antisemitic that's a pretty huge pointer it belongs here. If it's just in the police blotter and not really a national story or discussed in any reasonable depth other than a passing mention, maybe we leave it out. However, we don't definitely need to leave it out. And I'm not sure I fully understand your rationale to delete this article or leave most entries off the list. Andre🚐 22:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what you're not getting about the problems here. I doubt this will be deleted in any case, but the entire concept of this list is based on a definition with an intersection with an incredibly controversial geopolitical conflict, were this list anywhere close to comprehensive it would be completely unmaintainable, and it is not encyclopedic to list tons of individual briefly covered cases accusing people of committing crimes with no follow up - many of whom were never convicted, so there is a massive BLP issue here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t get how it is “controversial”. If a Jewish person is assaulted by someone calling them names or being hurled insults consisting of traditional tropes about Jews, or have their properties vandalised with any offensive symbols or slogans, I don’t see how it is tied to any geopolitical conflict, unless there is an assumption that random Jewish persons in the U.S. alike are responsible for it, which shouldn’t be the case. So, I don’t get where the “controversy” comes from. Steven1991 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven1991 Is saying Israel should not exist antisemitic? Is a Jew getting assaulted for reasons other than being a Jew antisemitic (this page includes several incidents where the motive is not clear, but someone called it antisemitic)? Is saying Israel does not have a right to a Jewish state antisemitic? Do we use the IHRA definition? If not, what do we use? Is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany antisemitic (IHRA says it is, many self-called human rights activists compare them all the time)? I don't know, but the definition of antisemitism is extremely controversial, yes, see the whole fight we had about the ADL and the definition they use. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME here isn't relevant because antisemitism is not equal to being found guilty of a hate crime. The former is more of a "thought crime." Those aren't chargeable. If they were found guilty of a hate crime then that's good proof of the guilt of that view, but BLPCRIME doesn't mean that we can't list an ideological position. BLPCRIME is about crimes. So long as we don't accidentally claim guilt of hate crimes where one didn't occur, antisemitic isn't a crime. Andre🚐 23:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the people here were not found guilty of any crime, hence the BLPCRIME concern. BLP proper is also an issue because antisemitism is a negative allegation so adding someone to this list on the strength of a few breaking news sources and then the topic never gets mentioned again is bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this page requires merely that anyone have called something someone did antisemitic, whether that be a politician, without criminal conviction or widespread agreement. That is bad and has BLP issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t appear to be the case if you look at the most recent version, which basically include only the most serious-natured ones. Steven1991 (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. One off assaults are a very common crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as per Mr. Andrevan’s viewpoint. As long as the incidents are historically well known/covered by multiple reliable sources/widely condemned by government agencies and/or NGOs, which would fit the notability test (I am not too familiar), I don’t see how it shouldn’t be there, or we would have crowd a significant amount of content covering those notable incident in related articles, which would in turn cause other issues. Steven1991 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven1991 If we cut this down to historically well known incidents that would be 95% of it gone - most of which is duplicated on another page.

Most of this content should not be on any page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Steven, if this is a keep make sure you add Keep to the beginning with bold. Andre🚐 22:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I haven’t added anything more to the article. I am waiting out to see how things go. Steven1991 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - I originally suggested deletion when this was a giant WP:DB, but have changed my mind after thinking about it a bit. The list could be filtered more, and I do wonder about BLP violation.

I think main question to ask is about WP:NLIST: Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists

Antisemitic incidents is definitely notable as a group. WP:SALAT also indicates that the grouping should not be so broad as to be useless. I am still not quite sure about a list of antisemitic incidents, but filtering it to only the United States seems to limit its scope a bit more. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman My question is, when people discuss them as a list or set, do they list them? In which case, do we have any examples of this so we can see what they list? And on what basis will we filter it that will not make it tens of thousands of items long? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah well, I have no opinion then, and will strike out my vote for now. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman "but filtering it to only the United States seems to limit its scope a bit more." this is something I was thinking would be more applicable too given the nature of it by the issue there is how these definitions get extremely muddy when considering different countries and especially legal systems. It'd be a very busy talk page.

A timeline of antisemitism in the US would probably make more sense for the context of the events that would be listed there but would also be a very different page. Galdrack (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rescope - The current scope of the article is too broad as there is no definitive way of deciding what constitutes an "antisemitic incident". The list currently contains a mix of confirmed hate-crimes, incidents disputed due to them involving Israel, & incidents that are assumed antisemitic because it happened to someone Jewish. Many incidents are also just, not notable, only reported on by local news & no follow-up.

If this article is going to continue to exist in some form, I want some sort of objective benchmark for inclusion. I've already given my proposal on the talk page, to only include incidents directly confirmed as hate crimes + historical incidents universally considered antisemitic. Otherwise the list will become an arbitrary compilation of incidents someone says may be antisemitic & will lead to prolonged arguments for/against inclusion.

I would also like to note that the creator of this article, Loksmythe was blocked as a sockpuppet. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rescoping is needed, unfortunately. I am happy to come up with some suggestions on what incidents should be included within two hours. Steven1991 (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ RESCOPE - I think there is merit in having some sort of article on antisemitism in the United States but this article is overly broad. It would make more sense to limit it to incidents that are notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia article, otherwise we will end up with a list of thousands of incidents. We don't have List of racist incidents in the United States or List of sexist incidents for similar reasons. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Antisemitism in the United States and History of antisemitism in the United States. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Steven1991 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Timeline of antisemitism in the 21st century, 20th century, 19th century, Timeline of antisemitism Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As someone who "uses" WP, I view "List pages" as providing a means to search quickly and efficiently for published articles and linked accordingly. This does not provide such; as it "lists" mini-articles (some of which are not notable enough to have their own articles at WP). There is enough on WP that addresses the topic; either individually or as a general topic. Additionally, each "listing" seems to also welcome quite a lot of challenges and editing not regarding the page or topic itself but the actual individual incidences. Maineartists (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But it needs a work trimming it down. The incidents that are non-notable should not be included unless someone can demonstrate that the specific non-notable incidents themselves are notable as a specific gruop.. However, I find the "but an exhaustive list would be massive" argument to be uncompelling. There's nothing indicating it must be an exhaustive list of anything that fits the list rather than notable things only; we're not bothered that Deaths in January 2024 or List of physicians don't contain millions of people because we only list the notable ones. Similarly, I also don't find "but we'll have to define ourself what an anti-semitic incident is" to be convincing at all, either; the sources would do that, and weighing how the reliable sources consider the subject of an article is something we do in basically every article already.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with that is that there are very, very few incidents on this list that are notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've now responded to every keep. Please don't repeat yourself or respond to everyone. Andre🚐 02:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposition on the article’s Talk page for the rescoping of the article with regard to the incident inclusion criteria. Feel free to have a look or join the discussion. Steven1991 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Antisemitism in the United States is already too long. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was initially going to add "Strong Rescope" to my position but I think Wellington raises a very solid point, that there isn't a "list of racist incidents in the US" article, and I'm no longer in favor of keeping this article. Given that there are only 2 other lists similar to this one; that there are other pages on Wikipedia dealing with this topic, specifically other articles about antisemitism, antisemitism in the US, specific antisemitic incidents, etc; that there is no agreement on what constitutes "antisemitism", including an editor believing the article falls under WP:PIA; that there has been impasse and a lot of contentious back and forth about individual incidents, including edit war around keeping and removing individual incidents instead of meaningful improvements to the article; that there seems to be fundamental disagreement about the criteria by which incidents are able to be listed; that there so far has been impasse at a consensus regarding rescoping and one does not seem forthcoming -- it seems some do not want to concede to the article only including incidents with their own article, and general disagreement about what constitutes a noteworthy incident in general --, I am not in favor of keeping this article and I believe it should be deleted.

I hope it's okay to re post something from PARAKANYAA from the talk page that I think summarizes the problems with this article nicely,

My problem with this list is that the scope is so broad that it is a nightmare. An "incident". This is as opposed to terrorist attacks or violent hate crimes, which tend to be far more notable as events and have less of the same concerns - which we have a separate list for. We only have two other pages like this (the Venezuela and Islamophobia ones). Maybe we should delete all three of them. Making this article even close to comprehensive would be massively, massively oversized, and have NOTNEWS and BLP issues. So as is it's just an arbitrary collection of recent news. To attempt to list every single thing ever called an antisemitic incident by the news or another commentator would be utterly unencyclopedic. I don't think we should have any pages like this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Wikipedious1 (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with a definition as to what qualifies for inclusion and a wider scope.Knitsey (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, initially I'd suggest Rescope since there was none to begin with really but the consistent editing of the page due to lack of a clear scope has lead to such a vague and broad array of events it's partially hard to take seriously in an encyclopedia as opposed to a news feed online. I feel like such a list would be useful and can be made but given the nature of the topic clarifying and agreeing to a scope for the topic would be extremely difficult to maintain and largely the noteworthy events will be listed in related articles already in better detail. Galdrack (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austin City Council District 1

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

Individual city council districts like this aren't usually notable, perhaps a merge to the main article on the Austin City Council would be suitable. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, and Texas. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible or delete - this clearly doesn't meet GNG as written, and this isn't a fixed city district like say Queens or Islington. SportingFlyer T·C 01:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete and do the same with the other district articles. Individual city council districts are rarely notable and can be covered in the main Austin City Council article. Seattle City Council, for example, shows a map of the districts as well as a table of members – this does not need to be on separate pages. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice the articles on the ot he r di st ri c t s, these articles should also be deleted. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish American Chamber of Commerce and Industry

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

I found a few refs such as https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-american-business-association-names-new-president-117121 but not enough to show notability in my opinion Chidgk1 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Turkey, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welspun USA

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

This article does not meet the notability standards set by Wikipedia's guidelines for companies WP:NCORP and lacks the necessary in-depth coverage WP:CORPDEPTH to be considered notable. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Welspun Living per nom. मल्ल (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Angel home video releases

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Home video releases of Angel are already covered in each of the season articles, see for example: Angel season 4#DVD release. Only references of note are short news announcements by TVShowsOnDVD.com ([4], [5]), a source of questionable reliability.

There are some articles I found about the streaming versions: [6], [7]. Those can fit quite easily to the home video sections on the season articles. Still, I don't think those sources are enough to meet notability. Mika1h (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Lists, and United States of America. Mika1h (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, there's no reason the video release elements from other articles can't be put together in a list like this. In practice... why bother? In a substantially streaming world, these lists are less important than they used to be. I would actually recommend if we want to clean up Angel articles, they be un-redirected and referenced. Like many older television shows, references are print, not as much digital, so it's non-trivial to demonstrate notability, even when it clearly exists. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE same reasons as per 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and many many more. Ajf773 (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. TH1980 (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Aziz Abdullah Ali Al Suadi

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

This is one of many articles related to one person's (?) attempt to make an article on seemingly everyone who has ever been detained at Guantanamo. Cited entirely to reports listing him among the detainees with no sigcov discussion of the subject. An outside search found no sources except a brief mention that he was sent to Montenegro in 2016. Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees where he is listed? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Yemen, and United States of America. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails notability as stated above and also this should be considered as falling under WP:BLPCRIME, as this is a person being held in prison without trial and is thus not convicted of whatever they are holding him for. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's kind of how... Guantanamo is. 9/11 and all that. Previous discussions on similar people have found to redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that others have been suggesting we ignore WP:BLPCRIME in such instances. I will continue to make my case that we shouldn't. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any case, the list exists. If our stance on that list changes the redirect will go with it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees: per nom TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Records (independent)

(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. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Valletto

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nzinga

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT; journeyman footballer who played on low levels in various places. Not even databases have much about him. WorldFootball records 6 games in the German Oberliga, which was the fourth amateur tier at the time. Soccerway records 312 minutes of play in the USSF Division 2. There is not even a good claim to notability here. Geschichte (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Angola, France, Norway, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Angola, and France. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV.Demt1298 (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of numbered (rigid wall) shelters of the U.S. Army

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

This list article has been orphaned since its inception in 2015, and is badly in need of formatting and citations. It has not been properly edited since 2022, and seems to generate no interest. It should be deleted. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 00:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 00:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of what the nominator specified is really a reason for deletion, but this being a hyper specific non notable list is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This hyper-specific list seems to be someone's attempt at building a technical reference. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. nf utvol (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not written like an encyclopedia article and I can't find sources to show notability either.McYeee (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN, WP:GNG. Nothing encyclopedic about this whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ouch. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom and others. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. Orientls (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vem Miller

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E and an overall lack of coverage aside from the Trump event. Sir MemeGod  20:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and United States of America. Sir MemeGod  20:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Any insinuation that Miller intended to assassinate Trump is a BLP violation. Miller is not notable enough to warrant an article barring the incident on Saturday, either. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Security incidents involving Donald Trump#2024 incident at Coachella rally instead? Ss0jse (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion can also take place in Talk:Security incidents involving Donald Trump#Cochella suspect. Ss0jse (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a WP:BLPCRIME situation, there are signs that it is at most a minor crime and that this will not be of lasting interest. No merge needed; there is sufficient information already in the targeted page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree with deleting the article on Vem Miller, but I would nonetheless like to copy/paste (or move or whatever) Vem Miller#Arrest and Trump rally incident to Security incidents involving Donald Trump#2024 incident at Coachella rally before Vem Miller is deleted. Ss0jse (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. I think going that deep on this individual because his presence was briefly perceived as a threat even though there does not seem to have been any is a BLP concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, NatGertler and Sir MemeGod. Consider this merge discussion closed and this merge proposal rejected. Ss0jse (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E at this point. And given how it's likely to fade away in terms of his action(s), I think WP:BLPNAME could easily fall on not having his name even with the current amount of coverage including it (which is the status quo in Security incidents involving Donald Trump). Skynxnex (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, meaning largely replace Security incidents involving Donald Trump#2024 incident at Coachella rally with a copyedited version of Vem Miller#Arrest and Trump rally incident. The 200+ words and four sources in that incident section are much better than the ~50 words and two sources (one in Portuguese, with no indication that it complies with the very minimal restrictions in the WP:NONENG policy) in the Trump article. I disagree with Nat Gertler that "there is sufficient information already in the targeted page", as the targeted page currently says nothing about his intentions or that he's a Trump supporter. (Having a supporter of a pro-firearms/pro-concealed carry candidate possessing firearms at a public event is significantly different from having an opponent showing up with malign intent.) I don't care whether his name should remain, though as a recent candidate for statewide political office, he's a public figure (though not presumed notable per WP:NSUBPOL; not all public figures are notable and vice versa). Also see that last line in WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." His denial is another thing that's missing from the targeted page, but present on the BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First off, BLP1E doesn’t exactly apply here since this person had a long career in media that predates the Coachella incident. Note that there was a previous BLP discussion in 2020, and several users even back then argued that he was notable on the basis of doing things like creating the TV show Car Lot Rescue (and yes, that is the same Vem Miller). Although the consensus at the time was ultimately in favor of deletion, I would argue that his earlier career and the Trump rally incident, together, are enough to carry him across the threshold of notability even if neither would be sufficient on its own. Moreover, Miller also personally knows and has been photographed with several people close to Trump, making his claim that Trump personally invited him to the rally quite plausible. And yet, at the same time, you also have Trump-supporting politicians like Anna Paulina Luna openly calling him a would-be assassin and using the incident to gin up sympathy for Trump. That's inherently quite interesting, and certainly not the same as it would be if it had just been some rando arrested at a Trump rally with a gun.LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I see a single source that shows that he doesn’t fail 1E? It still applies if he hasn’t had any talk around him pre-shooting. Sir MemeGod  12:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is the same Vem Miller, more would need to be shown. The article for Car Lot Rescue is in a state that it would not pass a notability check (the one non-press-release reference is a local interest story... which, I will add, does not mention Miller.) The users arguing for keep in the previous nomination include one who had a single edit that wasn't in that AfD discussion (and that was to insert Miller's name into an article) and @Koridas:, an account that was less than a month into their editing at the time (although maintains activity into this month, so I'm pinging them for their input.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Neither for nor against, but I agree the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_incidents_involving_Donald_Trump#2024_incident_at_Coachella_rally is poorly written. I am working on adding more information now to that particular location. Armeym (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Against Deletion unless arrest content is moved/preserved Unfortunately my attempts to place higher quality info were deleted in the article I referenced above, so now I wrote it here. I feel like if this article is deleted, the improved content should be created as a page named "Arrest of Vem Miller" since at this point 90% of the page is about the arrest as there is so much information to cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armeym (talk • contribs) 02:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempts were reverted because you violated WP:BLPCRIME. Your edits to this article also violate WP:BLPPRIMARY. @Armeym please read through WP:BLP if you plan to continue making edits about living people, especially if these edits relate to contentious material and legal issues. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME and really only notable for what (so far) appears to be a minor arrest. There is brief mention of the incident at Security incidents involving Donald Trump#2024 incident at Coachella rally which is sufficient. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has too many BLP violations to justify keeping the page history. The content isn't very good to begin with; if people wish to add information to the relevant articles they're best off starting from scratch. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls under WP:BLP1E, consistent WP:BLPCRIME violations; the act which this person did is not notable beyond the few sentences in the section in the Donald Trump-related article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Another non-notable individual, but may together with the two other such articles perhaps be merged into one? Barely anything can be said about the individual Theodore, the topic of the article, who died aged 1 or thereabouts. What the articles (and the sources) really are about is Jackson's treatment of or position towards Native Americans. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see how a child that lived for 6 months is notable. There is no claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I read the article and looked over the sources. They're either books or paywalled, so I have not read them, but they're good quality and the topics look direct. I'm confident in the presumption of notability. I'm more concerned about neutral, encyclopedic wording than about notability. In addition to that, I feel including enslaved people, whose stories are undertold, in this encyclopedia is something we should err on the side of doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Charley (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer keep but I have no objection to this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Loffredo

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

The primary focus of the article revolves around a recent event (his arrest in Israel in October 2024), which does not establish long-term notability or significance. There is no significant coverage of Loffredo outside of this incident, and the article lacks in-depth coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources about his overall career or contributions as a journalist. This is clearly WP:BLP1E. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Literally nothing about this person beyond 4 days ago, being arrested isn't notable. Rather routine career otherwise it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't match any of WP:GNG guidelines. Rulebased (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We don't curate articles on subjects because they were subject to a singular event, especially when the event is not "highly significant". Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or give an appropriate redirect or merger target. I tried to fix the poor writing of this article; the grammar appears to be a machine or AI translation. I also cut out POV problems. Even after all that, we are still left with a huge BLP1E problem. Lots of journalists get arrested and then bailed out annually. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Sad story which may be a paragraph in some other article perhaps (but where?), but not a notable subject on its own. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Reed Kraus

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is also a second nomination. You might want to want check here [8] Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Entertainment, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposing deletion. Jacques Hendrik van Zyl (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC) — Jacques Hendrik van Zyl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: References 2 and 4 should be enough to establish notability, as both are significant and RS. Would be nice to trim the article down to its essentials, as it's vaguely promotional and contains too many quotes. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try and patch this up today with this feedback. NPOV is something I feel is a weak spot for my writing. (NB: ref 2 refers to the WSJ, and ref 4 refers to Semafor, if the reference ordering changes.) SWinxy (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. Kraus got a feature in the WSJ plus two profiles: in Semafor and, just today, in Mother Jones. She had two articles on her in The Independent and in Business Insider back in 2022. These should surely establish notability. SWinxy (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed and SWinxy. Sourcing satisfies WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Egypt

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

One of many, many country specific subsidiaries of Microsoft that does not seem to be independently notable under WP:NCORP. Brandon (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, United States of America, and Washington. Brandon (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Has been around since 2007, hopefully can be redirected to Microsoft. gidonb (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support redirecting to Microsoft. Brandon (talk) 04:20, 17 October 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 redirect‎ to List of US officials who resigned over Biden's support for Israel in Gaza war. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hala Rharrit

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

A low level government employee known only for her resignation. Her resignation is already sufficiently covered at List of US officials resigned over Biden's support for Israel in Gaza war. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of US officials resigned over Biden's support for Israel in Gaza war. User:The Mountain of Eden is correct, but (1) the biggest problem with this article is a WP:BLP1E problem, (2) we usually redirect non-notable political biography stubs to a list or election article. Bearian (talk) 03:30, 17 October 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.

Glacier Bancorp

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources are routine. Badbluebus (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, Delaware, and Montana. Badbluebus (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:LISTED, sufficient independent sources to clear WP:NCORP almost always exist for publicly traded companies. "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports", and that is the case for this company. See the table below linking to recent (paywalled) independent analyst reports from MarketBeat for Glacier Bancorp (GBCI). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Upside/Downside on Report Date	Details
10/2/2024	Raymond James	Boost Target	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$45.00 ➝ $48.00	+7.55%	View Report Details
9/20/2024	Truist Securities	Boost Target	Hold ➝ Hold	$46.00 ➝ $50.00	+6.68%	View Report Details
8/27/2024	Piper Sandler	Reiterated Rating	Neutral ➝ Neutral	$38.00 ➝ $38.00	-17.84%	View Report Details
4/23/2024	Stephens	Lower Target	Equal Weight ➝ Equal Weight	$44.00 ➝ $40.00	+4.49%	View Report Details
4/22/2024	DA Davidson	Lower Target	Buy ➝ Buy	$48.00 ➝ $45.00	+25.28%	View Report Details

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate finance in the United States

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

AI-generated redundant fork of Climate change policy of the United States sourced entirely to primary sources. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and United States of America. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Climate policy of the United States~~ Climate change policy of the United States: As a WP:ATD. The article is too low-quality to merge anything. I note that there are several other articles titled "Climate finance in X", some of which might be suitable for merging into more general articles about climate change in their respective countries. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While trying to learn more about the WikiEdu program, I stumbled on the WikiEdu Climate Finance campaign which might be the origin of some of these articles. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ClaudineChionh I'm helping to run this initiative and would be happy to answer any questions you, or anyone else, might have about it. Thanks for all of the discussion. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm particularly concerned about Climate finance in Trinidad and Tobago, which was created by an admin who's affiliated with WikiEdu. Its sourcing consists of two primary sources and three other sources that barely even mention climate change and just regurgitate the words of various corporations. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Helpful Raccoon I am looking for more sources to appear on that article as well. I think those government sources are high quality and an appropriate start. Happy to discuss that more on that article's talk page if you like. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the contributions to the article, I am adding wider references that offer an outside view and supporting evidence of outcomes and successes. Netforcarbon (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Helpful Raccoon. I appreciate your concern. I created the climate finance in Trinidad and Tobago as a template for how to create articles like these - and to avoid largely redundant articles like this one. I do think this kind of information is important to surface particularly because it's buried in reports. That said, you're right, it's pretty bare bones, that that's on me for not continuing to expand it. Point taken. Guettarda (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying! One of my concerns is that it's unclear whether these climate finance articles meet WP:GNG. On the other hand, much of this information could be contained in broader articles such as "Climate change in X" or "Climate change policy in X". These articles could be sourced more easily while giving a more comprehensive overview of each country's situation. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the consideration that the article is relevant to the Climate Policy in the United States which I did feel was another faucet of the topic. I was focusing on presenting a view of climate finance in the U.S. from the Paris agreement commitments and the outcomes of the action which is relevant to policy but I feel a need to present a wider view. Netforcarbon (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful Raccoon, Climate policy of the United States isn't an appropriate Redirect target article because it is a Redirect, not an article. It should appear as a green link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, I meant Climate change policy of the United States. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this article, the first version had bullet point and errors in format that I thought was referred to AI format. I have changed the format. Netforcarbon (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netforcarbon To be clear, did you use AI to write this article? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raccoon not AI to write the article but I do have an AI review and format assistant. I also use an AI editor but the content is from my notes and reviews of other documents on the US commitments and outcomes pertaining to climate finance which is also within my profession. Netforcarbon (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I continued this discussion on your talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was alerted to this from the WikiProject Climate Change talk page. I haven't looked at the actual content yet but in general, I am against creating such sub-sub-articles, which usually end up lingering with very low pageviews. Why not rather include some of this content as an example in the article climate finance? Or else within a U.S. specific climate change article like suggested above. Like Climate change policy of the United States or Climate change in the United States.

Also if WikiEdu or someone is organising a drive to create lots of these "climate finance" type articles for specific countries then please alert others through the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change (early on, not just at the end). Thanks to User:FULBERT for the recent alert.

Also, using Chat-GPT (or similar) for language polishing or for ideas for structuring the article is perfectly fine. Using it for actually up to date content generation might be flawed. I am curious to learn how (if) you used AI for this exercise? If done correctly and carefully there is nothing wrong with that. But you'd have to be able to detect hallucinations and wrong information while working with it. EMsmile (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EMsmile I did not use AI to write content but I do use AI for format and for the final review. I will go back to rewrite content. I appreciate the insight to the wikiworld and the community of editors! Excellence in information sharing and climate finance in the Unites States is relevant and needs its own place of explanations that ultimately lead to the transparency of climate actions pertaining to financing. Netforcarbon (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, welcome to Wikipedia, User:Netforcarbon. I hope you like it here. My point is that if you want your content to be seen and read, then you might be better off integrating it into an existing article rather than creating a new one from scratch. I don't know if you have discovered the page view graphs yet? You can access it from the top "view history" tab. In general, I recommend to new Wikipedia editors to rather improve and enrich existing articles with higher pageviews rather than focusing on low pageview articles or even completely new articles. You have more impact with the high pageview articles. Also, if climate finance already has quite low pageviews (see here) then what makes you think that "climate finance in country X" would get any more pageviews? EMsmile (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netforcarbon and Will (Wiki Ed). If you are interested, I think a discussion about the campaign on the wp:WikiProject Climate Change talk page could be fruitful. This would be a less stressful and more collaborative environment than AfD. One of my concerns at the moment is this and possibly other articles serving as an uncritical, promotional listing of things that governments and corporations have called climate finance. Unfortunately quite a few things that are labelled climate finance are greenwashing, fossil fuel subsidies in disguise, or just ineffective. If we could start with a broader conversation about your goals and your skillsets, we could help you with things like figuring out what sources to use and choosing high-impact articles to create/improve. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot Thanks for that recommendation - I'll post something soon. I also appreciate the greenwashing concern. I think this is exactly why we should be focusing on this area. Separating substantive climate change mitigation action from greenwashing is important. The funding element is also challenging, but its as important as any other kind of legislation. Thanks again! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the US has such enormous financial clout that the topic seems to me to be notable. US policy and finance are both so influential there should be enough info for two articles. Although they will overlap somewhat not all policy is finance (for example policy can make regulations or diplomacy) and not all finance is policy (for example Tesla was only partly government funded - a lot was private, and much else is private finance e.g. 3 Mile Island). Chidgk1 (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melville Jones (racing driver)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Motorsport, and United States of America. Demt1298 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Point 1 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. The Indianapolis 500 is the oldest and most important American auto race. Please consider the deletion discussions here, here, here, and here. These are the first four I located, and in each case the consensus has been to keep the articles of early 20th century drivers - I believe this is due to the clear notability of the event and/or the achievement of competing in it, and because of the fact that sources likely exist, but may be harder to locate and access due to the time period of their creation.

RegalZ8790 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NMOTORSPORT is subordinate to SPORTCRIT, which requires GNG be met and a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in the article. Passing mentions with trivial details and routine event coverage do not count as SIGCOV, but that seems to be the only material that exists on this person per the (non-RS) blog post, which repeats what the official Indianapolis Speedway historian (not independent) could find on Jones: The story of MC Jones, the man from Conwy, has been morphed with Milton Jones who died 80 years ago. They share the common Welsh surname, but as resident historian Donald Davidson at the Indianapolis Speedway points out, it's a case of history not keeping up with the Joneses.

"MC Jones and Milton Jones, it has often been assumed, is the same person. MC Jones drove in the 1925 race, and his name was Melville. They are two different people," affirms Davidson from his office at the track. "There are those who have assumed it is one and the same and it isn't.

"In 1925 there was a fellow named Harold Skelly. He qualified a 'Skelly Special', which was a Fronty Ford, which means it was basically a dirt track car with a special head developed by Louis Chevrolet and Frontenac, nicknamed a 'Fronty'. As Skelly was deemed not up to the job, MC Jones stepped in, and I think most of his experience was in boat racing." That's nowhere near SIGCOV, and if that is all the official Indy 500 historian could dig up then that's very strong proof nothing further exists. JoelleJay (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source has 280 words of coverage devoted to Jones – I do not see how that is not significant coverage (i.e. meets SPORTCRIT). There's an obit here, and it seems a number of other mentions from Maine papers and from when he competed at the Indy 500. If OldRacingCars.com is considered reliable you arguably have another piece of sigcov here. You could certainly write a decent bio here, and I don't see why we wouldn't want to have a potential upper-start-class bio on someone who competed in one of the most famous races ever – I don't see who would be benefited by deleting. To suggest that one can just disregard all the sub-NSPORT criteria just by saying 'fails GNG' is really ridiculous – what point is there then in having them if saying two words makes them irrelevant! I'd lean towards keeping. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

232d Medical Battalion

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

Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace. A WP:BEFORE search got mostly press releases. A subject specific notability guideline doesn't exist for military units/formations, and the article seems to not fulfill our general notability guidelines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep articles on battalion-sized units per WP:MILUNIT. But move to 232nd Medical Battalion per norm. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error message comes up on this AFD, as well "Do not use {{Draft article}} in mainspace". — Maile (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, — Maile ,

I don't see any problems with this AFD or the article and I don't know what draft article you are referring to. I've put "nowiki" tags around this template because it is interfering with discussion here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just got that message again by trying to add. See first sentence of this nomination, "Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace." But if no one else gets that, maybe I'll just avoid this article. — Maile (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66 Hate to say this, but I'm not seeing any error messages, either. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled (podcast)

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

Reliability of sources is questionable, and otherwise unsuitable to be considered SIGCOV. Especially concerning given that this is sufficiently BLP-adjacent that the policy likely binds us. Even worse, the article text actually only bears the barest resemblance to the contents of the nearest footnotes, if even that, and the tone is such that even had we the sources to write a proper article, we may be best to start from scratch. The bluelinked hosts preclude A7, but perhaps G11 should be seriously considered. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Popular culture, Internet, and United States of America. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Parker (security researcher)

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

Autobiographical article, content is not substantiated by the sources and it does not seem possible to write more than a stub about the subject. The sources almost entirely briefly mention the subject in connection with a security vulnerability, some include short quotes from the subject, none seem to provide details on the subject themselves. Brandon (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Computing. Brandon (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide more details about what isn't substantiated by the sources? The small handful of paragraphs without citations have information that's given in articles cited elsewhere. If you could point to any specifics, I would be happy to either show which article(s) it comes from, or if one of the more recent citations that discuss it have been missed, add them.

In a lot of cases, the notability of a subject comes from their work, so I'm a bit confused how this would be different from many other articles on Wikipedia. Is this simply a categorization problem? In the public sector circles where this information travels, the name and works are quite well known; the number of high quality sources would also suggest this.

As for your comment about it not being possible to write more than a stub, I have to disagree. There is a lot more detail about the works and their specific effects that could be added, but I didn't find it prudent for myself to add that. Additionally, WP:Stub suggests that some editors and the bot would find that 250, 300, or 500 words (this one is 650 as of this note) is an appropriate length to not be considered a stub.

Having said all of that, I note your status on Wikipedia, and understand that there is little likelihood of this article staying. NorthAntara (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore the admin icon, I'm just someone who used to spend too much time on Wikipedia and enjoys computer security. My AfD nominations end with the article being kept as often as anyone else.

Being the primary author of an article about yourself is not recommended. You were extremely transparent, which is appreciated, it is just very challenging to write a neutral article based entirely on verifiable sources as the subject of the article yourself. With that said, here are some article about security researchers that have a tone and structure I'd suggest emulating: Tavis Ormandy, Eva Galperin, and Charlie Miller. Cutting inferences such as "leading to increased awareness and remediation of these issues" and the entire impact section would be the first edits I personally would make. Brandon (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I were the type to make bets on AfD results, I'd say this'd most likely close as no consensus like the Ian Coldwater AfD. Not sure if I'll dig in to see if I can find more sources for this one. We don't really do field specific versions of BIO for "coverage is pretty rare for this field" (except for academia) but on a quick review I'd say it's borderline for BASIC, not an outright fail. Not (yet) going to make it a !vote though, even if should it be possible or make sense to enter one for no consensus (wouldn't make much of a difference anyway since it's not a vote). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Leaving aside the autobiographically-ness of the article, I think having ArsTechnica, a variety of legal sources, TechCrunch and SC Media go into depth about a specific vulnerability and explicitly accredit the discovery of said vulnerabilities to a person, should push the said person over the bar of WP:GNG, since, such coverage is pretty rare in the field of cybersecurity and would count as significant coverage (imo).Sohom (talk) 06:03, 9 October 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) 08:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. The biggest problem with autobiography on a website that never ever publishes original research is that it violates our reason for existence as an encyclopedia. As of 2024, everyone not hiding under a rock and illiterate (I’m being figurative here, not literal) knows that we don’t do creative writing, publish patents pending, and experimental scholarly work. Everything written on Wikipedia needs a citation: it’s a basic requirement for biographical writing, which as a general rule requires significant coverage in three or more secondary or reliable primary sources. We are currently being sued for just mentioning a judge’s name; India could cut off another 1/4 of humanity from Wikipedia. Turning to the subject page, ~~about 2/3 is completely unsourced.~~ there’s not a single secondary source. As an aside, we really avoid being a soap box for advocacy and we are not a free web host. Sorry, but the writer knew or should have known that this was going to be deleted. Bearian (talk)

I’ve removed all of the unsourced information and analysis, stubifying the page. I think this is closer to WP:BARE than before. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFreeway

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

I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Hardly meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. AmericanY (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Canada, and United States of America. AmericanY (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources is presented on the page. So this meets the general requirements for notability. Also "Making Media:Foundations of Sound and Image Production" (2022), p. 300, for example -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: It is very old and one of the top companies worldwide of film festivals submissions. It should not be deleted. 2409:40D0:103C:C938:3985:2B19:AB0F:1E61 (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am slightly leaning keep here - I think the IndieWire source in the article supports notability, although the other sources are blogs or press releases. Outside of the article, though, the website is discussed in International Film Festivals: Contemporary Cultures and History Beyond Venice and Cannes, in this Hollywood Reporter article, and this Screen Education article. I cannot find any mention of the site in the Making Media book discussed above, however. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantica (trade zone)

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

Did WP:BEFORE and wasn't able to find anything about this except for one report [9]. The name comes up in a lot of different contexts but I wasn't able to pin down sources for this. There are external links on the article but they weren't much help. If anyone finds any thing please ping me. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Canada, United States of America, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton International Film Festival

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

Article about a smalltown film festival, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for film festivals. As always, film festivals are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to have reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG -- but this is referenced to just one hit of purely local coverage and two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and a Google search mostly found glancing namechecks of this in coverage of films or filmmakers rather than coverage about this.
There's also an ambiguity problem here, as there's a Canadian film festival (without an article yet) that's officially just the "Hamilton Film Festival" but does sometimes get mistakenly called the "Hamilton International Film Festival" -- and a significant number of the hits in the Google search meant the Canadian one and were thus irrelevant here. I also had to unlink almost every single inbound wikilink to this article (except the disambiguatory hatnote in New Zealand's Hamilton Underground Film Festival, which is now the only inbound left), because every single actor or film that was linking here as a "notable because awards" play was referenced to a source that explicitly verified that the Canadian one was the intended topic.
Since I'm still waiting for my restored access to Newspapers.com, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to other databases of archived US media coverage than I've got (or unbroken Newspapers.com) can find more than I was able to find on Google, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has received independent coverage. Sources include : https://www.wktv.com/news/entertainment/hamilton-international-film-festival-this-week/article_6fa70b8c-490d-11ef-b1e6-db98625d17b7.html https://www.oneidadispatch.com/2018/07/30/your-neighbor-hamilton-natives-bring-hollywood-to-madison-county-with-film-festival/ https://eu.uticaod.com/story/mid-york-weekly/2012/09/19/film-festival-gives-back-to/41647345007/ https://www.syracuse.com/news/2011/01/sons_to_honor_dads_amazing_col.html. A DISAMB page can be created to mention 3 festivals with this name exist. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We would need to see more than just four hits of purely local coverage to establish notability here. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small but heartfelt festival in a small town. Of the 4 sources cited by User:Mushy Yank, #1 is very brief, I couldn't access #2, #3 & #4 are "human interest" stories about the local brothers who founded the festival, but say little about the festival itself. I did finally find a film listing for 2024, and nearly all are short films. There are two full length documentaries but only one even had an entry in IMDB, with very little info, and it had nothing in a web search (except its own web site). I found announcements for the festival in local media (e.g. Colgate college newsletter, Madison County tourism). That's all. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 7 October 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) 17:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bastard Fairies

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

This band doesn't appear to be notable. There's an AllMusic biography and an AllMusic review of their only album. Most of the sources used in the article don't even mention the band, and PlugInMusic doesn't seem to be a reliable source. toweli (talk) 12:45, 2 October 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) 12:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote "keep" for the band name alone, but alas it's definitely a Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC with no notable discography, awards or label work. And for being about a rock band, there's nothing about their music in the article, instead focusing on a documentary film and some meaningless YouTube video, not to mention being full of useless fluff and terrible sourcing. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Along with the Allmusic citations above, there is sigcov available on TWL. This includes a full page article in the Native Peoples Magazine,^[1] a 1300 word article in Morning Call,^[2] and a CD review of Momento Mori from the Calgary Herald.^[3]. That's more than WP:THREE thus meets WP:GNG. ResonantDis_tortion 17:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Poet, J (2008). "Keeping it Real: The Bastard Fairies". Native Peoples Magazine. 21: 64.
^ Chow, Greg (2007). "Bastards of new media ** By breaking away from major labels and dominating online, the DIY Fairies become the music industry's worst nightmare". Morning Call.
^ McCoy, Heath (9 May 2007). "The Bastard Fairies - Momento Mori". Calgary Herald.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 9 October 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) 14:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagon and Trencher

(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, only mentions and brief descriptions (for example, on ProQuest). toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, History, Organizations, and United States of America. toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found some pieces that document the activity of the organization. Take a look [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Piscili (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those don't provide significant coverage and/or aren't reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have to agree with the nom. The sources don't appear to be reliable and keeping this article based on the provided coverage doesn't make sense to me. Clearly fails GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A clearer source eval on the newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald, Where are the newly found sources? Both @Toweli: and I objected to keeping the article based on the coverage provided on 24 September, as it’s nowhere near reliable. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, A clearer and deeper source evaluation is appreciated, along with more inputs for clear consensus. The presence of multiple references with passing mentions could mean there might be some notability, but sans SIGCOV. Hence, relisted for more inputs. If not, it can be deleted soon. Happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Element TD

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. The largest review I found is still relatively tiny. There is simply insufficient SIGCOV to justify an article at all, with the previous AfD citing mere announcements. What was good enough for 2011 is no longer good enough for 2024. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The developer of this game is listed as a co-founder of Kixeye. IgelRM (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a little more coverage of the game (here and here), which, while not exactly stellar, is sufficient to keep the article alongside the other sources. Cortador (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTTEMPORARY, what was good enough for 2011 is still good enough, unless there's a very specific guideline change that negates previous arguments. -Fangz (talk)
- Also I found this academic article discussing the game. [18] and this Masters Thesis [19] -Fangz (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Fangz is right; getting discussed by academics and featuring so heavily (extended text about the game, and a statement that it was one of two games that inspired the investigation) in an MSc elevates it beyond run-of-the-mill game, and gives notability. Elemimele (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was saying that the 2011 discussion was not up to 2024 standards, not that the article's notability suddenly "disappeared".

To call the new sources trivial mentions is putting it lightly, I simply don't agree it stacks up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu University of America

AfDs for this article:

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

This institution is unaccredited, and SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2 cannot apply. Thus, it needs to pass the stringent WP:NORG, which it does not — there is no significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Hinduism, India, United States of America, and Florida. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Doesn't meet notability, fails WP:SIGCOV. Ratekreel (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article by adding several references, including to a fairly in-depth profile in the Orlando Sentinel, and to a book by a sociologist who describes the emergence of the university and calls it a "milestone". Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found. One of the primary purposes of notability guidelines is to ensure that there is sufficient material to create an informative article, and there is clearly enough published material on this university (even though one might wish for more so that an even meatier article would be possible). For further expansion, there just needs to be effort put in to tap that material and integrate it into the article. --Presearch (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noted that this "fairly in-depth profile" has no author? So, no — an advertorial (churnalism) in a local newspaper does NOT add toward notability.

Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found This article is at AfD because I (and others) believe that notability is not established and I am happy to see you accept that. Regrettably, we cannot speculate about sourcing esp. that we are discussing an organization in USA and not, say, Sudan! Further, WP:NEXIST cautions, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

It's not my case that no sources exist — 1 and 2 from among the very few hits in Newspapers.com — but that they are trivial and/or they are routine run-of-the-mill coverage. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several more sources, all with named authors, and arguably all from reliable sources. All of these provide "more than a trivial mention," and in some cases the university was indeed "the main topic of the source material", so each of these arguably contributes "significant coverage" for meeting general notability (WP:GNG)

Regarding the Orlando Sentinel article, that may now be moot, but it's worth noting that the newspaper is reputable, and the userfied (non-Wikipedia) essay on "churnalism" acknowledges that "If a reliable source decides to fact check a press release and write a story about it, it then meets the definition of coming from a reliable source" - that raises the question of whether an absence of named author is enough grounds to treat this article as unreliable when it's from an otherwise reputable source (have you found any duplicate versions of the same material on numerous sites?). (By the way, friend, I suspect you know that a statement that something "is arguably established" is different than stating that it is "not established") --Presearch (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"News India Times" is not even a RS in all probabilities. And, a couple of articles in India Abroad — a now-defunct publication aimed exclusively at the Indian diaspora with a peak circulation of ~ thirty thousand — do not make the entity wiki-notable; if anything, such meager coverage in such a niche publication only goes to demonstrate the non-notability.

Further, NCORP has a higher standard for sources to contribute toward notability. This is due to the levels of (undisclosed; see WP:TOI) paid-coverage frequently engaged in by business entities. So, we look for sources that do not mechanically reproduce what the organization says and show some critical engagement. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it's just a republished press release or not, but just because a newspaper is small, defunct, or aimed at a particular audience does not mean that it is not reliable as a source. Besides, 30,000 people is a large number. If there's any good reason to believe that it is not an RS or is a press release, then I see your point, but just size does not disqualify sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I get 290 hits on Newspapers.com, including the fairly substantial Mark I. Pinsky, "School of Thought: Hindu University begins journey in teaching... with a degree of karma", The Hilton Head Island Packet (July 3, 2004), p. 1-C, 3-C, and Amy Limbert, "Kuldip Gupta, 66, helped found, lead Hindu University of America", The Orlando Sentinel (February 9, 2007), p. B6. Also, "Hinduism: Studying the ancients", The Atlanta Constitution (September 28, 1996), p. G4; "Beavercreek: Online Hindu classes", Dayton Daily News (January 9, 2021), p. B3. BD2412 T 01:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet notability, fails WP:SIGCOV. Plus the clash between editors about it being promo (see history) makes me uneasy. The Banner talk 14:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get a futher review of sources presented in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source listing:

https://www.rediff.com/news/2007/nov/20ia.htm -- Rediff -- author unspecified -- significant coverage -- does not seem like a press release
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/varanasi/Prez-of-US-vedic-univ-visits-BHU/articleshow/4928958.cms -- Times of India -- probably republished press release
https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/news/indianamerican-entrepreneur-donates-usd-1m-to-hindu-university-of-america-101680149211128.html -- Hindustan Times -- author unspecified -- unclear if press release?
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2810929379/ -- Hindustan Times, very old -- inaccessible
https://search.worldcat.org/title/60630626?oclcNum=60630626 -- also inaccessible
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2002/02/09/a-foundation-for-learning-understanding-2/ -- Orlando Sentinel -- author unspecified -- very significant coverage, clearly not a press release
https://search.worldcat.org/search?q=n2:1071-0248 -- Inaccessible News India Times, possibly a press release
https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0046-8932 -- Inaccessible India Abroad
https://books.google.com/books?id=DxneawQ8sKQC -- published book -- "Two other milestones during this period were the establishment of a Hindu University of America in Florida and..." -- cited as having a significant description of it
https://web.archive.org/web/20210613071213/https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/haryana/special-session-on-bhagavad-gita-188605 -- it's just a news article happening to have a quote from the university president

So the book, the Orlando Times article, and the Rediff article seem like good sources, even if the latter two have no author listed for some reason. The book seems to think it is significant in the history of what it recounts.

Voting Keep in absence of these sources being discredited, because those three are good. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The RS Noticeboard considers both Rediff News and the Orlando Sentinel to be reliable sources. Although neither article has a byline, these publications provide enough WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:NORG. DesiMoore (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

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

[1] Poet, J (2008). "Keeping it Real: The Bastard Fairies". Native Peoples Magazine. 21: 64.

[2] Chow, Greg (2007). "Bastards of new media ** By breaking away from major labels and dominating online, the DIY Fairies become the music industry's worst nightmare". Morning Call.

[3] McCoy, Heath (9 May 2007). "The Bastard Fairies - Momento Mori". Calgary Herald.

[1]

[2]

[3]