Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

WP:AFD/USA

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove 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[edit]

Interesting Engineering[edit]

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

Written extremely like an advertisement and has many other problems. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Science, Engineering, Transportation, Websites, Turkey, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America)[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Companies, Products, and Education. Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a service product related to BSA/Scouting/Boy Scouts of America and given the guide book like nature of this article and lack of SIRS devoted to this service product, I argue that it should be re-directed to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) or another appropriate target. I've boldly re-directed but it was reverted, so I am putting it up for consensus discussion Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough content to stand on its own. For anyone who is keeping score, look here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Article_watch. Graywalls likes Afding, and hacking at articles, but doesn't help improve them. --evrik ^(talk) 02:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just got this bon mot on civility on my talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 02:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would appreciate if you keep the discussion contained to contents. Given the lack of sources that would allow this article to meet NCORP for the program itself and such heavy reliance on primary source, I don't believe it merits a stand-alone and per WP:BRD, I re-directed it, boldly, which you reverted and I believe that AfD is the proper venue to discussion such. Graywalls (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I think that the article can be improved, however it should be noted that this is your modus operandi. --evrik ^(talk) 02:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has considerable amount of detailed content to distinguish it from Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and sources seem decent, could use some additional sources for verifiability but nothing to warrant deletion over. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In order to sustain the article on company/products/org, they have to meet WP:SIRS. Do you believe adequate secondary sources fully independent of BSA exists to cover specifically on "Introduction to Leadership Skills"? When questions about notability arise, the the decision should be based on significant, intellectually independent sources. Essentially all of the contents are based on BSA affiliated sources, so it instantly fails "independent, secondary" test. Graywalls (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect. This would make a lot more sense as a subsection in the Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sourcing that proves notability for this by our standards, because it's such a programmatic, "internal" topic, appropriate for the organization's website but not for an encyclopedia. ADifferentMan, the problem here is not "verifiability", it's notability. The sources are all primary. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Wikify Covers two major programs that 100,000's or millions have been through. A good "sub-article" of Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and these types commonly exist without the unusually strict (in that context) bar being promulgated by the duo. Whether we get that by just following the norm or by bringing in a bit of IAR, IMO that would be a good way to cover this. BTW a pair of folks have been intensely working at deleting BSA articles and BSA article content and that duo is here in this AFD. Article needs wikifying and a bit of paring to be more oriented towards informing a typical (non-BSA) reader. I'd be happy to work on that if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musk family[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Request to turn into Redirect to Musk (Disambiguation).

Article fails to demonstrate the notability of the "Musk Family" as an organisation or group, instead it is clearly serving as little more than a duplication of the existing disambiguation page. The short history section may have reliable sourcing but it is very blatantly written in terms of only Elon Musk and no-one else, and looks to be a cut down version of what's on his article's page which arguably evidences the lack of notability of the family as a whole.

Therefore the page should be turned into a redirect to the Disambiguation page until such a time noteworthiness of the family is established. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Musk (disambiguation)#People – or split Musk (surname) from the main Musk dab page and redirect to the surname page instead. The family includes several notable individuals, but there is nothing notable about the family in its own right that would meet WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Musk (disambiguation)#People as the whole article centres around Elon's family until the Notable members section. A family is rarely notable of itself, excptions being the Windsors which redirects to House of Windsor and is a royal dynasty like the Ming dynasty, or the Kennedy family which is genuinely notable though as pointed out in this guideline that doesn't mean that all individuals in that family are notable by association (which this article seems to suggest). — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Cooper[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Racism in North America[edit]

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

This is an unnecessary conflagration of Racism in Canada, Racism in Mexico, and Racism in the United States. It should redirect to a list at Racism by country#North America. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, Mexico, and United States of America. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see what is trying to be accomplished, organizing a set of existing pieces on racism by country. I'm good with it. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center on Media and Child Health[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability. All sources are research carried out , mostly by Michael Rich, but nothing independent discussing the center. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United States of America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrimage (demoparty)[edit]

(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. The only thing I found was this webpage (not article) on The Salt Lake Tribune's website. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, United States of America, and Utah. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NEVENT. I was unable to any reliable sources about the article's subject. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon Mystery Religion[edit]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ OhHaiMark (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not remotely notable. The only sources I could find covering these are primary sources, which don't really fulfill the notability guidelines. Additionally, the guidelines for books can't save the article as it hasn't won any awards or got any reviews. OhHaiMark (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Paganism, and United States of America. OhHaiMark (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Garding, Valerie (1981-09-05). "Expose of 'doctrines of demons'". Red Deer Advocate. Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Here is a shocking book: an expose of the "doctrines of demons," that have crept into our churches unaware. The number and prevalence of them is so high, I can't begin to discuss these departures from truth here. Without the adequate background of historical fact which the author provides, his claims would appear outrageous. For those who are eager seekers for truth; for those of every denomination and religion who really want to know, I recommend this book. The facts it presents—well documented by Christian and Secular sources alike demand examination."
2. Keating, Karl (1988). Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians". San Francisco: Ignatius Press. pp. 159–162. ISBN 0-89870-177-5. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Babylon Mystery Religion does not have much to say about sex; it is not prurient in the most common connotation of the word. It is prurient according to the other dictionary definition in that it satisfies restless cravings many people have. They want to believe there is a dark secret to Catholicism, and they want to be let in on the secret. They want to luxuriate in horror stories, and they want their worst suspicions confirmed. Woodrow's book shows that Catholicism's success has been due not to its merits, but to influence-peddling, fortuitous events, and underhanded dealings, even violence. It demonstrates that Catholicism is really something dark and alien to Christianity—something, in fact, connected with Christianity only tangentially, not essentially. Woodrow's thesis, which is not new to him, is that Catholicism's distinctive elements have not been derived from authentic Christianity. They are not legitimate developments, but wholesale borrowings from pre-Christian cults."
  The book notes: "Babylon Mystery Religion is indebted to Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, first published in 1853 and reprinted innumerable times since. In fact, Woodrow's book would not be described wrongly as a revised version of Hislop's. The argument is that things that distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism—such as the papacy, intercession of the saints, and purgatory—are really borrowings from ancient pagan religions. With sketches, photographs, woodcuts, and a host of one-liners, Woodrow attempts to show this. From Egyptian devotion to Isis, the reader is told, comes Catholic devotion to Mary, and from Buddhism comes the sign of the Cross. St. Bridget never existed, but was merely a replacement for a fertility goddess."
3. Olson, Carl E. (2003). Will Catholics Be Left Behind: A Critique of the Rapture and Today's Prophecy Preachers. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. p. 63. ISBN 0-89870-950-4. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes in a footnote: "Perhaps the most damning indictment of Hislop's The Two Babylons: The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (originally written in 1853–1858) is Ralph Woodrow's The Babylon Connection? (Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1997). In 1966 Woodrow wrote Babylon Mystery Religion Ancient and Modern (Riverside, Calif.: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1966), a reworking of Hislop's book. After some time passed, Woodrow did further study and saw that Hislop's book was seriously flawed and historically untenable. "As I [studied]," Woodrow admits, "it became clear—Hislop's 'history' was often only mythology. Even though myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities—why anything could be 'proved'!" (from www.amazon.com). Woodrow then wrote The Babylon Connection? and admitted the errors of his first book. For a Catholic critique of both Hislop and Woodrow see Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 68–69, 159–63, 219–24."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Price, Robert M. (2007). The Paperback Apocalypse: How the Christian Church Was Left Behind. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 281. ISBN 978-1-59102-583-2. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Internet Archive.
    The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "More than likely, Jenkins got the name from the title of an old, rabidly anti-Catholic book, Ralph Woodrow's Babylon Mystery Religion (1966)."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Babylon Mystery Religion to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Cunard's sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Cunard. Sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

SUPERM[edit]

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

Notability concerns; no reliable sources; possible original research BoraVoro (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, Politics, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Campbell[edit]

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

Seems like not meeting GNG/ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Finance. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria, Ukraine, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology of The Librarian[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT; WP:OR. Characters aleady included in their own article. --wooden superman 12:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Television, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a pretty clear cut "Wikipedia is not FANDOM" issue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first half of the article is just a bunch of links all leading to the actual character list for the franchise at List of The Librarian characters, and the second half is just unsourced plot material. I'm not finding much in the way of coverage in reliable sources that actually discuss the mythology or lore of the franchise, so the topic fails the WP:GNG as well. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as appropriate to The Librarian (franchise), the WP:SS parent, as an ATD. I see no rationale articulated in either the nomination or prior !votes that would prohibit or deprecate such an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What exactly from this article would be appropriate to upmerge here? The characters are already covered both on the main article as a chart, and in more detail in the separate List of The Librarian characters. Likewise, the main article already has a small section on the "Mythology of the Librarian" that gives a brief overview of the topic. And on top of that, there are essentially no source, even primary ones, being cited here to support any of the information being presented. The rationale for prohibiting that as an ATD is simply because there is nothing that would be appropriate to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rorshacma. There is nothing to merge to The Librarian (franchise). Walsh90210 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. Unreliable sources in most cases, and nothing to merge. Fails WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slowpoke Rodriguez[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with the article's main source being primarily about Speedy Gonzales. List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters is partially incomplete and putting the info there would help to fill out that article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see that a merge was tried (and the talk page discussion on this is ancient), and certainly wouldn't revert one myself if I saw it. Does this really need to be at AfD? Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I consider any character article too controversial to just boldly merge, so to preempt that I don't see what's wrong about AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom; not a suitable stand-alone article. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Newton[edit]

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

The article seems to attempt to inherit notability from Wayne Newton, Jerry's younger brother. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Checking the references is challenging. Jerry does appear, generally with reference to the sibling, and as a passing reference to Jerry. The article seems to be more a tribute (WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies) than anything else. Jerry was obviously notable to those who loved and respected him, but the references do not show a pass of any of WP:BIO, WP:NMUSICIAN, nor WP:NACTOR. Releasing records does not mean notability, nor does a bit part in an episode of Bonanza where he is listed as a cast member, but his part was not a named character. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator, as Jerry had a minor career as an entertainer but with no achievements on his own that satisfy our notability requirements. He is only mentioned briefly in sources about his much more famous brother. This article is probably an attempted memorial. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTMEMORIAL certainly and his career is alongside his brother, then minor bit parts and a lawsuit...— Iadmc ♫^talk 20:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jerry is mentioned in Wayne Newton § Early years, but that doesn't really look promising as a redirect target. Maybe a suitable Fandom/Miraheze site can accept what currently passes for this brother's article? (Disclaimer: A recent Teahouse thread brought me here.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Even though there's lots of sources, upon closer inspection most of them are low quality/unreliable (LADbible, National Today, SportsKeeda, Leaders.com, Market Realist, TeamBoma, Financhill), self-published like podcasts, YouTube videos or Bloomberg company profiles or books he has published, which are not independent. The Yahoo Finance articles are reprints of PRnewswire (a press-release service) and Moneywise (which looks like a low-quality source). Even most of the articles by reliable sources (Sports Illustrated, Toronto Sun, CBS News, Los Angeles Times) aren't really about Bet-David and thus don't count for significant coverage.

The Fortune article is an article that Bet-David wrote rather than a profile, so I don't think it counts for notability either. The Barron's and The Real Deal articles covers a house he purchased, which maybe counts for notability, but the focus of the article seems to be on the house sale price rather than David himself. There is no consensus on the reliability of Entrepreneur magazine (see WP:RSP) and concerns that the publication includes promotional content/undisclosed paid articles. The previous AfD from 2018 closed as delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Internet, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plenty of articles written by this fellow, nothing about him... Even the last AfD is well-reasoned; the sources given there were PR or reprints of PR items. I can't find anything we can use. The sources now in the article are articles written by this person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, Germany, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG and reads a bit like a drafted CV. SportingFlyer T·C 02:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not confident this could be recovered by eliminating all the unreliable source content. I can only see coverage in marginal sources like Media Matters and the rest look like much lower quality promotional ones. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tel Chai[edit]

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror. Fails WP:NORG, no WP:SIGCOV, no WP:GNG. Both cited sources are WP:SPS that do not establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, and Illinois. Longhornsg (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with what's written above. Redirect is the best option given the circumstances. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Amal[edit]

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror, merging what's encyclopedic. Fails WP:NORG with no WP:SIGCOV for an otherwise non-notable summer camp. Both sources provided are WP:SPS and do not support WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Longhornsg (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp JCA Shalom[edit]

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

Redirect to Jewish summer camp. Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV of otherwise non-notable summer camp. Longhornsg (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, and California. Longhornsg (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution[edit]

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

Original research and WP:POVFORK, including fringe content. Any notable content can be merged into existing articles. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Ukraine, and United States of America. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect or Draftify: Notable subject with WP:RS to back it up.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [add new options. reasoning here 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)][reply]
Could you identify sources currently used in the article that establish notability for the topic, quoting from them if they are not available online? --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the article had 114 citations and 5 works cited. Are you really claiming that all most every single one of those citations are meaningless in establishing notability? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions will get us an article worth deleting. I tried to assess the article and this is the impression I got: Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#c-Manyareasexpert-20240602172700-Rsk6400-20240602093400 and Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#Neutrality, quality, sources . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add to my original comment before you came in, that I do agree that there is WP:SYN in at least some of the article. I just made an offer to remove some of it Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN here. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not RS but fringe, as Rsk6400 has mentioned. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is based on non-mainstream sources and supports the fringe theory that the Revolution of Dignity was in some way engineered by the West / the U.S. / the CIA. Reliable historians like Andreas Kappeler, Timothy Snyder, and Serhii Plokhy don't even mention the subject of the article (and are not used by the author of that article). Rsk6400 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added quotes from Timothy Snyder and Serhii Plokhy. Regarding Andreas Kappeler. Not sure why not all his books have been translated into English if this researcher is so important. Any other questions regarding the sources used in the article? Алексей Юрчак (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Snyder quote you added[1] clearly shows the insignificance of American involvement. Did you read the context[2] ? Did you really understand the meaning of the expression "That was the best bit they [the Russians] could come up with." ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm talking about. Taking sources and composing an article presenting a view opposite to what's in those sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POVFORK. This is not even an encyclopedia article, nor a personal essay. It looks like content taken haphazardly out of a larger article, and some aspects of it suggest AI-written content. If the topic is notable, a total rewrite would be required. --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this clear pov fork. Listing a bunch of comments from officials tied together with fringe writers and a huge over emphasis on stuff tangentially related to the protests with the clear aim of pushing a fringe theory is beyond wp:undue—blindlynx 21:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly do you mean by "fringe writers"? Алексей Юрчак (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to know which of the authors used in the article are as insane and out of touch with reality as the people who believe in the Flat Earth. Authors cited include university professors and other academics, mainstream Western press, etc. Please identify at the article talk page, so we can delete any authors that are that crazy. I opened a section on the talk page here for this purpose: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Claims_of_Fringe_--_which_authors?--David Tornheim (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem I see with the article is Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the fringe is contained to the conclusions the article draws from the cherry picked stuff—blindlynx 15:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at Timothy Snyder and it's clear he is dismissive of the importance of Nuland's behavior in giving food to protesters and of the leaked phone call. He sees the coup as driven by a popular mass movement ("the work of more than a million people presenting their bodies to the cold stone") and hence any behavior by the U.S. as inconsequential. In a case like this, the Wiki article can be corrected by accurately including Snyder's opinion.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You calling it a 'coup' does not inspire confidence given that academic consensus is that it was not a coup and that that language is used by russian propaganda—blindlynx 17:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got the term from John Mearsheimer--who Britannica identifies as "a prominent American scholar of international relations"--who published this piece link in Foreign Affairs calling it a coup. You're not suggesting he is a Russian troll and Russian propagandist are you? Why do I have the feeling a bunch of editors will now jump on Mearsheimer's article, find everything possible to discredit him, and try to make him out to be a "fringe" figure for using the term "coup"?

I did find this article by Michael McFaul that directly challenges Mearsheimer's take. But even his critic identifies him as "one of the most consistent and persuasive theorists in the realist school of international relations."

Although I do suspect Mearsheimer's view is a minority opinion--especially among Western commentators--his explanation is well argued and convincing. He speaks with authority. That said, I am not as familiar as with the other sources, other than mainstream news sources like CNN, New York Times, and MSNBC, and other similar sources that come up in Google searches, many of which unfortunately resurrect and repeat the Cold War tropes advanced by the Democrats about the "evil" Russians that I had to endure when I was a kid--until suddenly they became human when the Berlin Wall came down.

I am not suggesting the Wikipedia articles use the word coup, because I have no doubt there are plenty of Western sources that don't call it that. Even Al Jazeera put the term in quotes here.

Because it bothers you, I'll try to avoid using the term on talk pages too--unless attributed to Mearsheimer or someone of similar academic standing. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mearsheimer is widely criticized, you could read that in an article on him if it would not get removed [3] . So yes, his views on this are a minority. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Mearsh has very rapidly lost credibility and has been pretty consistently panned in IR an Pol Theory circles because of his views on the war. Sadly, someone being a well respected in a field does not automatically make them immune from being fringe in some cases Nobel disease and arguments from authority are both things we should be weary of---especially in the case of someone as plainly arrogant as Mearsheimer.

It is worth noting that among other problems his writings on Ukraine is at odds with his own celebrated theories in 'Great power politics'. Not to mention that he consistently down plays Ukrainian's agency which is deeply troubling all on it's own.

For what it's worth thank you for understanding why such language is deeply problematic.

([4], [5], and even [6]) —blindlynx 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To Improve the Article: Please help identify any WP:OR/WP:SYN here: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN. Please identify any claims of "Fringe authors" here: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Claims_of_Fringe_--_which_authors?.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This whole article seems to be a POVFORK giving undue weight to the Kremlin-backed conspiracy theory that the USA was behind the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. It has many issues, which have been raised on this talkpage and which I've tagged in the article itself. It cherrypicks sources, as well as details from those sources, to push this fringe theory. It also cherrypicks events and statements that seem to support the theory, going into excessive detail on them, while ignoring or downplaying others that don't. Swathes of the article also go into great detail about things barely related to the protests, seemingly to push a narrative. I think it's absurd that a lengthy article has been written on this but not on Russia's large-scale direct involvement. Even if all the excess was trimmed and all the other issues were dealt with, the article's existence would still promote a pro-Kremlin conspiracy theory. Anything useful here can put (back) into the articles Revolution of Dignity, Euromaidan, Ukraine–United States relations etc. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the strong support for delete, could we instead turn the article into a draft in either Алексей Юрчак's userspace, mine, or somewhere else relevant--such as one of the articles you mention? Or make it a merge/redirect? (per your recommendation "Anything useful here can put (back) into the articles Revolution of Dignity, Euromaidan, Ukraine–United States relations etc.")

Even if the consensus is that it is unlikely to ever become an article, I do think there are valuable sources related to Revolution_of_Dignity, Revolution_of_Dignity#United_States_support, etc. and it would be preferable to have a history of the discussion of those sources, quotes of those sources, and concerns raised here and on the talk page about both. I think it would be helpful to keep the history rather than have all that effort thrown into the garbage can--which is what happens when an article is deleted.

I have changed my iVote accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged all that I thought worthy of preservation to the section at Revolution of Dignity. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits preserved very little of the many sources and quotes of the original showing the U.S.'s actions and interactions with Ukraine leading up to the protests, during the protests, and immediately after Yanukovych left. This is why I suggest we make sure the original article is either drafitied or the article is changed to a redirect--to preserve the relevant material that has not been included. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe (sic) authors and cherry-picked sources are not "showing" anything. Even if you don't want to listen: WP follows mainstream. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you want to keep? The discussions are all about why most of the article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia—blindlynx 15:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sweetser[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Education, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been able to locate a few sources on Sweetser. Per this book, Sweetser's (1888-1968) was a journalist and League of Nations' staff member whose dense and global relations almost completely escaped historians' attention, so it seems like he was an important figure but just hasn't been written about too much. I was also able to find some biographical coverage in a few different pages of this book. Additionally, this contemporary journal article provides coverage of him and one of his books. If this article is kept, this brief note contains biographical info which can be used to source it. There are around 2,000 mentions of him on newspapers.com for the period between 1915 and 1945; I haven't gone through all of them of course, but [7][8][9] were some big mentions that came up. Additionally, his obituaries ([10][11]) provide further biographical information which can be used to source the article if it is kept. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo D'Agostini[edit]

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

This feels like a prime example of WP:TOOSOON, so I would suggest draftification. There was some coverage of him in Italian press upon his move to Lazio's youth system in 2023, but nothing but match reports appear since then. Anwegmann (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Italy, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 14:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has already played pro matches and has significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – It seems relevant enough to main space, but draftify is also valid. Svartner (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sullo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Purely written for promotion. Article's author also wrote Nikto (vulnerability scanner) - subject closely related to the article in nomination. (Note: The author (User:Root exploit) also self-describes themselves as "Security Researcher" on their userpage). --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rockower Award[edit]

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

Merge into American Jewish Press Association. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, no WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Judaism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree with the proposal. Simon Rockower should be merged into American Jewish Press Association, and then converted into a redirect.
Eric Schucht (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Asia, Pakistan, Middle East, Europe, and United States of America. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: detailed article about a notable network: see WP:SPLITLIST. If a merge into the main article was an improvement, I would not be opposed but it would be an issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....

For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like "a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but as the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NLIST applies without any special exception and that in general lists of programs, where needed, can be handled within the article about the channel, and don't generally merit a stand-alone list article, unless such a list would pass the scrutiny per WP:NLIST. WP is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY nor WP:NOTTVGUIDE —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum TV as WP:ATD. 2A00:23C6:139B:A101:78CA:7B5:3148:9172 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I suggest to Keep the Article. As it a large number of notable program's are listed on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 (talk • contribs)

Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Burns[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a voice actor and singer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or singers. As always, neither actors nor singers are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but this is very heavily reference bombed to primary sources that are not support for notability (songs sourced to Spotify or YouTube or their own lyrics on Genius, acting credits sourced to IMDb, YouTube "interviews" where he's talking about himself, Facebook posts, etc.), with virtually no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him shown at all.
This is different enough in form from the prior versions that I wouldn't feel comfortable speedying it as a recreation of deleted content without a new discussion, but it hasn't built any stronger case for the subject passing any notability criteria than the prior versions did. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the late response, been busy. i believe that Griffin's article does fall under notability due to him being cast in multiple significant roles in noteworthy projects (tartaglia in genshin, nate adams from yokai watch, Mule from berserk). Minmarion (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for an actor is not "has been in stuff"; having acting roles is literally an actor's job description, meaning that by definition every actor who exists at all has had acting roles and wouldn't be an actor at all if they hadn't, so quite literally every actor who exists at all would be "inherently" notable if simply listing acting roles were all it took.
The notability test for an actor requires reliable source coverage about him and his performances in real media, demonstrating that his performances have been independently verified as significant ones by somebody other than his own public relations agent. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, an article must pass either the general notability guidelines, or a subject specific guideline. WP:ENTERTAINER states "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Voice actors, and others on the list there as entertainers, are notable for their work, not what others say about it. You can see how many episodes the characters he voices are in for each series listed, so these are significant roles, not a one time minor character. Dream Focus 23:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayatollah Khamenei's letter to students at U.S. universities[edit]

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

Does not need to be a separate article and not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but article requires significant improvement.

Coverage that is at least potentially RS (not necessarily complete) which is not currently included in the article:

FortunateSons (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS Ladsgroup^overleg 09:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subjects passes the WP:GNG criteria certainly. Besides the sources listed by FortunateSons there are other reliable sources like Newsweek (another article by Newsweek), the hill, and Fox News. Moreover, the supreme leader is considered notable enough so his letters sparks significant coverage by the sources. Btw, I created the page. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Education, Iran, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this does seem to fail WP:NOTNEWS at the moment, needs sustained coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Khamenei's letter went out on May 30, and you say on May 31 that there is not "sustained coverage"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said it needs sustained coverage, and the article's pretty bad. Furthermore, all of the sources found so far are from last month - it certainly hasn't been very SUSTAINED yet... SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are not talking about a daily coverage or we need to AFD many articles on that basis, but still one can see fresh sources published on June 2nd, June 3rd, June 4th, and today (June 5th). Mhhossein ^talk 06:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need daily coverage, no one is suggesting that. None of those are really directly on topic, though. SportingFlyer T·C 05:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ayatollah Khamenei. The letter is a work of a notable person, not a notable work. BD2412 T 01:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it passes WP:GNG. As more news comes in, it can be improved to pass the enduring notability as well. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS Hosseinronaghi (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep ofcourse https://search.brave.com/search?q=khamenei+letter+american+student&source=android many sources have written Baratiiman (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Fawiki [12] Baratiiman (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS This article is not important enough to be on Wikipedia (Encyclopaedia's article). It's more like propaganda. Déjà vu • ✉ 00:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For those who point to WP:NOTNEWS; The letter was issued on 30 May 2024 with a handful of reliable sources covering it deeply (listed by me and FortunateSons) hence establishing the WP:Notability. Now let's see if NOTNEWS is even applicable here:
Original reporting: Easily rebutted. The current article is written based on secondary reliable sources, so there is no original reporting.

News reports: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I wonder how users realized, less than 24 hours [13] after the official publication of the letter, that the subject does not have an "enduring notability"! This is while some sources are published after 48 hours ago [14], let alone those published some hours ago [15].

Who's who and Celebrity gossip and diary: Easily rebutted. The current article is not even about an individual.
WP:GNG is passed and the enduring notability assessment requires more time to pass. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: Multiple users are coming from Fa wiki with some having their first AFD !vote here. There seems to be an attempt aimed at defecting the consensus building process here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice this one please. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ayatollah Khamenei No idea why this is a standalone article, if it's so notable just add it to the existing biography. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Such interactions by the head of state of a theocracy to a significant section of Western society is quite rare. As a comment it would be nice to have this in Wikisource if applicable. Borgenland (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge about one sentence into Ayatollah Khamenei, where it is entirely missing, as an unjustified SPINOUT. No objection to delete either, yet merge is the optimum. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Ali Khamenei is already ~10,000 words in prose. According to WP:SIZERULE it is somewhere between "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed" and "Probably should be divided or trimmed". So merging an article there would not be advisable.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my proposal to merge about one sentence. The fact that an article is long is not a reason to disconnect it from the present. gidonb (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Khamanei's previous such letter (To the Youth in Europe and North America in 2015) turned out to be an enduring article. His current letter has not just been covered in the US and Iran, but also India, Australia, Tanzania, Israel, Turkey etc. Since the letter was only published 3 days ago, coverage at this stage will obviously be only news articles.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. gidonb (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ali Khamenei. The letter is a work of a notable person, not a notable work. The Banner talk 14:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. WP:NOTNEWS and also WP:NOPAGE. this article only makes sense of broader contexts and is better covered in the responses section of 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses or in Ali Khamenei User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you may need to observe some of the recent sources [16]. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with To the Youth in Europe and North America and To the Youth in Western Countries, Khamenei's previous "open letters". Other than the summary of the article, little is said beyond that it sparked mixed reactions on social media, a phrase which applies to almost everything. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentencing of Donald Trump in New York[edit]

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

This poorly referenced substub should be redirected to the small but better referenced section at Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Sentencing. Right now, we don't know what this will be, so we are crystall-balling stuff. No prejudice to this being restored as an article when the section grows, but there is no need for this to remain as a stand-alone article in the current form. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider either putting it in my draftspace for incubation/protection. Currently im choosing to keep it up.

If i do put it in my draftspace, I will readd it to the wiki in 1 or 2 weeks before that.

~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 12:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snipertron12: you shouldn't unilaterally move an article while an AfD is open. And if you wait for the AfD to close, and it closes as delete, there won't be anything to draftify as deletion follows closure usually pretty promptly.

Also, your intention to publish this again 1-2 weeks before sentencing is not materially different to where we are now, in that it will still be about an uncertain future event. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no way of telling as of now if his sentencing will be independently notable from his prosecution & conviction, so it's best to leave it all in one article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason for an article on a future event; the Prosecution article has a sentencing section. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An ongoing current event might or might not warrant an article in Wikipedia. But starting a new article for every development turns Wikipedia into a forum for news bulletins, which it is not. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom 2601:441:8284:1CC0:2CC7:8112:D93C:9FB3 (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Everything in this article is covered and better sourced in the main article, so this is just a dupe. ruth Bader yinzburg (talk) ★

Delete. There is no reason to split this from the main article at this point in time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's WP:CONTENTFORK at this point. Prosecution, conviction and sentencing can all be covered in one place. Keivan.f^Talk 17:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:FORK, and WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

MacGregor (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker with an unsourced BLP Niafied (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Spain, and United States of America. sig
Keep: Unsourced? Yes. Rewrite? Needed. But I don't think the subject person is non-notable. He was listed as the cinematographer for several big productions in the article, including Vivarium, Fall, Kandahar, and A Thousand Suns, as well as a documentary film The Mauritania Railway: Backbone of the Sahara credited with his real name Miguel de Olaso. For each one I found sources to back it. (The Jewish Chronicle and Screen Daily for Vivarium[17][18], Empire and The Austin Chronicle for Fall[19][20], The Hindu and IBC for Kandahar[21]&[22], Inverse for A Thousand Suns[23], and The Atlantic for The Mauritania Railway [24]) So this already fulfills the third criterion of WP:FILMMAKER, where a person has to play a major role in co-creating a well-known work with multiple reliable sources to cover or review it. I also found an interview of the subject person with Red Shark News[25], which covered his early life in detail, but I'm not sure about the reliability of this source and whether it can be considered as demonstrating notability. Nonetheless, I think fulfilling WP:FILMMAKER would already be sufficient for me to vote Keep. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Prince of Erebor. I can see why it would attract a deletion nomination though. He was interviewed by Red Shark News and there are a couple other good articles to use. He's picked up some good awards. I can't understand why though with this much work, there are no refs. I had a quick look in the history and there were some a while back. But they're gone. Rather than draft or redirect, a bold tag to improve this article is a must. Karl Twist (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per rationale above. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 03:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Schulz[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler with no sources in the article Niafied (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling, United States of America, and Germany. sig
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric K. Little[edit]

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

I tagged this for speedy deletion as an attack page, which was declined. Nevertheless it is not evident to me that the subject is really notable, and the purpose of the article appears to me to be to memorialise his misconduct. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sexual assault in the United States military: Seems to be the logical redirect, there is some coverage [26], but it's more about the scandal than the person here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. A US Major general removed due to sexism is significant. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article was added with the intent that it demonstrates the issues that have come with US military confronting systemic issues that are prevalent within their ranks. Skuzbucket (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the article creator for this explanation. Please see WP:RGW. We don’t create biographies of living people to highlight broader issues. An article on the broader issue would be absolutely fine, but personalising it isn’t what we’re here for. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Not just an attack page, as he is a general and therefore plenty has been written about him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep US generals are not inherently notable, and this comes close to notability for a single event, but coverage like this [27] and, to a lesser extent, these [28][29] reinforces that he was likely marginally notable before his firing. The article is far from an attack page and does a good job of maintaining NPOV. Toadspike [Talk] 09:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abacus Life[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP - coverage seems to be routine at best with a few promotional pieces thrown in. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United States of America, and Florida. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unambiguous promotional spam, can't find any good sources BrigadierG (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DFH Network[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Turkey. Kadı Message 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 19:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Music company[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a defunct instrument company that didn't make much of an impact. The only sources are a Youtube video, a product catalog PDF, and a fan forum - and that's after a user contested my PROD and looked for sources. Google News returns nothing. A search of Guitar World also comes up empty. A search for one of their guitars only returns some sales listings. Seems non-notable. Mbinebri (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Zanahary (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this instrument maker. Being defunct, I doubt we'll find much of anything at this point in time; what's used in the article for sourcing isn't sufficient. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry, there was a deletion tag on the Switch Music company page that explicitly stated that : "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."

So, I have edited the article, removed the deletion tag, so how come it's up for deletion again although this was explicitly discouraged in the deletion tag?

I have also expressed reasons to retain (Keep) this article in the article's talk page, which I'll reiterate here: "Hi, I think that the subject of this article is relevant and interesting as Switch was one of the few companies using plastic rather than wood on a guitar body, equally it was manufactured by injection molding rather than carpentry. Although this was successful in terms of acoustic quality, and although the instruments were attractively priced, the company failed commercially. We can't link to the company website as it has ceased to exist. On the other hand this also means that this article can't be intended as marketing or to build company credibility. The information here is referenced by the creators best as we can given that there isn't much in the way of academic literature, which kinda comes with the territory. I have also added some inline references as requested by the deletion-proposer."

I'm saddened that an improper shotgun policy is being used where the article will be brought up for deletion multiple times until it finally is deleted. Maikel (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maikel, if you know of reliable, independent, secondary sources that might establish notability, please mention them here before this discussion is closed. That is what editors are looking for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sources are one user thread and their catologue. I can find nothing at all via the standard searches. Nowhere good enough for WP:RS. "Vibracell guitar" might just warrent an article, though, if sources other than marketing can be found. However, there is the article Luthite, which is a similar product, but it also requires far more sources. Maybe relevent material could be moved over to that article once it has been proven WP:notable and properly sourced? So possible merge. What's in this present article feels like WP:promotion for the guitars (which are still very much available) though.— Iadmc ♫^talk 03:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Waldron[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER. The majority of sources either aren't independent or provide only a passing mention. I found two sources that may contribute to notability ([30][31]). I am not 100% sure about the reliability of the latter source. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think his work on Dear White People alone meets WP:FILMMAKER, his contributions are mentioned in independent reviews [32][33]. While these [34][35] might count as promo, they discuss his work in some depth. Orange sticker (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Variety piece is more of an interview with the subject than an article about him. Rest is rather non-helpful for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Not only Dear White People, the four films under his belt are all notable and significant productions, and for each one I found RS that provide reviews or even interviews with him. For instance, there are Variety[36] and Screen Daily[37] reviews for The Dynamiter, Washington Post,[38] and The Hollywood Reporter[39] reviews for You Hurt My Feelings, an interview with Variety[40] and a review from New York Times[41] on his participation in Transpecos, and multiple interviews with Screen Rant,[42] Comic Book Resources,[43] and NPR Illinois [44] on the Disney film Haunted Mansion. He was also nominated for numerous awards, including an Emmy and an Independent Spirit Award. These clearly fulfill WP:FILMMAKER#3 (subject person playing a major role in co-creating a significant work) and #4 (subject person winning critical attention for their works). Passing not only one but two criteria of NBLP is quite an obvious keep. @Oaktree b: Please take a look at the sources and rationales I presented. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel & Co.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not satisfied with the reliability of sources. I could not find anything else online either. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Lebanon, United States of America, and New York. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he company has significant notability within the jewelry industry, evidenced by extensive coverage in reputable sources such as industry publications and mainstream media. Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about the company's history, product offerings, and impact on the market that meets gng --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources you could find that establish notability? GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: if you are arguing to Keep this article, please share source that can be used to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the United States National Park System official units[edit]

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

Wikipedia already has a well-made and featured list at List of areas in the United States National Park System for units in the National Park Service. Much of the text from this list proposed for deletion is copied verbatim in the featured list linked. Thus, this list should be deleted as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Zkidwiki (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While similar to the list of areas, this list only includes the official units, excluding former sites, redesignated sites, certain combination sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, non-unit rivers, non-unit parkways, non-unit trails, cemetaries, and groupings of sites. It also has the benefit of listing all units in a single list to allow for full alphabetical sorting and sorting by state. While there is duplication, I believe this this subarticle is warranted as a distinct subset. Some sources include [45][46][47][48][49]. Reywas92^Talk 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to consider your point, but the list proposed for deletion does not have almost anything you mentioned, including: former sites, redesignated sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, or cemeteries. I do not know why you would propose to keep an inferior list that has none of the content you desire to see. Zkidwiki (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the official unit list isn't supposed to have any of those because they're not the same list. This is not an inferior list, it's a complementary list that only has the official units presented together, without the areas that are not units. What if I don't desire to see all of that? Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't have a different list for every potential way to sort a list of items. Even if I were to agree with you, this list is just a directory that repeats any given excel sheet you can acquire from the park service. It is unnecessary to main the accuracy of two separate lists, one of which provides no information other than a state (even the type of unit is not sortable). Also, the list is far too long to read--there are over 400 units. It is ineffective other than to serve as a stand-in for an excel sheet when the featured list provides a digestible series of information. Zkidwiki (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a column for type of unit is something I've thought would be useful for quite some time. Further improvements would be welcome. Reywas92^Talk 21:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems like a useful list, navigation-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think this is useful. It's incomplete and has less information, and I don't see what two lists is getting us. It would make more sense to concentrate on the usability of the other, complete listing. Mangoe (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The list is extremely useful for those that want to see the entire list of NPS official units uninterrupted by descriptions of the types of units, former units, etc. It's not too long to read for those that are, for lack of a better term, fans of the NPS. I have used it doing research more than the List of Areas page. OneEarDrummer (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete National_Park_Service#Nomenclature already has this information, and the fold out templates link to the various list articles that have things in them. List of national monuments of the United States, List_of_areas_in_the_United_States_National_Park_System#National_historical_parks, List of national lakeshores and seashores of the United States, etc. Dream Focus 11:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dream Focus and Mangoe. Simply being useful is not enough to justify this redundant fork. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' @OneEarDrummer, Reywas92, and Oaktree b: if this sortable list is useful, why can't it go into the main article? If it needs to be separate because it's directly duplicating content in the main article, that feels like a reason to delete it. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the main article a bit long in my opinion. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would make the main article long (either on the NPS page or the NPS areas page), but I would rather have that than for the content to be completely deleted. The table needs to exist somewhere. The NPS areas page has too much additional information to just say someone can dig through all of it to find the list of the current NPS official units. Forgive me for not knowing the terminology, but perhaps it could be "collapsed" on the main NPS page. OneEarDrummer (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm only a casual editor, but I am a heavy wikipedia reader, and this list page has been super useful for me. If it didn't exist as is, then I would've not found the info I needed all in one place. I'd have had to go wading through dozens of other pages and probably given up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.176.175 (talk • contribs) 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The US parks system is a large subject matter that requires multiple articles and etc. to work on. I'm one of the editors who has relied on this list, and others, for editing related to the subject of the parks system. This list is vital to me, and others who tend to the subject matter and the other related articles and lists. If someone can't see that need, then maybe they just don't take on the kind of editing that needs this list. But please don't deprive those who do rely on this list. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This way of organizing the very large US national parks system makes it easier for the everyday reader to find whatever information they are attempting to find. I'd say keep it. - Navarre0107 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good argument for AfDs. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venery of Samantha Bird[edit]

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

I would argue that this fails the notability criteria: since the article is based on routine press coverage, and there's not much more mentions in reliable sources after the show did not move forward in September 2023. Maybe the specific guideline is WP:NOTNEWS, but I've seen most unaired television/film articles that do not have extensive coverage beyond cancellation be draftified, so maybe draftifying is the best option? I'm open to other options, though. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes — multiple instances of published, significant coverage about the subject in sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off Road with Gul Panag[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Contreras[edit]

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

I found mentions of the subject in reliable sources, but I didn't find significant coverage. The single reference in the article only verifies that Contreras worked with Current 93 and Baby Dee. toweli (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. toweli (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Amin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP of an activist, deleted at AfD in January and immediately recreated. Notability is not evident to me at all, as the article is a collection of activities which are run of the mill. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Egypt, and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with small potential Wikipedia:CONFLICT) as I said in previous discussion. The recreated article removed non-notable information and sources to address previous reasons for deletion, so "it was deleted before" is insufficient reason: this is a new article that should be judged on its own merits, but I still believe the subject has established notability due especially to articles about her in non-English sources. There is a danger of underrepresentation due to Wikipedia:Systemic bias if we insist on more notable English-language sources without recognising the Egyptian coverage as notable. Also, the previous deletion occurred just 8 hours after a single extra delete vote was placed after 3 relistings, so I believed that immediately recreating the article in a form that addressed the reasons for deletion was justified. With regard to Jana's activities being "run of the mill", correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability is that it's not up to us editors to judge whether or not a subject's activities are extraordinary in their own right, but merely to summarise what sources are saying if the sources meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and notability. Hence the question should not be "did Jana do something worthy of a Wikipedia article" but "are sources giving Jana coverage that is worthy of a Wikipedia article". (My possibly-biased opinion happens to be that the answer to both questions is "yes" but if we're supposed to focus on the second then no need to argue about the first.) Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m not suggesting we need English language sources. We need in depth coverage in independent sources in any language. The piece in Elle is an interview where she talks about herself, as is the piece in Marie Claire. Two other sources are authored by her. Now This News is a passing mention. Some of the others have a strong whiff of PR placements. They tell us she works for an NGO, did a TED talk, and attended a lecture by Malala Yousefzai. She hasn’t received a well-known and significant award or honor, or been nominated for such an award several times; or made a widely recognized contribution in a specific field, and isn’t in a Dictionary of National Biography. So what exactly is notable about her? Mccapra (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If someone is interviewed by a source, then the fact that the source decided to interview the person might in itself confer notability if that source does not interview just anybody. So I don't think we should dismiss interviews just because they are interviews without also asking the question: how difficult is it to get an interview in that publication? I'm imagining it's not that easy to get into Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia for example. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 07:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the one interview isn't in Arabic, English, or French, all of which are spoken in Egypt, so I'm not sure what using an Italian source has to do with Egypt... Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I wasn't commenting on the Italian source. I was commenting on the Egyptian Streets article and the Marie Claire Arabia article, which are in English and Arabic respectively. Whether these articles also count as "interviews" depends on exactly how you define an "interview", but either way my point was that getting published in Egyptian Streets and in Marie Claire Arabia seems notable to me. My point is wrong if it can be shown that these publications have a low acceptance standard of what they document, but I don't think that's the case. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Again? Same sources as last time, a TED talk and an interview don't make you notable here... As for the systemic bias, you're actually hurting the standards by using such low quality sources, thereby contributing ot the bias (oh, we'll give this one a "pass"). Still having a lack of sources and nothing we can use to create the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As mentioned above, I believe it's not that easy to get into Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia. And not exactly the same sources as last time: I deleted some of the weaker ones and added in a couple more. That's why I think it should be re-evaluated on its merits in its current state. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to judge the notability of activists by similar merits as I judge the notability of businesspeople, because there are similar incentives as it relates to coverage and they're both prone to PROMO for the same reasons. None of the coverage of this individual is WP:INDEPENDENT. There is zero critical coverage of this individual, honestly most of these interviews if you changed some of the subject words could be straight off of someone's LinkedIn page. Profiles are not good evidence of notability because of their dependence and frequent aggrandisement of their subject. BrigadierG (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I believe that at least Mirna Khaled Sayed's article in Egyptian Streets and Cynthia Sukkar's Arabic article in Marie Claire Arabia are both WP:INDEPENDENT. That policy page does say "independence does not imply even-handedness". Jana was 17 at the time, and it's understandable that two newspapers reporting on an underage female activist might choose to be supportive, so unless we have evidence that Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia are both in the habit of running promotional pieces disguised as independent articles, I think we do have here one or two independent, albeit supportive, articles. It is possible that Jana's young age was part of her notability at the time; Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time so if someone was notable for being reported as a teenage activist then they are now notable for (at the very least) being formerly reported as a teenage activist even if their more recent activities as an adult activist were to fail notability. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it be possible for somebody to add a second opinion specifically on the two articles I mentioned? as currently I'm thinking people are saying "oh, nothing notable here" and not noticing those two. Thanks. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 18:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Spoon of Chocolate[edit]

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

Article about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
There's a common, but erroneous, belief that the WP:NFF section of WP:NFILM grants an automatic presumption of notability to every film that enters the production pipeline the moment shooting has started on it, even if that's basically the only notability claim the article contains -- but what NFF actually says is that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
That is, "notable once principal photography has commenced" is a special criterion that applies to very high-profile films (such as Marvel or Star Wars films) that get such a depth and range production coverage that they'd probably still remain notable even if they failed to ever see release at all, while the bar that most normal films actually have to clear is that they've actually been released and reviewed by film critics.
But what we have for referencing here is one casting announcement and one glancing mention that the idea was in the works 12 years ago in an article about the director's prior film, which isn't nearly enough coverage to get the NFF treatment.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when the film finally sees release, but simply single-sourcing that production has commenced isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 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) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are 2 reliable sources that are not blogs discussing the film, The New York Times a newspaper company that exists since 1851 and The Hollywood Reporter, the biggest Hollywood trade in the business. So no the sources aren't unreliable, so your argument about deleting the page are invalid.KingArti (talk) KingArti (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also I provided a 3rd source that filming is actually happening as we speak. KingArti (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, the base notability bar for films is not that production has started; the base notability bar for films is that they have been released to the public and garnered reviews from film critics. And as I noted above, one of the two footnotes that were in this article at the time of nomination was not coverage about this film, but a glancing mention that the basic idea for this film was in the germination stage 12 years ago in an article about a different film, and thus it does not support the notability of this film at all.

The potential exception to the regular notability criteria is for films that can be shown as special cases of much greater notability than the norm, and just two hits of coverage is not enough to get there. Nobody said anything about the sources being unreliable — what I said was that there isn't enough sourcing to exempt this from the normal notability criteria for films. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Existing significant coverage in reliable sources includes the articles quoted in the article + (1st page of a one-click search.....) :

etc. So this meets the general requirements for notability imv.

A redirect to RZA#Filmmaking should have obviously been considered anyway......-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable, it is stating that they do not show a notable production period, i.e. since April 2024. All sources published before that do not contribute to satisfying WP:NFF as that was development or pre-production. The question comes down to this: If the film were cancelled tomorrow and never released, what can we say about the production of the film? I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. I'm fairly inclusionist, and I consider this one pretty close, but I think we could easily wait for slightly more coverage. Draftification is a better WP:ATD option than a redirect in my opinion because I feel it's easier to add new content there than getting lost in a redirect history. KingArti is also very active in Draft space, so I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion. -2pou (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable? OK. Good, then, let's keep this. Sources published before filming started are absolutely as relevant as those published recently! I don't understand what notable production period means. A film is judged notable or not. And sources back the claim that it is notable, or not. Time has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia happens to consider films whose filming started are more likely to be notable (or simply to exist at all as films) than those whose filming hasn't started. It makes sense but that does not invalidate sources from before the moment filming started, when filming does indeed start!!! I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. Do you consider the cast, genre, premise and production history of a film non-significant? I don't. Finally, I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion, maybe not, but you feel it's a risk worth mentioning here, though. I concur it's as easy for users who know the draft exists, to edit it, as it is to edit a section dedicated to the film, in the article about the director. But not for newcomers. And if facilitating new contributions concerning the film is a concern (and a fair one, in terms of Wikipedia's raison d'être), a Keep seems the best solution (not to mention the possibility of good faith creations of articles such as OSoC (upcoming film) or OSoC (RZA), etc.). Anyway, thank you for your input, and sorry if this was too long and inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The permanent notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline is not established by showing a couple of hits of casting or production announcements — every single film that ever entered the production pipeline at all can always pass that test. Even films that never get completed or released at all, in order to actually pass the primary notability criteria for films, would pass that loose a reading of NFF and have to be kept forever — so no film would ever be subject to the main notability criteria for films at all if just a small handful of production coverage were enough to bump a film from "regular criteria" to "NFF criteria", because no film that enters production ever fails to generate that small handful.

So "the production is itself notable" is not passed by every film that can show one or two hits of casting or production coverage — it's passed only by films that get Marvel/Star Wars volumes of production coverage, to the point that even if the film were to collapse and never come out at all it would probably still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. The Batgirl remake that got shelved last year is an example of that level of production coverage; most films which just get run of the mill coverage are not. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: With all due respect, but if the standard is that only major blockbusters like Disney films can have articles retained, then approximately 80% of current unreleased film articles would need to be deleted. This would be quite confusing for editors, as it raises questions about where exactly the notability bar should be set. Do only Marvel films count as notable? What about DC? What about blockbusters of other big companies like Paramount's Mission Impossible 8 or Universal's Gladiator 2? And what about art house films? Should all of them not be allowed to create independent articles until they are released? These types of questions could go on endlessly. The thing is, not all editors have the same keen judgment when it comes to determining notability. In reality, it can be a highly subjective assessment that varies from person to person. The original purpose of NFF was to provide clear criteria to help prevent these kinds of disputes. As long as a film has checked the boxes, it should be allowed to create an article. I'm concerned that adopting such a restrictive notability standard through this AFD could set a bad precedent. It could lead to many controversial deletions of articles about major film projects, simply because some editors don't find the coverage "significant" enough. Therefore, I think as long as an article meets NFF, it should be retained. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I beg to differ, as I believe the nominator has misinterpreted WP:NFF. The nominator cited the third paragraph in NFF to argue that despite a film having begun shooting, with confirmations from reliable sources, the article should not exist. But if we review the guideline carefully, it states that a film (although it has begun filming) should generally not have an article unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. So this is where the reliable sources' confirmation mentioned in the first paragraph comes into play. If films have been confirmed by sources as having begun filming, it can be considered as fulfilling the notability guidelines (in other words, GNG), and be allowed to have its own article. The sentence the nominator cited is more likely to refer to a film that has already begun filming, but the production isn't covered by any independent, secondary, reliable sources - in such cases, the film should not have an article as it fails the notability guidelines. There could be various reasons for this, such as the film not being notable enough for secondary sources to cover, or the production companies concealing details for marketing purposes. Regardless of the reason, these films no doubt fail to meet the requirements of NFF and should not have an article, even though the commencement of filming has already begun in reality and may be supported by primary sources. As long as a film has been confirmed by multiple RS, having completed pre-production and moved on to shooting, it should be allowed to have an independent article as it has ticked the boxes. I understand the concern about Wikipedia being flooded with pre-mature film articles poorly sourced with media articles that only have passing mentions merely about a film's commencement of filming. But in this case, the film has numerous secondary sources providing SIGCOV on the production details and filming plans (as provided by Mushy Yank), as well as additional coverage about the film being conceptualized by RZA years ago. This makes it not one of the marginal cases we were concerned about, and it is safe to cite WP:NFF exactly as the reason why the film should be kept.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as any film that ever enters production without being able to show at least one or two hits of coverage — casting annoucements can always be found somewhere, at least one hit of verification that photography has started can always be found somewhere, for every single film that has ever entered the production pipeline regardless of whether it ever came out the other end as a finished film or not. So if that were the distinction between regular criteria and NFF, then every film that entered the production pipeline would always pass NFF, and no film would ever actually have to meet the regular criteria at all anymore.

So the test is not passed by a film showing a handful of production coverage, and requires a film to show significantly more production coverage than films in production are routinely expected to get — as in, so much coverage that even if the film collapsed and never came out it would probably remain permanently notable as a failed production anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: That is not necessarily true. A recent example that comes to mind is the Hong Kong film The Dream, the Bubble and the Shadow, for which a trailer was presented at an exhibition of the production company with a projected release date of 2024, so it is most likely that the film has already finished production (if not, at least filming has already started), but every detail was concealed for marketing purposes, not even with the main cast revealed. So in this case, the film should not have its article until it has been officially released. (Despite there being numerous media articles reporting on the trailer, and some primary sources, like the filming plans of the production companies may support the fact that the film has already begun shooting) Also, I have actually voted Redirect in another AFD of an article written by the same editor, because in that case, the film literally only has two sources merely covering the commencement of filming and the composition of cast and crew. In that case, I think it does not demonstrate enough notability. But in this case, from the sources Mushy Yank presented, there are actually quite a lot more coverage on the production other than the original announcement. For instance, RZA has conceptualized the project 13 years ago, covered by Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and Black Film and TV, and there have been additional casting choices recently in May, see Deadline Hollywood and The Hindu. I really share your thoughts on barring pre-mature film articles from flooding Wikipedia, but I have reservations on whether this is really a marginal case that we were concerned about. It can still be filed for deletion if the film was scrapped, it is never too late. I agree to disagree, but I think there is enough to fulfill NFF at this point and this article should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on ABC commentators[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, one being about one of its commentators and announcements, some being more deserving in an article about the coverage but not this list; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found this [[50]] (1/3), [[51]] (2/3), [[52]] (3/3), but it appears to just republishing a press release. Probably should be a delete unless better sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are being added at this very moment. Thus, far sources for the 1976 Summer Olympics, the 1964 Winter Olympics, and the list of hosts that ABC utilized have been added. Also, a lead section has finally been added. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main ABC Olympic broadcasts as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the new source: some of those are about the announcers, some are about the games itself, one is links to YouTube videos. In short, not helping much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there is a book on the subject within the ABC Olympic broadcasts article. Willing to change my !vote if sources from the time period are found. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on ABC on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. All this is, is a list of who presented who, so WP:LISTCRUFT applies. A merger would be better. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 55 sources added since nomination, WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ABC Olympic broadcasts: Subject does not have the needed coverage from secondary sources as a grouping to meet the WP:NLIST. Merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just about all of the names of the commentators and what respective events that they worked on for each of ABC's Olympic broadcasts that have been listed are for the most part, accounted for reference/sourcing wise. There are now over 200 sources spanning from 1964-1988. Also, the article touches in depth, arguably two of the most significant or well known moments in ABC's Olympic history, Jim McKay's reporting on the 1972 Munich massacre and Al Michaels' calling what would become known as the "Miracle on Ice" in 1980. So it isn't merely just a list of commentators, there's some context behind it. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced; besides being minimal, none of the two are extant, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would have to have been from a while ago, so sources could exist on newspapers.com. However, this article stands as WP:LISTCRUFT and mainly consists of WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have agreed with the previous AfDs directed at lists of broadcasters of various college bowl games and conference championship games, but there is room in the encyclopedia for a list when it is about the biggest game of the year. In recent history, that's the Super Bowl, and nobody has questioned the notability of List of Super Bowl broadcasters. The Super Bowl is not only the pinnacle of careers on the field but also in the broadcast booth. The best of the best are tabbed to broadcast the Super Bowl, and a list of its broadcasters serves a valid purpose as a navigational list. In the pre-Super Bowl era, the NFC Championship Game was the pinnacle, and the same rationale applies. Cbl62 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

My take: There is room for these lists in a legitimate encyclopedia if limited to top-level events. E.g., List of Super Bowl broadcasters, List of World Series broadcasters, List of NBA Finals broadcasters, List of Wimbledon broadcasters, List of Indianapolis 500 broadcasters, List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters. Being the broadcaster at such an event is the pinnacle for sports broadcasters, and the lists serve a useful navigational function in tracking sports broacasting history at the highest level. It is when we allow these things to creep to the middle and lower levels that we risk dippig into fancruft. Cbl62 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Super Bowl though. I'd be willing to change my !vote if sources are found regarding these specific game(s)' broadcasting crews. Conyo14 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL Championship Game was the top championship game in pro football during its time. The Super Bowl is that today. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can doubt that. The can't be said for the one about the FA Cup final, Moto GP, Ligue 1, Serie A, Bundesliga and the French Open (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination)) SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cbl62, being what was at the time the biggest American football game of the year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can all agree with that. This is not intended to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I wish people stop using "the biggest sporting event of the year" as an excuse to keep. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: You wish people would stop referencing the fact that a list is based on a notable event, and the notability of said event, as a reason/relevant point when voting to keep something? That's a silly concept and definitely not an "excuse". Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reliable sources discussing the broadcasters for this game as a group seemingly do not exist, and as such, this article fails to meet WP:LISTN. Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. Let'srun (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list can serve valid navigational purpose and not have sources discussing all entries as a group. In any event, here (link) is a piece by the Pro Football Researchers Association that does exactly what you ask. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good start, but I'd need to see at least one more source like that before I'd be inclined to switch my vote. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this functions as a navigational list such that we don't need sources dealing with all entries as a group (even though such a source has been found). This was the top pro football game in the world in the years prior to the Super Bowl (where nobody questions the validity of the List of Super Bowl broadcasters) and has equal historical value. Cbl62 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Cbl62. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the problem with this article is that it only gives a list format of who did play-by-play, color commentating, and also on-field reporting. The notes section is actually much more reliable as a History of the NFL championship broadcasts article startup than maintaining it as a list. However, with only one good source from Cbl62, it doesn't seem like this article maintains WP:LISTN. Saying, "it was the biggest event of the time, surely sources exist...", please provide more and I will change my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The events are covered in other articles, for example 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series and so forth for every year following that. Those lists are sufficient enough to present what is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure this will close as "no consensus" but I am not seeing a point in keeping this collection on Wikipedia. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srijanx22: Do you have rationale to provide other than "not seeing a point" in it? You personally not seeing value in it does not mean the subject matter isn't notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this goes as keep or no consensus, this tells you the state of Wikipedia. I do not see how a collection of YouTube links make a list notable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: As has been told to you in the past, it's not about what the current sourcing is, it's about whether the subject as a whole is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. The article is a coatrack for a list of (presumably bootleg) Youtube videos, most of which have been taken down. NASCAR on television and radio is a suitable redirect target, but the page history should not be kept. An improved "box score" format for races on pages like 1985 NASCAR Winston Cup Series might include this information, but it would need to be re-created. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand why the page history shouldn't be kept.

The problem becomes that the 60s, 70s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s list nominations all ended in no consensus, while the 2020 nomination ended in keep. This would leave us with a hole between the 70s and 90s that's just not addressed, and any such attempt to fill said gap may end up being G4'd. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:ELNEVER. Also, I see no reason why the 60s/70s articles should not also be deleted (or why the nominations weren't bundled to avoid that possible outcome). Walsh90210 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were initially, but the nominator botched the nomination completely by both forgetting a step and including more than just the "NASCAR on television..." articles. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep as a valid split per GhostofDanGurney, also bearing in mind that every other decade survived AFD, which would mean that we've got articles on every decade from the 1960s to present except this one, which would be disorderly and doesn't make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NASCAR on television and radio. Not seeing any valid use for this standalone. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle: But then wouldn't the parent article be unbalanced, as it would be the only decade to be extensively individually focused on whereas all the others have their own standalones? BeanieFan11 (talk)
  - They can all be merged. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable and splitting from the parent article is a good idea (per GhostofDanGurney). If the article needs to be cleaned up, deletion is not the way to do it. Malinaccier (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, at least for NASCAR on television and radio. What kind of message does linkdumping bootleg Youtube links sends? We should allow them to pass as WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

Sorted by State[edit]

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