Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

WP:AFD/USA

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

General

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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MacGregor (filmmaker)

(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[1][2], Empire and The Austin Chronicle for Fall[3][4], The Hindu and IBC for Kandahar[5]&[6], Inverse for A Thousand Suns[7], and The Atlantic for The Mauritania Railway [8]) 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[9], 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]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Schulz

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 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.

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

(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 [10], 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 [11] and, to a lesser extent, these [12][13] 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus Life

(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]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to R. Barri Flowers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of True Crime

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

No actual reviews, has been tagged for notability since 2016 (it was accidentally placed on the talk page until yesterday, which I fixed). The one "review" contains no analytical content and is a straightforward non interpretive summary of the book (and is also an unarchived dead link). There's another similar summary in Reference & Research Book News. Oct2012, Vol. 27 Issue 5, p106-109, which says basically nothing about the book other than what it is about and that it is exists. Other than that, nothing. There's the Portland review in external links but that website has a note about "sponsored" reviews that makes me unsure of its independence. I don't think either of these sources is enough to build an article on. Redirect to author R. Barri Flowers? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also a Midwest Book Review review but that publication has, since 2011, also accepted paid reviews, so that's not useful here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No book reviews that I can find, only hits on versions of the title/phrasing. not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion on redirect? The author's article mentions the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an WP:ATD. Found nothing usable online, and ProQuest only returned the Reference & Research Book News piece mentioned above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:06, 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.

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

The result was merge‎ to Jewish summer camp. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Jewish Camp

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

Delete or merge into Jewish summer camp. The page was originally created 15 years ago by a COI account, and since then per WP:BEFORE, no WP:SIGCOV found on this organization (beyond fleeting media mentions) that would establish WP:NORG and justify a standalone article. Longhornsg (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Judaism. Longhornsg (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jewish summer camp. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jewish summer camp. I see no way of including information from this article into the target page. Why should this specific organization be mentioned and none of the others? A redirect is the best way to preserve the edit history without creating problems on the new page. Broc (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above. It's a good organization, but essentially it's a foundation, not a real charity. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 4 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DFH Network

(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]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 11:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Music company

(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]

Comment there's a comment from an IP on the talk page for this AfD— Iadmc ♫^talk 04:50, 9 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.

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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States vice presidential firsts

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN, seems to fall afoul of WP:NOTTRIVIA as well. I'm not seeing any corresponding content at Vice President of the United States that would make retarget or merge appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, and United States of America. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see an excuse of this WP:OR WP:LISTCRUFT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You can always find weird, arbitrary firsts for just about anything, but there's no reason to dump them here. For example, Daniel D. Tompkins is the only vice president to have served two terms in the 1800s and first to die within a year of leaving office. First bald VP? First left-handed VP? First VP over 5' 10" tall? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Lists of firsts shows a lot of these types articles exist. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts was kept, an argument made that the media covers that. So I searched for "First vice president to" [14] and found news coverage of various things. The media covers the first vice president to do anything. Individual things listed can be searched for as well. Any history book about a vice president, will mention what they were the first to do. Dream Focus 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Selecting what goes onto this list is always going to be an exercise in original research. Also contravenes WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just list things that a reliable source in the news media or a history book or a government website mentioned was a notable achievement. I added some references earlier, quote easy to find. Dream Focus 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this list has issues, I don't think it can't be edited with reasonable effort. It's well sourced or easily sourced. Have we considered alternatives to deletion? Bearian (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "United States vice presidential firsts" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Kane, Joseph Nathan; Podell, Janet (2009). Facts About the Presidents: A Compilation of Biographical and Historical Information (8 ed.). New York: H. W. Wilson Company. ISBN 978-0-8242-1087-8. Retrieved 2024-06-05 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes on page 789:
  1. "The first Vice President to be appointed rather than elected to office was Gerald Rudolph Ford"
  2. "Alben William Barkley, Vice President to Harry S. Truman, was the first Vice President to marry in office."
  3. Alben William Barkley was the first Vice President to be called (and to call himself) "The Veep.""
  4. "Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn in as Vice President of the United States on January 20, 1961, at 12:41 P.M., by Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn. This was the first time that a Vice President was sworn in by a Speaker of the House."
  5. "For some 40 minutes on January 10, 2000, Vice President Al Gore presided over a Security Council session on the AIDS epidemic. ... This was the first time that an American Vice President had been invited to chair a meeting of the U.N. Security Council."
  Additional information from the book:
  1. The book notes on page 31: "John Adams, the first Vice President to be elevated to the presidency ..."
  2. The book notes on page 48: "Thomas Jefferson was the first and last Vice President to defeat a President."
  3. The book notes on page 61: "Apr. 20, 1812, death of George Clinton, first Vice President to die in office"
  4. The book notes on page 91: "John Caldwell Calhoun, Vice President under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, was the first Vice President not born a British subject."
  5. The book notes on page 103 about Richard Mentor Johnson: "First vice president elected by the senate."
  6. The book notes on page 124: "John Tyler was the first Vice President to succeed to the presidency through the death of a President."
  7. The book notes on page 164 about William Rufus Devane King: "Of all the Presidents and Vice Presidents, King was the first and only one to take the oath in a foreign country."
  8. The book notes on page 220: "Schuyler Colfax was the first officer to preside over both houses of Congress. He was Speaker of the House of Representatives ... As Vice President under President Grant, he presided over the Senate ..."
  9. The book notes on page 439: "The first Speaker of the House of Representatives to administer the oath of office to a Vice President of the United States was Sam Rayburn, who on January 20, 1961, administered the oath of office to Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson."
  10. The book notes on page 455: Lyndon Baines Johnson "was the first Vice President to witness the assassination of the President whom he succeeded in office."
  11. The book notes on page 487: Gerald Rudolph Ford "was the first Vice President to succeed to the presidency upon the resignation of a President" and "was the first Vice President chosen under the Twenty-fifth Amendment".
  12. The book notes on page 488: "The first President and Vice President to serve together without being elected to their respective offices were President Gerald Rudolph Ford and Vice President Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller. Both reached office under the provisions of the Twenty-fifth Amendment."
  13. The book notes on page 588 of Richard "Dick" Cheney: "As the President’s chief liaison with Congress, the Vice President was the first Vice President to have an office on the House side of Congress as well as the Senate side."
  14. The book notes on page 709: "The first Catholic to be elected Vice President was Joseph Robinette Biden, nominated by the Democratic Pary in 2008."
  15. The book notes on page 780: "Richard Milhous Nixon was the first Vice President to be elected President several years after his vice presidential term."
2. Romansky, Jerry (2020-08-23). "Ask Jerry: The firsts among U.S. vice presidents". Foster's Daily Democrat. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.
  The article notes: "As for firsts among our vice presidents (VPs), here is a partial list that might interest you. These are just the random firsts that float chronologically into my mind. 1. The first VP to become president was John Adams. He served with the first president George Washington. 2. The first VP to serve under two different U.S. presidents was George Clinton. He served with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. 3. The first VP to resign from office was John Calhoun. His resignation was based on political differences with Andrew Jackson."
3. Bunis, Dena (2004-06-24). "Strategy of VP picks - Vice presidential firsts - Vice presidents who became president". The Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.
  The article notes: "Vice presidential firsts. First female VP candidate for a major party -- Geraldine Ferraro (also first Italian-American). First VP appointed under the rules of the 25th amendment -- Gerald Ford. First VP to become president after the death of a sitting president -- John Tyler. First VP to die in office, first to serve under two presidents (Jefferson and Madison) -- George Clinton. First VP to serve as "acting president" (during surgery of sitting president) -- George H.W. Bush."
4. Tullai, Martin (1997-01-18). "Vice presidency is no party". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.
  The article notes: "The first vice president to become president on the death of a chief executive was John Tyler. ... The first vice president to be nominated specifically for that office was George Clinton, who ran with Thomas Jefferson in 1804. ... Richard Mentor Johnson was the only vice president selected by the Senate. ... [Alben] Barkley was also the first vice president to marry in office. ... Coolidge was the first vice president to sit in regularly on Cabinet meetings. (Nixon was the first in 1953 to preside at a National Security Council meeting. The first vice president to be appointed - not elected - was Gerald R. Ford. George Bush was the first vice president to serve officially as acting president ... The only vice president of American Indian extraction was Charles Curtis ... Henry Wallace was the first veep assigned administrative duties by the president. ... William Rufus King was the only vice president to take the oath while in another country"
5. Southwick, Albert B. (2008-09-18). "Insignificant vice presidency's pendulum is swinging back". Telegram & Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.
  The article notes: "John Adams, the first vice president, called it “the most insignificant position ever devised by man.” ... Only one other man — John C. Calhoun — has served as vice president under presidents of different political parties. ... Only one other vice president — George Clinton of New York — ever served under two presidents. ... So he continued on as vice president until he died in 1811, the first vice president to die in office. ... The first vice president to inherit the office from a dead president was John Tyler in 1841, when old William Henry Harrison expired after only a few weeks in office. ... Henry Wilson of Massachusetts was the only vice president to die in his office at the Capitol. ... Franklin D. Roosevelt is perhaps the only man in history to make a political comeback after losing a vice presidential race."
WP:NOTTRIVIA

WP:NOTTRIVIA says "Wikipedia articles should not be" and lists "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". A list of United States vice presidential firsts is none of these.

Wikipedia:No original research

The list can be written so that there is no violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria notes:
Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.
As long as each entry in the list is cited to one or more reliable sources confirming that the vice presidential first, the list would comply with the Wikipedia:No original research policy.

Perfection is not required
The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I appreciate that there are sources for some of the information and some sourcing about the firsts in aggregate, but this page still fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Any information in this list could be added to the pages of the vice presidents if it is not already there. --Enos733 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list is too arbitrary. Some of the information is in other articles (home state, religion). Other parts are useless trivia. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: some sourcing about the firsts in aggregate, but this page still fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA – the existence of "sourcing about the firsts in aggregate" means the topic meets WP:NLIST. WP:NOTTRIVIA is not violated because a list of United States vice presidential firsts is not "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates".
the list is too arbitrary – the list is not arbitrary because it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (WP:NLIST).
Some of the information is in other articles (home state, religion). – this list is complementary to the other lists but not duplicative. That some of the information is covered in other lists is not a policy-based reason to delete this list. Cunard (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTTRIVIA very much does apply here, which you're taking a too-narrow view of. This is a list of random little factoids, i.e., statistics without context. None of these firsts have any context about why such a first was in any way meaningful. In other words, it's just a list of trivia, of little to no encyclopedic value. In your disruptively formatted, disruptively verbose !vote above, you stated "The book notes on page 164 about William Rufus Devane King: 'Of all the Presidents and Vice Presidents, King was the first and only one to take the oath in a foreign country.'" So what? Why does this matter? WP:TRIVIA advises against sections of trivia in articles because they become cruft magnets, among other reasons. But that's all this list is. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTRIVIA says "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics". The statistics article says "any quantity computed from values in a sample which is considered for a statistical purpose". None of the information in the article is "computed from values in a sample". None of the information in the article is being "considered for a statistical purpose". This article does not violate that section of the policy. Cunard (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're Wikilawyering, arguing the semantics of "statistics"; I could counter that "firsts" are inherently numerical and so qualify. But that's really all beside the point. This is contextless trivia, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT for. If everyone is appealing to the spirit of NOTTRIVIA, then that's good enough. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTRIVIA is a shortcut that in 2021 was retargeted from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections to WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No community consensus was established for the shortcut. "Firsts" are not "computed from values in a sample". There is nothing in the text or spirit of the policy to support deleting an article that meets Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. No one has refuted the reliable sources showing that the topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". To expand the policy to include articles like this one would require an RfC to change the policy. Cunard (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my response immediately above. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 5, 7, and 10. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Hakeem Olajuwon

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

WP:NOTSTATS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE - there is already significant consensus that these big lists of stats are not encyclopedic - several other discussions of this type are listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Shaquille O'Neal BrigadierG (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and United States of America. BrigadierG (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate, trivial stats minutiae. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. The basic stats are already at Hakeem Olajuwon § Career statistics. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing As most of this page is unsourced, there's no opportunity to merge either.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Bagumba. The important accomplishments should already be in the main Hakeem Olajuwon article. This article has too many overly-specific statistics that won't realistically be maintained over time. I quickly found one stat that is out of date (Olajuwon currently ranks 7th in career defensive rebounds, not third: [15]). I'm sure there are more problems like that, but I don't think it's worth anyone's time to try to fix that stuff. Other websites can handle this stuff more effectively. Zagalejo (talk) 00:06, 4 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.

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) 14:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Waldron

(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 ([16][17]). 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 [18][19]. While these [20][21] 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[22] and Screen Daily[23] reviews for The Dynamiter, Washington Post,[24] and The Hollywood Reporter[25] reviews for You Hurt My Feelings, an interview with Variety[26] and a review from New York Times[27] on his participation in Transpecos, and multiple interviews with Screen Rant,[28] Comic Book Resources,[29] and NPR Illinois [30] 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]

Keep, criterion #3 of FILMMAKER has clearly been met. After sorting through the veritable refbombing above, there's even some GNG-level sourcing like this and maybe this, but I'm not sure he would meet the GNG outright. Toadspike [Talk] 06:31, 12 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.

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. Keep votes have failed to identiy sources that can provide SIGCOV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel & Co.

(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]

A week later and no response ... comment such as "within the jewellry industry" seems to me to indicate that it is a niche company and "extensive coverage in reputable sources" and "the article contains verifiable information" indicated a lack of knowledge of the GNG/WP:NCORP notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 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]

Weak Keep - I have to agree wth Pandora. The sources seems to satisfy WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaskedSinger which sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP? Really appreciate if you can indicate source/page/paragraph or some other content that meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND in particular. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 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!} 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did a spot check of a few references, and they read like PR/puff pieces. Lean delete, per WP:CORPDEPTH.-KH-1 (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the many JCK articles mentioning the company were SIGCOV and independent (they are not), this would still only count as one niche industry source, not the multiple pieces of SIRS coverage in broader media. The lack of anything outside press releases and announcements from affiliated groups suggests NORG cannot be met. JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 15 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.

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 13:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mackay Radio

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. The link http://www.mackayhistory.com/ doesn’t exist anymore. Wikilover3509 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original editor was blocked with a mile-long talk page of warnings; this seems to be an article about stations in Mackay, Queensland, but this article seems to have been both pay-to-play from a sockmaster who never visited Australia, and completely unintelligible (it previously also had a duplicative entry about Clarence Mackay). No redirect. Nate • (chatter) 17:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not entirely sure whether this article, such as it is, is about an American company or about Australian radio stations… and I'm not sure the article knows either. This has been tagged as a potential WP:CORP failure since July 2021 (only a month after creation); if there is any solution to this that doesn't involve deletion, I'm not seeing it. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links (it took me a while to catch that, despite my earlier comment here). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without even going into suspect bona fides of the page’s author, and putting best spin on page’s intent, which is to serve as a list of Mackay Radio stations, then still fails WP:STANDALONE. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Polly

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

Contested G11. This appears to have been written by a UPE and reads like an advertisement. All of the coverage I can find is run of the mill. Even if notable, G11 is appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Australia, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Various blogs or reports of a store opening are all I can see for coverage. The Forbes source used is a contributor, so non-reliable. I don't find any coverage we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like ad. The best I could find is Fashionunited: https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/princess-polly-partners-with-true-fit-for-size-and-fit-recommendations/2024031174529 which talks about the brand's partnership with AI platform True Fit, which fails GNG. Forbes here is just a contributor work by Mark Faithfull which has minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable as it was not written by the Forbes Staff, See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes.com contributors about Forbes' contributor work.- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's the only way to be sure. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per voorts. Irredeemable. JSFarman (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure the brand will meet N eventually, but certainly not with convoluted ad copy like '(the) brand is recognized as the sixth favorite shopping website for upper-income teens in the United States, according to the Piper Sandler Taking Stock With Teens 2023 survey'...that's some stretching that'll break an ankle. Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reviewed and accepted this draft in AfC as I felt that the company itself met WP:NCORP and was able to find suitable coverage online. Not going to vote formally as I already had a chance to review the article but several voters are claiming there's not enough sources that can be used to establish notability when I found multiple: Business Insider Sydney Morning Herald Australian Financial Review ~Liance^talk 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of those, I think only the BI story provides significant coverage. The SMH story is a run-of-the-mill announcement about the parent company's IPO, with a brief mention about this brand, and the AFR story is a one sentence announcement. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of notable references to this company that could be included in this page as it meets the WP:NCORP. Including the sources noted by Liance, Ragtrader which speaks to both positive and negative market fluctuations of the parent company, IT News discussing a data breach, and BBC article with Lori Loughlin scandal. Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience. Wikiguru777 (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ragtrader has no clear editorial policy, the article you've cited is run-of-the-mill reporting about stores opening, and trade journals generally don't satisfy NCORP. IT News is likewise a run-of-the-mill data breach story in a trade publication, and does not establish that the company is notable. The BBC article contains only this brief mention of the brand: "The social media influencer has launched a clothing collection with women's online fashion boutique Princess Polly and a make-up palette with cosmetics chain Sephora." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

plenty of notable references to this company: for a company to be notable under NCORP, there needs to be more than "references"; there needs to be several sources, each of which must be secondary, independent, and reliable, and contain significant coverage of the company.

Regarding: Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience. Wikipedia's readers are not an audience for advertising to. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "trade journals generally don't satisfy NCORP" I can see that featured trade stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear. Reporting on net revenue decrease and factual store openings is unbiased, independent information. Sydney Morning Herald is a notable article and speaks to the brand multiple times throughout the article.

In addition, I've also found the BBB review / complaints for the company (where reviews must be independent secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject).

Another article with substantial, reliable, and independent coverage from a secondary source relating to news article exploring sustainability of the company - Greenmatters - https://www.greenmatters.com/p/is-princess-polly-good-quality

Agree that the BBC article I previously referenced does not meet the criteria for notable source. Wikiguru777 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBB complaints are user-generated content and thus not reliable.
Greenmatters appears to be reliable and its critique of the company's claims of being ethical while sourcing from "countries with extreme risk of label abuse" indicates this definitely isn't a sponsored post.
Sydney Morning Herald is a notable article and speaks to the brand multiple times throughout the article. References or mentions are not enough to establish notability. The article also isn't about this company; it's about the parent company's IPO.

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed significant, reliable, independent sources

Business insider

Green matters

I believe IT news should also be considered a source as it is “featured trade stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear.”

I’ve also found Goon On You which questions Princess Polly’s ethical standards. This source is reliable & independent

The above is enough to satisfy NCORP as “significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.”

This is my first publishing so I'm learning more about the rules here and I appreciate your previous feedback to help discern what is appropriate. I believe the above should be suitable to comply with NCORP. Wikiguru777 (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IT News is not a "leading trade magazine" in fashion. It's a run-of-the-mill news story that focuses on the data breach, not significant coverage about the company itself. Greenmatters is basically secondary source coverage of Good on You, which is a primary source since it's a report made by an advocacy group. So, we still only have two sources that meet WP:SIRS, Green Matters and BI, which isn't enough under NCORP. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree BI is ok though I'm not so sure Green Matters is sufficient for ORGDEPTH. IT news would also fail ORGIND given its like, 90% quotes from the company, and does not appear to have any secondary analysis, very far from being a featured story, so I'd agree there also. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:38, 1 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. The discussion did not generate a consensus as to whether, as a fork, the article is redundant or justified. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the United States National Park System official units

(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 [31][32][33][34][35]. 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]
I agree with those who vote Keep. While there are similarities between the other list, this one is more useful and easier to differentiate between the various units. The other article includes multiple entries for the same unit and often across different sections which makes it difficult to understand which are actual units. If it's determined that this list should not be its own article, I believe a healthy compromise would be to have this list included in some capacity in the other article. Removing the list entirely and leaving no space for it to be utilized by users would be unfair to the entire community and exemplify the worst practices when valuable information is deleted from the site without any recourse. 108.48.176.251 (talk) 17:55, 9 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus‎. Arguments to keep are weak, given that the sources are fairly routine in my view. That said, there is not consensus to delete the article, perhaps due to a lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venery of Samantha Bird

(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]
Yeah, but it's all routine press coverage, no sources show that the cancelled series is notable after its cancellation. Not all cancelled series/films with routine press coverage are notable, and if it is, might as well make pages for the 200+ series and films that have been cancelled. Spinixster (trout me!) 00:43, 8 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!} 09:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage seems sufficient to have a page (with notable cast, production history, premise verified). If really there's no consensus about that being enough, then redirect to Starz and add a line there with a few of the sources from this article (but I think it's not necessary and personally find it would be a pity). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:04, 11 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.

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. Possible rename or merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grossology (books)

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

Non-notable book series. Insufficient sourcing for 15 years, no independent sigcov provided to establish notability. PROD removed due to talkpage message from anon who "loved the books as a kid". Jdcooper (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Video games, Biology, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The anon was right. Grossology was an incredibly popular book series that spawned a TV show and a traveling museum exhibit, and I can find tons of newspaper articles about it. Here's a few: "Teaching the oozy gooey science of grossness" (Allentown Morning Call, Aug 2013), "Museum exhibit uncovers all things gross" (Lincoln Journal Star, Sept 2005), "Totally Gross" (Louisville Courier Journal, Feb 2007). Keep the article per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And move to Grossology as the primary topic per Toughpigs and the reliable sources he has found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, these sources seem to refer to the exhibition, so I'm not sure they establish the books as the primary topic. The article about the TV series is far longer (though with a large amount of unsourced excess trivia). Maybe all the articles (+ info on the exhibition from the sources) should be merged into one. Jdcooper (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll start one big page to see how a merge would work out at User:Jellyfish/Grossology and see how it looks all together. Will edit when time allows. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  On second thought - Grossology (TV series) is absolutely massive, at least on my phone. Unless there's a significant bit of fat to trim off the article, I think it'd be best left as a summary with the main article template thrown on top of the section. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the worst of the fancruft, but yeah it's still a large article in its own right, so I agree with you. Jdcooper (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also just realized it has one incredibly nonspecific and presumably un-archived source. Lovely! Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - traveling museum exhibit appears notable and has received nationwide coverage (albeit, from multiple local newspapers) from about 2007 to 2021. I also tracked down this NYT article, though it looks to just be a passing mention of the book. jellyfish ✉ 19:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Samuel Alito. Star Mississippi 16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Alito flag display controversy

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and can also be covered sufficiently at Samuel Alito. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Christianity, United States of America, New Jersey, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samuel Alito. It’s notable when a Supreme Court justice who is hearing cases related to an attempted government coup is flying flags that are well established by news coverage to support that coup in front of his house. Also, the article is well-sourced enough to establish the notability of the topic. But it’s more confusing to wiki visitors to have a separate article for it, because when they come here looking for this, they’re going to be looking for it under his name. This topic belongs under a “controversies” section in the main article. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samuel Alito: I agree that this event is currently notable, but I don't think it passes the 10YT. I think it should be selectively merged to Samuel Alito#Ethical questions without prejudice to potentially creating a controversies sub-article for Alito, since he seems to be racking them up recently. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samuel Alito I too think this could be contained within a "controversies" section in the main article. --Enos733 (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from how the controversy is affecting Alito's reputation, this event has spawned new analysis of the Pine Tree Flag's use by Christian nationalists, whether political affiliations necessitate recusal, and the practice of blaming evidence of wrongdoing on spouses. While the most recent SCOTUS controversy of Clarence Thomas' nondisclosure of finances is located within the "Personal life" section of his article, financial conflicts of interest are far simpler to summarize than whether particular symbols suggest bias based on their historical and contemporary meanings. Thus, the current format of a minor summary in Alito's article with a "See also" tag to this dedicated article is preferable. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 18:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samuel Alito per rationale of Ruth Bader Yinzburg and voorts. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Rational behind Ruth Bader Yinzburg's comment suggests a title issue. This continues to receive coverage and the contents would not be entirely covered under a section in Alito's article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could '''merge'' it. Althought, it has been on the news a lot, maybe an article about it not all that needed. Cwater1 (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per RBY and voorts. It could become notable as events develop, but at the moment it's better in the main article (actually, I only came here because I was looking for info on this, and the first place I went was the main article). Readingpro256 _{talk to me contribs} 13:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Samuel Alito per WP:NOTNEWS. Partofthemachine (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meritt North

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actress and writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actresses or writers. The main notability claim on the table here is that her work exists, which is not automatic grounds for an article -- the notability test doesn't hinge on doing stuff per se, it hinges on the amount of third-party coverage and analysis that has or hasn't been paid to the stuff she did in WP:GNG-worthy sources like media or books.
But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- audiobook narration and writing credits sourced to the works' presence on online bookstores, acting credits sourced to her own self-published acting résumé, volunteer work sourced to the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, and I've already stripped a good half-dozen citations to IMDb on the grounds of IMDb not being a reliable source -- with not a whit of GNG-building coverage about her in reliable sources shown at all.
You don't make a writer notable by sourcing her books to Amazon as evidence that they exist, you make a writer notable by sourcing her books to reviews of the books by professional literary critics in newspapers or magazines as evidence that they got significant attention. You don't make an actress notable by sourcing her acting roles to IMDb or her own résumé, you make an actress notable by sourcing her acting roles to reviews of the films or television shows that singled her performance out for third-party analysis. And on and so forth.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bearcat,

I appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns raised about the citations supporting the role of Krystle Minkoff as an actress. It is important to ensure that the information on Wikipedia is both accurate and verifiable.

Regarding the citations numbered 12-17, I would like to emphasize that these sources are independently verified and adequately support her credited role as an actress under her given legal name, Krystle Minkoff. These credits are also reflected on IMDb, which follows strict guidelines for crediting individuals in the entertainment industry.

It is important to note that the aim should be to enhance the quality of information on Wikipedia, not to indiscriminately nominate entire articles for deletion due to issues with specific sections or titles. Each piece of information should be evaluated on its own merits and improved where necessary.

There are numerous citations that document her work as an actress, voice actress, and author under both Meritt North and Krystle Minkoff. These sources collectively substantiate her contributions and career, aligning with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and notability.

I hope this clarifies the situation, and I am open to working collaboratively to address any specific concerns you may have to ensure the information remains reliable and well-documented.

Best regards,

ScorpioKLM Mooresklm2016 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is room for improvement or a few items that you absolutely insist must be removed, let's work together to resolve them. I don't think that just because you may take issue with one or a couple items, that the entire page is not useful, informational, and in the public interest.

ScorpioKLM Mooresklm2016 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again: we are not looking for simple verification that she had acting roles. The notability test for an actress is not passed by listing acting roles, it's passed by showing evidence that people without a vested interest in her career (namely journalists and film critics) have assessed her performances as being significant enough to analyze in prose. Such as reviews of the films or television shows which singled her performances out for attention, or journalist-written news articles profiling her. The notability test for a Wikipedia article is not "did stuff", it's "had independent third-party attention and analysis bestowed upon the stuff that she did by people who weren't just being paid to publicize her". So establishing notability as an actress doesn't hinge on her own résumé, or IMDB: it hinges on showing that her work as an actress has made her a subject that journalists cover as newsworthy in sources independent of herself. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there isn't any secondary sources which are good enough to make her notable. OhHaiMark (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Bearcat, how about deleting the title of actress and the acting credits table. Would this suit you? ScorpioKLM

No, that wouldn't "suit" me, because you haven't properly established her notability as a writer or audiobook narrator either. Those work the same way: her notability for either of those things is not established by citing her work to itself as proof that it exists, and still requires literary critics to establish her books as significant by reviewing them in newspapers, magazines or literary journals.
No matter what occupation a person works in, they always still have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it in reliable sources independent of their own public relations materials, and you simply haven't used any GNG-worthy sourcing to support this article at all. So the problem isn't resolved just by taking acting roles out of the article, because you haven't properly sourced her writing or narration work either. The whole article is badly sourced, not just the acting section alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Bearcat, I respectfully disagree with your statement that we haven't properly established Krystle Minkoff's notability as a writer or audiobook narrator. Let me explain why I believe the proof is in the citations provided:

Multiple Independent Sources: The citations we’ve included are from multiple independent sources, not just self-references or public relations materials. These sources include reputable databases, industry publications, and media outlets that adhere to strict verification standards.
Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff/Meritt North has received recognition within the industry. While you emphasize the need for literary critics to review her books, the notability can also be established through awards, nominations, and notable projects she has been a part of. These are documented in the citations provided.
Audiobook Narration: The role of an audiobook narrator is inherently significant within the literary and entertainment industries. Notability in this field is often established through the body of work and collaborations with well-known authors and publishers. Minkoff/North's work is verifiably documented through these collaborations, which are detailed in the citations.
WP
Compliance: We have adhered to Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP
). The sources used to support her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage about her work. These are not mere mentions but in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and impact.
Proof in Citations: The citations include reviews, interviews, and articles from established media and literary platforms. These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration.
Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the verifiable and well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The proof is in the detailed and independent citations that have been meticulously provided to support her notability in these fields.
I believe that a comprehensive evaluation of the sources will reveal that the criteria for notability are indeed met, and Krystle Minkoff's diverse career merits recognition across her various roles.

I highly disagree. Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North have been cited over 90 times by various websites, online newspapers, journals, and magazines crediting her for all of her audiobook narrations.

However, in order for IMDb to credit officially, it has to be reviewed and approved by IMDb, casting directors, directors, and other actors. It is up for scrutiny by all and goes through a lengthy period of scrutinization before being attributed a final credit. There are 3 titles to which Meritt aka Krystle Minkoff and credited by such, has this blue official IMDb credit. Just a consideration.

Here is the strict incliusion of credits criteria that must be met on IMDb. https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/imdb-credit-eligibility-faq/GXMWNMB8LQCZYFH8?ref_=helpart_nav_10# 
What do you mean by "eligible"? 
A. As stated above, the first and most important thing is to have received a credit on the title. There are a few additional requirements -- we normally only list people who were credited in the original version of a title. For films, this means we'll only list people credited in the initial original theatrical release; for TV titles, it means people credited when the show first aired.

B. When a title is announced or in production and is added to the database, our editors will normally start accepting credits for it. These credits, as per the disclaimer on the page, are always subject to change and can be removed at any time. When the title is actually released (or about to be released) and credits are finalized by the production, our editors routinely compare our listing with the actual on-screen credits and delete any entries that cannot be verified or do not match. If you used to be listed on a title and your credit has disappeared, it means our editors could not verify its accuracy during one of these routine checks.

C. There are 4 credits that have been verified by IMDb.

2017 
Reelz Murder Made Me Famous | 2 Episodes 
Patron & Mother

2017 
John Gotti | Season 3, Episode 8 
Steak House Patron

2017 
David Koresh | Season 3, Episode 7 
Mother

2016 
Queen of the South (TV series) | 4 episodes 
Campaign Supporter

E. The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her significant and well-documented career as a Voice Actress. Here are several key points supporting this stance:

Extensive Experience: Krystle Minkoff has an extensive body of work as a Voice Actress, which inherently falls under the broader category of acting. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to those needed for on-screen acting, such as character development, emotional expression, and vocal control.

Notable Roles: Her roles as a Voice Actress have been notable and influential within the industry. These roles contribute to her overall recognition as an actress, as voice acting is a respected and integral part of the entertainment field.

Published Credits: There are numerous publications and sources that document her work as a Voice Actress. These sources include her credited roles on platforms such as IMDb, which adhere to strict guidelines for verifying the legitimacy of professional credits.

Industry Standards: In the entertainment industry, individuals who perform voice acting are commonly referred to as actors or actresses. This standard industry terminology reflects the comprehensive nature of their work, encompassing all forms of acting, whether it be on-screen or voice-over.

Verifiability and Notability: The information regarding her career as a Voice Actress is verifiable through multiple independent sources, fulfilling Wikipedia’s criteria for notability. This substantiates her professional title as an actress, encompassing her voice acting achievements.

Removing the title of "Actress" would not only undermine her substantial contributions to the field of voice acting but also misrepresent the comprehensive nature of her career. Therefore, it is both accurate and appropriate to maintain the title of "Actress" to reflect her extensive and notable experience in the industry.

Kindly review and advise. 
ScorpioKLM

Bearcat, I respectfully disagree with your statement that we haven't properly established Krystle Minkoff's notability as a writer or audiobook narrator. Let me explain why I believe the proof is in the citations provided:
Multiple Independent Sources: The citations we’ve included are from multiple independent sources, not just self-references or public relations materials. These sources include reputable databases, industry publications, and media outlets that adhere to strict verification standards.
Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff has received recognition within the industry. While you emphasize the need for literary critics to review her books, the notability can also be established through awards, nominations, and notable projects she has been a part of. These are documented in the citations provided.
Audiobook Narration: The role of an audiobook narrator is inherently significant within the literary and entertainment industries. Notability in this field is often established through the body of work and collaborations with well-known authors and publishers. Minkoff’s work is verifiably documented through these collaborations, which are detailed in the citations.
WP
Compliance: We have adhered to Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP
). The sources used to support her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage about her work. These are not mere mentions but in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and impact.
Proof in Citations: The citations include reviews, interviews, and articles from established media and literary platforms. These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration.
Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the verifiable and well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The proof is in the detailed and independent citations that have been meticulously provided to support her notability in these fields.
I believe that a comprehensive evaluation of the sources will reveal that the criteria for notability are indeed met, and Krystle Minkoff's diverse career merits recognition across her various roles.

I highly disagree. Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North have been cited over 90 times by various websites, online newspapers, journals, and magazines crediting her for all of her audiobook narrations.

In addition: When a title on IMDb is announced or in production and is added to the database, thier editors will normally start accepting credits for it. These credits, as per the disclaimer on the page, are always subject to change and can be removed at any time. When the title is actually released (or about to be released) and credits are finalized by the production, our editors routinely compare our listing with the actual on-screen credits and delete any entries that cannot be verified or do not match. If you used to be listed on a title and your credit has disappeared, it means our editors could not verify its accuracy during one of these routine checks.

D. There are 4 credits that have been verified by IMDb.

2017 
Reelz Murder Made Me Famous | 2 Episodes 
Patron & Mother

2017 
John Gotti | Season 3, Episode 8 
Steak House Patron

2017 
David Koresh | Season 3, Episode 7 
Mother

2016 
Queen of the South (TV series) | 4 episodes 
Campaign Supporter

E. The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her significant and well-documented career as a Voice Actress. Here are several key points supporting this stance:

Extensive Experience: Krystle Minkoff has an extensive body of work as a Voice Actress, which inherently falls under the broader category of acting. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to those needed for on-screen acting, such as character development, emotional expression, and vocal control.

Notable Roles: Her roles as a Voice Actress have been notable and influential within the industry. These roles contribute to her overall recognition as an actress, as voice acting is a respected and integral part of the entertainment field.

Published Credits: There are numerous publications and sources that document her work as a Voice Actress. These sources include her credited roles on platforms such as IMDb, which adhere to strict guidelines for verifying the legitimacy of professional credits.

Industry Standards: In the entertainment industry, individuals who perform voice acting are commonly referred to as actors or actresses. This standard industry terminology reflects the comprehensive nature of their work, encompassing all forms of acting, whether it be on-screen or voice-over.

Verifiability and Notability: The information regarding her career as a Voice Actress is verifiable through multiple independent sources, fulfilling Wikipedia’s criteria for notability. This substantiates her professional title as an actress, encompassing her voice acting achievements.

Removing the title of "Actress" would not only undermine her substantial contributions to the field of voice acting but also misrepresent the comprehensive nature of her career. Therefore, it is both accurate and appropriate to maintain the title of "Actress" to reflect her extensive and notable experience in the industry.

Review policy at this URL: https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/imdb-credit-eligibility-faq/GXMWNMB8LQCZYFH8?ref_=helpart_nav_10#

Kindly review and advise. 
ScorpioKLM

Here is a full list of all of platforms her audiobooks are verified published at and credited to her as both Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North. You cannot dispute her notability as an audiobook narrator.

Cites for Audiobook Narrator: https://www.storytel.com/in/narrators/meritt-north-525444 https://play.google.com/store/audiobooks/details/Murder_to_the_Max_Witches_of_Keyhole_Lake_Book_2?id=AQAAAEBMSh8KQM&hl=en_IN&gl=IN https://www.booktopia.com.au/murder-to-the-max-meritt-north/audiobook/9781987150421.html https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/moonshine-valentine https://tantor.com/narrator/meritt-north.html https://www.audible.com/author/Meritt-North/B01M3YNGSB https://www.audible.com/search?keywords=meritt+North&skip_spell_correction=true&ref_pageloadid=not_applicable&ref=a_search_t3_noResReversionUrl&pf_rd_p=7a98be95-bbf9-496e-a68c-79ce2c792da5&pf_rd_r=W5AQ8S259PFJWH9HB8CB&pageLoadId=rbqvivlTWdN7xXYc&ref_plink=not_applicable&creativeId=85146ce4-11f8-4d13-a628-fae19c79acaa https://www.audiofilemagazine.com/audiobookindustry/meritt-north/ https://www.audiobooks.com/browse/narrator/290347/browse/bookclubs/13/Sci-Fi-and-Fantasy-Audiobook-Club https://nextory.com/se-en/narrator/meritt-north-776316 https://library2go.overdrive.com/library2go-94-111/content/media/4578862 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jarods-heart-elise-manion/1122395364 https://www.overdrive.com/creators/1811412/tegan-maher https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/moonshine-valentine-tegan-maher/1131877202

https://www.kobo.com/us/en/list/mystery-thriller-audiobooks-9-99-or-less/sIjyvZtfms0HgQjU4Thsmg https://libro.fm/audiobooks/9781987192872-cruise-ship-caper https://www.chirpbooks.com/audiobooks/murder-of-the-month-by-tegan-maher https://www.audiobooks.com/audiobook/20-dating-advice-for-women-the-secrets-most-men-dont-want-you-to-know/323130 https://open.spotify.com/show/5sHA37R3rNqqTTCZbKLMyn https://www.storytel.com/tv/books/the-heartsong-cowboy-488808

What part of you do not establish a person's notability by citing her work to itself as proof that it exists, and have to establish notability by citing her work to THIRD-PARTY MEDIA COVERAGE AND ANALYSIS ABOUT IT are you having trouble understanding? Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously disregarding all of the media formats, platforms, publications, audiobook production companies, websites, and audiobook resellers citations that prove her notability as an established voice actress. Here are the cites again. I emplore you to review each one.

Cites for Audiobook Narrator: https://www.storytel.com/in/narrators/meritt-north-525444 https://play.google.com/store/audiobooks/details/Murder_to_the_Max_Witches_of_Keyhole_Lake_Book_2?id=AQAAAEBMSh8KQM&hl=en_IN&gl=IN https://www.booktopia.com.au/murder-to-the-max-meritt-north/audiobook/9781987150421.html https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/moonshine-valentine https://tantor.com/narrator/meritt-north.html https://www.audible.com/author/Meritt-North/B01M3YNGSB https://www.audible.com/search?keywords=meritt+North&skip_spell_correction=true&ref_pageloadid=not_applicable&ref=a_search_t3_noResReversionUrl&pf_rd_p=7a98be95-bbf9-496e-a68c-79ce2c792da5&pf_rd_r=W5AQ8S259PFJWH9HB8CB&pageLoadId=rbqvivlTWdN7xXYc&ref_plink=not_applicable&creativeId=85146ce4-11f8-4d13-a628-fae19c79acaa https://www.audiofilemagazine.com/audiobookindustry/meritt-north/ https://www.audiobooks.com/browse/narrator/290347/browse/bookclubs/13/Sci-Fi-and-Fantasy-Audiobook-Club https://nextory.com/se-en/narrator/meritt-north-776316 https://library2go.overdrive.com/library2go-94-111/content/media/4578862 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jarods-heart-elise-manion/1122395364 https://www.overdrive.com/creators/1811412/tegan-maher https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/moonshine-valentine-tegan-maher/1131877202

https://www.kobo.com/us/en/list/mystery-thriller-audiobooks-9-99-or-less/sIjyvZtfms0HgQjU4Thsmg https://libro.fm/audiobooks/9781987192872-cruise-ship-caper https://www.chirpbooks.com/audiobooks/murder-of-the-month-by-tegan-maher https://www.audiobooks.com/audiobook/20-dating-advice-for-women-the-secrets-most-men-dont-want-you-to-know/323130 https://open.spotify.com/show/5sHA37R3rNqqTTCZbKLMyn https://www.storytel.com/tv/books/the-heartsong-cowboy-488808

____________________________________________________ I truly appreciate your dedication to maintaining the high standards of Wikipedia, and I believe the existing citations do indeed establish her notability.

Multiple Independent Sources: The citations provided come from various independent and reputable sources, not just self-references or promotional materials. These include industry publications, reputable databases, and media outlets known for their strict verification standards. These sources collectively affirm her contributions and impact in the fields of writing and audiobook narration.

Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff has received significant recognition within her industry. Her work has been acknowledged through awards, nominations, and notable projects. These achievements are documented in the citations provided, demonstrating her industry impact.

Audiobook Narration: The field of audiobook narration is a respected and integral part of the literary and entertainment industries. Minkoff's collaborations with well-known authors and publishers further establish her credibility. The citations detail these collaborations and highlight her extensive body of work, which is an essential aspect of her notability.

Compliance with WP

We have adhered to Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (WP

).

The sources supporting her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage of her work. These sources go beyond mere mentions, offering in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and achievements. Proof in Citations: The citations include a wide range of reviews and articles from established media and literary platforms.

These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration.

Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The detailed and independent citations provided substantiate her notability in these fields.

In addition, IMDb’s rigorous process for verifying credits further supports her legitimacy in these roles. For example, her verified acting credits include roles in "Murder Made Me Famous," "John Gotti," "David Koresh," and "Queen of the South." These credits reflect her significant involvement in the industry.

The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her extensive and notable career as a Voice Actress. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to on-screen acting, and her notable roles have been influential within the industry. Her work is documented by credible sources, including IMDb, which adheres to strict verification guidelines.

I believe a thorough evaluation of the sources will reveal that Krystle Minkoff's and Meritt North's career merits recognition across her various roles. Her contributions to the fields of writing and audiobook narration are clearly well documented here and significant.

I invite you to review the comprehensive list of platforms where her audiobooks are verified and credited to her, both as Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North. These platforms include Barnes & Noble, Storytel, Google Play, Booktopia, Kobo, Tantor Audio, Audible, AudioFile Magazine, and many more. Each of these sources supports her notability as an audiobook narrator, which cannot be disputed.

Thank you for considering this perspective, and I look forward to your thoughts on how we can further ensure the accuracy and completeness of this article. Best regards, ScorpioKLM

In response to this "establish notability by citing her work to THIRD-PARTY MEDIA COVERAGE AND ANALYSIS ABOUT IT". I have cited to third-party media coverage and analysis about it. Please re-review the citations sent above.

Kindest Wishes, ScorpioKLM

No, you have not cited third-party media coverage and analysis about it, you're citing her own work's presence as titles for sale in online bookstores. Again: you do not establish a writer's notability by citing her work to its own presence on Amazon or Audible or Kobo or Booktopia or Overdrive; you establish a writer's notability by citing it to journalists and/or literary critics independently reviewing her work in a newspaper, magazine or literary journal. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Law, Politics, Medicine, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We can't use literally everything proffered above by ScorpioKLM (online storefront/connexion to subject), and the same rationale applies to almost every source in the article itself, with those that aren't merchants/her publishers being content-free profiles or stuff she wrote under the "Krystle Minkoff" moniker. None of the lot is usable in any way, shape, or form. ScorpioKLM, we don't cite IMDb because multiple discussions over the years in re their verification and fact-checking (i.e. their editorial oversight) have concluded it's a joke. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is sourced to primary sources. I can find no coverage at all to substantiate inclusion of this biography on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the wall of words, notability is not established. Mccapra (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the above, there's statements like "Meritt North had a successful 20-year career in sleep medicine prior to her career in the entertainment industry" - her entertainment career began in 2016 when she would have been 33. One link in her bibliography (Journal of Sleep Disorders & Therapy) is flagged as an unreliable source. Orange sticker (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment I've p-blocked Mooresklm2016 from here & the article to allow discussion to continue uninterrupted. They have made a sufficient case for closer to take it on board when assessing the discussion. Star Mississippi 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments - obviously promotional and inadequate third-party coverage. Haruka Amaranth 01:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy the GNG; no SIGCOV RS available. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Along with everyone else I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. WP:GNG isn't met. TarnishedPath^talk 06:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Timbo's Rule 14. "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." (March 2012) — tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse that rule! Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You might have noticed that the article creator has used the names Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North interchangeably so I'm assuming that they are the same person. Looking into previous articles by a similarly named account, User:Mooresklm I came across Draft:Krystle Minkoff which was deleted multiple times. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presumed it was a true name/pseudonym situation (similar to Mary Ann Evans/George Eliot). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the deleted article and Krystle Minkoff's birth name is, surprise! Krystle Lee'Ann Moores. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 2 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Simes

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

No indication of notoriety per either WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. I couldn't independently find awards or significant coverage by specialized, independent sources. Rkieferbaum (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Argentina, and United States of America. Rkieferbaum (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rkieferbaum: Hi! Posting here as well - I have a compiled list of awards and coverage from good sources that will be relevant here. I will update this page with them as soon as I can. Please hold. LocusXovier (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LocusXovier: hi there! By all means. Normally deletion discussions are open for a week and they can be relisted. I'll be sure to watch the page and gladly give my input. Feel free to ping me if you don't hear from me. Cheers! Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:36, 28 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!} 22:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is listed at the Center for Book Arts and there is a discussion of his work in text and images as homage to Jorge Luis Borges, but this is not enough to consider him a notable artist. WP:TOOSOON.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:50, 3 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Gul Panag. Based on minimal participation, the article can be recreated, see WP:SOFTDELETE. Malinaccier (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off Road with Gul Panag

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gul Panag: as ATD. A line can be added there with a source. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:58, 10 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divide Pictures

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

Exists but doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG / WP:ORG. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 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!} 07:26, 1 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.

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

The result was merge‎ to List of political self-immolations#2020s. This incident is already mentioned at the target article but this is a Merge in case any additional information is deemed relevant. It then can be Redirected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello

AfDs for this article:

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

Here we are, a month after Azzarello's death and there's no evidence of lasting coverage or information about his significance to merit a merger elsewhere. The most recent coverage, also represented in the article, is of the donation of his kidneys. A redirect to List_of_political_self-immolations#2020s where this is mentioned is probably more than sufficient. The AfD was well attended, but explicitly allowed revisiting it, so bringing it back here. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Politics, United States of America, and New York. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political self-immolations#2020s. I was considering nominating this for deletion myself yesterday. No evidence of sustained coverage with the article heavily reliant on primary sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the above per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. No sustained coverage which fails WP:NOTNEWS. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above and WP:NOTNEWS. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait - There are still explicit references to the self-immolation being made as it occurred during the trail kickoff. Wait until after the trial to see if it meets WP:NOTNEWS.GobsPint (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"New Episode Of The Josh Marshall Podcast: Cricket's Revenge". TPM – Talking Points Memo. May 9, 2024.

Merge to List of political self-immolations, per my comment in the previous AFD. Like I said there: "Yes, it did receive coverage in the news, but a lot of the coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources, and that does not automatically make a news story notable. I'd actually argue that this violates WP:NOTNEWS. For a news story to be notable, it needs to have WP:LASTING effects, which haven't been proven here yet. Furthermore, I have WP:BLP1E concerns about the existence of this article. While it's unfortunate that this man was driven to self-immolate based on a conspiracy theory, this would be a WP:MILL event if it were not for the venue of the self-immolation, outside a courthouse in NYC where Trump is being tried. I'm not seeing why we need a separate article, as opposed to mentioning this incident in another article, per WP:NOPAGE." I still don't see much lasting coverage; it's being mentioned in passing, but almost all sources are from a month ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A merge is unnecessary as the incident is already listed at List of political self-immolations and I can't see what specifically needs to be merged. AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political self-immolations#2020s. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, fails NOTNEWS and no content is suitable to merge. JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bauman

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

Moved unilaterally to mainspace after prior draftification. I see poor referencing, churnalism, and lists of "stuff" albeit as prose. WP:BIO insists on references for facts subject to challenge, and there is a shortfall, so I see a WP:BIO failure. I also see WP:ADMASQ for a WP:ROTM "cross-platform media executive, filmmaker, print and broadcast journalist, and environmentalist." doing his job. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. The sourcing used is either primary or passing mentions. Nothing we'd use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques").

I can't assess https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/business/grid-news-site-live.html (walled).
https://www.axios.com/2021/07/10/dc-journalists-launch-media-company is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/03/grid-news-the-messenger-startup is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, zero discussion of Bauman.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/tech-exec-invests-in-digital-news-startup-launched-by-veteran-journalists.html is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman; everything seemingly about him is actually claims about the startup attributed to Bauman.
https://digiday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/07/DIGIDAY-MEDIA-AWARDS_Winners-Guide-2023_062923-2.pdf is a non-sequitur.
I can't assess https://www.adweek.com/media/laura-mcgann-has-reimagined-reporting-using-an-intersectional-structurally-focused-approach/ (walled). Given the article is about someone else, I can't imagine this is too useful for an article on Bauman.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181001-is-this-the-last-chance-to-see-the-titanic is useless for notability (too sparse, possibly wrong subject). Shit He Says, no actual discussion of Bauman. I should note that my own search for sources (string: "Mark Bauman") returned primarily non-responsive content, so I would be very concerned about conflating multiple Mark Baumans.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190519214223/https://www.virtualwonders.com/ is useless for notability (website homepage).
https://thinkwellgroup.com/blog/2020/08/21/exploring-the-details-with-virtual-wonders/ is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman.
https://wyse.gmu.edu/mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). I note this bio omits anything involving GRID or any media startups; one would think, given their journalism pedigree is mentioned, that these would be brought up.
https://thepearsoninstitute.org/speaker/mark-bauman is useless for notability (connexion to subject). The image on this page looks like a completely different guy from the WYSE image, disregarding the glasses.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/ng-live-engineering-exploration-technology/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-17-ca-cinefile17_-story.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Shit He Says, no discussion of Bauman.
https://www.documentary.org/column/festival-focus-national-geographic-all-roads-film-festival is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
We don't cite IMDb (no editorial oversight).
https://www.media.mit.edu/events/media-lab-conversations-series-mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Event programme.
https://www.darwinfoundation.org/en/about/our-people2/board-of-directors/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). He's on the BoD for the Darwin Foundation.
https://www.asoc.org/about/our-team/#board is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Again, BoD.
https://conservefish.org/news/marine-fish-conservation-network-welcomes-tom-sadler-new-deputy-director-mark-bauman-board-directors-member/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). Press release from an organisation he was joining.
https://voicesforbiodiversity.org/about/advisory-board is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.
We can't use https://wyse.gmu.edu/ (website homepage).
https://mediaschool.indiana.edu/news-events/news/item.html?n=media-school-visiting-professors-include-award-winning-media-executive-and-npr-tv-critic is useless for notability (connexion to subject). News from a university who's bringing him on as a guest professor.
https://www.cmu.edu/homepage/creativity/2010/fall/gigapixel-show.shtml is useless for notability (too sparse, connexion to subject). Name-drop in an article about an event CMU is holding.
We can't use either YouTube source (unknown provenance). YouTube videos must be (1) produced by an outlet we would consider to be a reliable source and (2) uploaded to that outlet's verified channel to be linked to, let alone cited.
https://thepearsoninstitute.org/globalforum2022 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Expo held by an organisation he's on the BoD of, and where he was scheduled to speak.
We can't use https://www.erskine.edu/2023/02/07/stukes-lecture-set-for-march-1/ (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this? (If this is a press release, it's useless for notability (no editorial oversight).)
https://www.iinteract.org/about-us is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.
https://www.wliw.org/about/awards/ is a non-sequitur.
https://crossingborders.education/people/mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.

None of the sources I can assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Journalism, Environment, Russia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a link for the NY Times article, it isn't about the person discussed here, mostly about the Grid website [36] Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is from primary sources, IMDB or passing mentions. Hkkingg (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made many edits based on reviews and thought it was ready for mainspace. Can someone please help me redraft this article to meet Wikipedia standards? Terry Phillips (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you find much better sources, any effort at redrafting would be futile. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Bauman news/scholarly sources that discuss him at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subjected to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking. Without those, the subject cannot hope to meet WP:N or WP:BLP. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to have the SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Contreras

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Amin

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]

Delete: The sources are mostly interviews or are otherwise primary, with a lack of WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent, reliable sources to meet the GNG. While the Egyptian Streets article looks okay, the Marie Claire Arabia source is also an interview and lacks independence. It may just be WP:TOOSOON for the subject. Let'srun (talk) 00:34, 13 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Redwine

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

Current sources don't show sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG and film/tv credits don't pass WP:NACTOR. A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up in-depth sources which showed notability. Suonii180 (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Suonii180 (talk) 16:34, 22 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!} 20:44, 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!} 23:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a teenage actor with no high-profile roles (and no roles as an adult); presumably a low-profile individual. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:37, 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.

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. Nominator withdrew their previous objections [37]. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrell Hines

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:SIGCOV. In the article, sources are greatly lacking, and the ones seems unreliable. Applicable to WP:INTERVIEW. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [38], [39], [40], [and [41] doesn't make up WP:NSONG. Apart from one or two being an interview is not a criteria for inclusion. Then musician hasn't meet any of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as well as the above-mentioned sources, there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306, I am changing this because one source isn't enough to establish notability. The other sources are the ones I listed as not reliable and not WP:BEFORE." Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand Safari Scribe's thinking here. First, a redirect to List of American musicians isn't feasible because that's a redirect in itself. Then, an Allmusic staff bio is found and Safari Scribe replies that the artist may be notable in the future. But the source doesn't show up some time in the future, it exists now. Geschichte (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this interview has a lot of non-interview, editorial paragraphs, it's a weak keep from me as well. Geschichte (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's true that List of American musicians is a Redirect so it's not an appropriate target page. There are handy scripts you can install that show articles, redirects and pages nominated for deletion in different font colors but you should always check the target page before proposing it so that you can see if it is a suitable target. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening discussion per a request made by the nom at my talk page. I had previously closed this as "keep" (as you can see here).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made changes above.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Atlantic306, @Geschichte, and @Liz, as i have changed the deletion rationale. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Covered in Fader [42] and NME [43], both of which are RS per ALBUM. The NPR item used is fine, rather small though. I'd give this just enough to pass notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Request withdrawn per WP:HEY! the sources already presented are good to go. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:20, 4 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to WVXF. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEON-LP

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

Notable only on local level, Fox affiliation notwithstanding. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:26, 19 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. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WVXF: it is mentioned there as the predecessor of WVXF's Fox subchannel, which might be enough to make it a valid alternative to deletion. (It does seem odd to think of a Fox affiliate as "not independently notable", but this appears to be one of those rare cases.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 26 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!} 06:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 12:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Spoon of Chocolate

(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]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on ABC commentators

(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]

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 [[44]] (1/3), [[45]] (2/3), [[46]] (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]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm not sure why this discussion kept being relisted as there is a clear consensus to Keep this article. A move discussion can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters

(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]

Keep but move to History of the NFL championship broadcasts, per Conyo14, with the footnote material about the various quirks of the broadcasts being moved to the body of the article ahead of the list, and the list being made a lesser section of the article. BD2412 T 14:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep and move? Or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per BD2412. My previous rationale still applies, this does not meet the WP:LISTN but can meet the GNG though a rewrite. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 10 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Baugh (politician)

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

WP:BLP about the self-appointed head of a micronation, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, micronationalists do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #1 as national "heads of state" just because they exist, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the other two are short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to clear the bar if they're all he's got.
In addition, we've already been around this maypole before, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Baugh -- and it also warrants note that this version got quarantined in draftspace a few hours after its creation on the grounds of being inadequately sourced, but was then arbitrarily moved back into mainspace by its creator on the grounds that its title was "misspelled". And since we already have a redirect representing the same person at the plain, undisambiguated title anyway, I don't see any pressing need to retain this as a second redirect.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nevada and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's all for giggles, but here are two articles I found with considerable info about him: Vice, Business Insider. Lamona (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is already in the article, and has already been addressed in the nomination as being too short to clinch GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat Which was considered too short? Because both of the ones I listed are quite long, and I don't see either mentioned in this nomination. Thanks. Lamona (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vice is a short article that's basically a travel piece about the writer taking a trip to Molossia, and just kind of features Kevin Baugh as a minor walk-on character with the writer herself being a much more central subject. That's not a great GNG builder. And it's a source that's already in the article, which means it's one of the four sources that are being talked about when I talked about the four sources in the article in my nomination statement regardless of whether I called it out by name or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. I don't believe the sources from Lamona are enough to get this article over the hump. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly this has headed in the delete direction so far. However, more specific reasons behind the !votes might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: President of the Republic of Molossia, a self-proclaimed micronation that is not formally recognised by any world government. I don't have to talk too much. Primarily doesnt meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Should I be missing WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I mistakenly closed this AFD without realizing that I participated in it. I'm relisting this for discussion after restoring the page, as it feels like the appropriate thing to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 3 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. Opinions are all over the map here. Editors interested in a Merge can pursue that option outside of this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s

(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]

@Walsh90210: I fail to understand why you wanted to note WP:ELNEVER to me. Could you explain? Did you perhaps mean to link something else? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 10 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]

Comment - The only difference between this discussion and the discussions for the other decades prior to May 29 (when the others were closed and this was relisted) was the extra delete !vote by Ajf773. Was there a particular reason for only !voting here? I do agree with others above that it would be odd for this decade to be the only one not be allowed to stand alone. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: While I do, obviously, have issue (as I mentioned above) with the idea that one decade's article gets deleted while the rest did not, it doesn't matters why they voted on one and not the rest, that's entirely acceptable to do. We have no reason to question them on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: My aim with the comment was to try to determine if it was worth seeing if just renominating the whole bundle of decades as a batch (without the other articles that were included the first time) was a good option. I should have been more clear with that and I apologize for coming across as trying to call them out here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with NASCAR on television and radio: per the nom. I'm just not finding the sources covering the broadcasts from this decade as a group, and as such, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Merge as a WP:ATD, along with the rest of the articles from this 'series'. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 13 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of CBS Sports college basketball commentators

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list 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, 506sports is a forum and collegehoopsnet is merely an announcment of a list of commentators, the other is a blogspot post; neither doing anything to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Basketball, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to College Basketball on CBS Sports#Commentators with only the most notable announcers on that list. This list does not meet WP:LISTN for this wiki, but for the fandom wiki, it's fine. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources such as newspaper articles dating as far back as the early 1980s can easily be found and later added over a relatively short matter of time with the aid of Google News Archives as well as places like Awful Announcing for more "current" or up to date sources. There's also presumably, official press releases from CBS Sports itself. I would estimate, that sources can be filled up in roughly a day and a half. Also, who would fall under the criteria of being "the most notable announcers" among this particular list? Are we only referring to current announcers for CBS as of 2024, are we referring to announcers who only worked the March Madness tournament? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: There are secondary sources discussing these announcers as a group particularly for March Madness, as seen with [[47]], [[48]], [[49]], [[50] and [[51]] being found relatively quickly. I wouldn't oppose possibly reducing this to just the March Madness crews but sourcing does appear to show that the WP:LISTN is met. Again, this isn't a broadcasters schedule so I'm not sure how this is a WP:NOTTVGUIDE and I'm unsure which part of NOTDATABASE the nom thinks this violates. Let'srun (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 19 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!} 07:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. After discarding !votes with no basis in policy (which occurred on both sides of the discussion), there is a narrow balance of both !votes and arguments in favor of deletion, taking into consideration that most of the valid keep !votes were phrased as "weak" keeps and acknowledged the paucity of available sourcing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuno Miles

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

as much as i love yuno, the only reliable source that talks about him is this, which makes him not notable Authenyo (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i typed this crying knowing that big wikipedia will delete yuno miles Authenyo (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss. OJSimpsonLover (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(insert reminder of WP:NOTAVOTE and to actually provide links or a reference to someone else's comment here instead of just saying "some notability")
OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalizing articles. That said, @Air on White, I'm not sure that means why their comment should be discarded. Only sockpuppets have a strike-comments policy. Or was there something I've missed? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the striking of the comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalism and his inappropriate username. However, he was not just a blatant vandal, but also a subtler troll: some of his comments appear to be in good faith and were aimed at confusing other users and administrators, making his block less likely. I also believe he was a sockpuppet for his demonstrated familiarity with the customs and policies of Wikipedia and his technical proficiency in areas such as wikitext and referencing. I therefore believe it was reasonable for me to assume that his comment was intended to disrupt the Wikipedia project and should have been struck through. Air on White (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have not made any comments that I find questionable and do not seem to be familiar with Wikipedia at all. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss vandalism or sockpuppetry, so I'll end this discussion here. But I'm willing to continue this discussion (at another page) if anyone is interested, particularly if someone is making an SPI case. Air on White (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) edited Air on White (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a RS per Project Album [52], but that's all I can find for this person. No interviews or articles about him, was hoping something would show up. A lack of sourcing means !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a few sources - maybe look a little harder 2601:449:4100:DA80:E549:EA16:3F2E:1D57 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So... could you link them here? Tollens (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, they don't exist. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability guidelines. Plus, there’s already a draft article for him at draft:Yuno Miles. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 00:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC) user indef-blocked for disruption on AFD —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/music/news-who-yuno-miles-fans-react-youtuber-releases-hilarious-drake-diss-response-metro-boomin-s-challenge	WP:RSP: user-generated		✘ No
https://www.rapreviews.com/2023/11/yuno-miles-yuno-i-cant-rap/			✔ Yes
https://www.sescoops.com/wwe/rapper-yuno-miles-releases-wwe-diss-track-im-beefing-with-the-wwe	Probably, website has multiple writers and this one has a degree		✔ Yes
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-age-of-shitpost-modernism/		~ One example with only one mention	~ Partial
https://gizmodo.com/saga-bbl-drizzy-drake-kendrick-lamar-metro-boomin-1851470820		~ Only one mention as "The Meme Diss Track"; in the article's slides.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Here's a table. I don't think two is enough, is it? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most editors would consider two enough. Air on White (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SE Scoops is two videos and two quotes of his, with about 5 lines of text otherwise, might be a RS but that's hardly extensive coverage. Maybe 1/2 a source, being generous. I'd still like to see more than these two sources, neither of which is extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The entire article is about a diss track he released.
I do agree that two sources is a bit far from keeping, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that pythoncoder has provided a video reference with The Tonight Show, I think that tips the scales towards a weak keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he appears in two articles that count towards GNG, but there isn't enough notable articles at the moment for a stronger keep. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 07:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, speedy per what? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AskeeaeWiki, is this even a vote? Per what? dxneo (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like he passes GNG based on the sources so far. Other stuff that may or may not count, some from the draft version:
- [53] from Ones to Watch: Site with music industry backing (Live Nation Entertainment). Not sure about their editorial standards — couldn't find anything about it on RSN or RSP.
- [54] from TheNeedleDrop: may or may not count based on your reading of RSP
- [55]: got played on the nationally-televised The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:THENEEDLEDROP:

... per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party sources about living people.

Granted, what you linked isn't a review, it's an interview. But given the discussion is about what third-party sources could be used to justify keeping an article about Yuno Miles, I think this still fairly doesn't fit. It also doesn't help that Fantano isn't a journalist, let alone the fact that using YouTube links (of which this article currently uses two, both linking to Yuno Miles' own songs) is already considered generally unreliable per WP:RSPYT. Cadenrock1 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs more time so I'm relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage seems weak, fails WP:NMUSIC.-KH-1 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, I personally think Miles is a notable but unreported figure, having a large following but lacking news coverage. This means has and will continue to have his page created many times before being locked. (Discuss Roastedbeanz1 contribs) 17:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Roastedbeanz1, why is your signature bearing @Not0nshoree. Also, I didn't get your argument here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yuno Miles is very much notable. I know there's a stigma against making pages for every insignificant "soundcloud rapper", but rest assured, Yuno Miles is not one of them. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 18:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping Yuno Miles on Wikipedia. He is already a popular rapper no matter if its meme rap such as "4 Wheeler" or the "BBL Drizzy Freestyle." I think it way to late to make that happen. Diamondpro114 (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show evidence using sources that meets WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't believe I have to say this but Wikipedia doesn't care that you personally think this article subject is notable. Our subjective judgments are irrelevant to AFD decisions. The question is, are there sufficient reliable sources to establish notability? Are the sources located by User:pythoncoder and any other editors adequate to demonstrate GNG? That's the important question here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I have to say this but I don't care what you have to say either ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

relax bro we all have to follow wikipedia's notability rules and not our own. but ye i think yuno miles is notable, also due to the sources in that chart above, or at least surely will be soon because i have no doubt yuno will get more news coverage. Freedun (yap) 20:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea you right bro mb. I just be insulted when I'm just tryna throw in my two cents n somebody sayin they speakin on "behalf" of wikipedia and that my opinion doesn't matter, just rude and insulting u know? but yea the sources are kinda scarce, i think his page might get deleted for now, but u right we'll def get more news coverage soon ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 20:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the truth is, on Wikipedia, opinions are weighted based on relation to policy. Arguments with actual basis in policy has more weight. You'd have to be really convincing to make a non−policy based argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yea its kinda weird and ik wikipedia doesn't have a lot of rapper articles even for example f1lthy (i just made it last night). anyone who watches tiktok knows these people but whatever. if it gets deleted ill remake it after there's more news coverage Freedun (yap) 20:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article doesn't meet GNG, source analysis lacks WP:SIGCOV and intentionally, I don't succumbed with the rationales of being "a fan of a certain musician." Per the state of the article, I was checking redirect to see if the "Hood Rejects" do exist but not. At this point, when sources of an article is not enough to establish notability, it becomes deletion or redirecting. However, there is no room for redirecting and mostly, delete. I have critically accessed the sources presently in the article and some doesn't relate to WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Could you explain how the two sources I've assessed and the OnesToWatch source from pythoncoder don't meet GNG? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu, two sources aren't enough for me to justify whether an article is notable. There isn't any significant coverage of this individual as a musician whatsoever. Also remember that "celebrities" may be famous but not notable. One may have millions of followers, yet neither has he/her been covered in multiple news source. Per my experience so far, they are usually appearing in interviews, some which are not reliable or secondary per WP:RS. While being regarding !voting is not deletion, I am talking about the pure simple fact here and that the truth of the matter. Should I analyse the arguments too to see the argument coming from keep if not most, "he is notable, I have heard the song", "he is famous, I am a fan", etc. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In analysis, for example, no weight will be given to "He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss." Notability is not ones opinion. If that, then, my father is notable in my mind. The second was I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. Here, we don't believe in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. If the editor thinks the other articles like that merits deletion, so be it, nominate it or leave it. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b and Not0nshoree argued the article lacking sources and not meeting GNG.

Then the source analysis table generated also good. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. I assessed four sources above. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yuno Miles' music is unique. Also his song was trending on YouTube and hit music charts. Also he will hit 1m subs soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedun (talk • contribs)

User:Freedun, I want to know how you know about anything called AFD when you literally joined some minutes ago. What was your previous account? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is AFD? I dont think i had an account from the past but i edited my schools wikipedia page in the past so maybe i did but im not sure Freedun (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedun, that is my point. What is the school and your former name. It might help us know how to analyse your argument as it may lay on "a new user". Tell me the account and why you left after writing your schools page. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uh sorry dude I'm not comfortable telling you what high school i went to... Freedun (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual a new editor coming to !vote in an AFD. There is something going on. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uh ok? Freedun (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually imma say weak keep like Roasted beanz Freedun (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miles has fans and they saw the article's deletion notice and came here, duh. It's not unusual but unfortunate. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.onestowatch.com/en/blog/meet-yuno-miles-the-internets-favorite-rapper	Was about the rapper	Ones to watch is a music blog and by the virtue of looking at the written content, it made me feel to notify people of a notable blog it is. Another example Bella Naija.	Blog, equally advertorial.	✘ No
https://www.theneedledrop.com/interviews/2023/11/a-conversation-with-yuno-miles	An interview should always be independent as the person interviewed always say about him; those which aren't verifiable at most times.	Per WP:THENEEDLEDROP.	Its an interview per WP:INTERVIEW or related.	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJWNQSIoNE	Clip of played music. The full show should have contained other stuffs.	The show is reliable and notable as well.	In the context, the music was played within any discussion of it's nature, etc. I could have taken it as a review but no!	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why writing styles disqualify reliability, not to mention the ridiculous notion that that affects the SIGCOV part of the criteria. As said above, the site is ran by writers of an industry giant. This makes it highly likely that they are reliable (reputation, libel & stuff), and I can't find any incidences of false reporting. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show me their editorial guideline for publication and team. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find any so far, but it seems to be the same people, so I'm asking this at RSN.

Also, I feel like the two sources above and mentions add up to give this borderline notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also I looked closer into the requirements for Wikipedia musicians and Yuno Miles "has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" because they are highly known for meme rap Freedun (yap) 19:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources that claim that. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tbh its just well known but this article looks applicable: [56] Freedun (yap) 04:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that genre-representing, but while it's not significant coverage, it is more than a passing mention, and as said above, I feel like that, other non-trivial mentions, and the two sources I've found above confer notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ye i agree. Freedun (yippity yap) 07:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good sources are pretty scarce right now, but he did get reviewed on RapReviews and namechecked on Pitchfork. Close enough. 162 etc. (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. If the biography of living person has reliable sources and news, then, the draft shall be created (it already started the draft, so what else?). Qadri223 Talk or discuss only my contributions to the Wikipedia 03:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qadri223 Yes, the article meets the draft criteria, but how the heck does that mean it should be deleted? There is more history here than the Drake event as seen in the Pitchfork and RapReviews coverage above. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E says only event but yuno miles has multiple songs in multiple sources so i dont think that makes sense at all. also that draft is way worse so why would we want to use that over this Freedun (yippity yap) 11:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Fein

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV such as [[57]] and [[58]]. Let'srun (talk) 13:37, 11 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!} 04:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Moderate success at lower levels but does not meet WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get you. Which part of WP:GNG are you saying? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first source provided above is quite good, especially if you go to C5, where it focuses much more on him. I lean towards discounting the second source above since it mostly talks about his former partner's retirement and him contemplating the same in very few words. It is also the same publication and not independent of source #1 above. However, from the sources in the article, the Skate Today piece seems to cover him specifically in depth. Those are enough to meet GNG vice NSKATE in my view. -2pou (talk) 19:42, 20 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!} 04:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The article meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO based on the major awards he has won and was cited to reliable sources. For the nominator, WP:SNGs are followed after checking the WP:BASIC. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What “major awards” has this guy won? Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Figure Skating Championships as well as collab..ING with Tiffany Scott. Finding sources first WP:BEFORE is also important. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98, this mentions and collabs this and this is at least there will be existing source. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That a PROD was removed doesn't make an article non notable. I see you nominated articles simply because they doesn't meet WP:NSKATE; this is a secondary/additional way after the article lacks valuable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Braakman

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has some decent coverage at [[59]] and [[60]]. Not a ton here but probably enough to pass the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:01, 11 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!} 03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 18 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!} 02:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Nagle (figure skater)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An obit here, as well as coverage in the New York Times here and here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 18 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!} 02:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per source presented by Beanie fan. I think it's unusual nominating articles because they are short. WP:NSKATE is an additional Wikipedia policy. If per the sources they the articles won those awards, then he meets WP:ANYBIO and sources per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. please do run WP:BEFORE and not bypass it. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete‎ * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lya Stern

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

This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 23:32, 9 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!} 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, have struck my vote and comment. In my defence the erroneous AllMusic bio is the first reference in the article but I should have noticed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverifiable claims of notability. doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

Sorted by State

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