Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Purge page cache watch

General

[edit]
October 2006 Yakima hops fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:News article based on a brief burst of news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Half of the main text body is directly copied from https://www.31stmeu.marines.mil/About/History.aspx Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 17:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cites no sources, couldn't find any, doesn't look notable at all. I was mildly surprised to find that the book exists at all, although it does seem to! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I very vaguely remember these being released back in the day, when I was working at a bookstore. If I remember correctly, this series was intended to capitalize on the popularity of series like Twilight, Gossip Girl, and Pretty Little Liars. Quite a few publishers were trying to capture that lightning in a bottle that those series obtained. In any case, it didn't really get much mainstream attention - I can't find anything out there to suggest otherwise either. This released, sold well enough to warrant a few books in the series, but just never received any coverage in places that Wikipedia would see as a reliable, notability-giving source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 14:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sam McCandless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Been sitting in the unclear notability pile for 10+ years now, and it cites only one source that doesn't help for NBIO or GNG. There's one mag profile that doesn't go into much real depth but I guess could help, but I couldn't find anything else. WP:BANDMEMBER is pretty clear that members don't automatically inherit notability from the band, so I don't see a NMUSIC pass either. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Equestrian Trade Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Currently defunct.Seems to have been created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. automobile production figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTSTATS with no inline citations and mostly essay content in the lead, and arbitrarily cut off at 2000. WP:SYNTH may also be a concern because the sources used might have different methodologies for estimating production in a given model year. PROD contested because:

Objecting to deletion, there are citations, and this information doesn't appear available elsewhere on Wikipedia and it provides valuable information, I'm not sure why this should be deleted
— User:97.176.15.217 22:41, 31 October 2024

But "valuable information" and "not available elsewhere" are not valid justifications for collections of data, especially a year-by-year breakdown over an entire century that does not include all companies. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Pennsylvania Turnpike crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LASTING and also WP:NEVENT CutlassCiera 23:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristal Nell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find significant or independent coverage of this bridge player to meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. All I can find, except for primary sources (her own league, etc.) is an obituary and a piece that does not go in depth about her. Geschichte (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Technology Development Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YL Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Mostly about routine funding. Some info from Techcrunch but notability is limited per WP:TECHCRUNCH. This was previously deleted per AfD before. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Noriega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability criteria under WP:AUTHOR, doesn't appear to be many secondary sources on him. jolielover♥talk 09:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues. Was previously deleted per AFD. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic-Pacific Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues for years. Imcdc Contact 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Save America (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No content that would be sufficient for a separate article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes NBOOK. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — seconded that this passes NBOOK. No, not everything President Trump does is notable, but a book which receives SIGCOV is, in my opinion. A quick Google News search reveals what is, in my opinion, SIGCOV from RSs ranging from the Washington Post to the New York Times to ABC. Lastly, I fail to see how the book being “campaign literature” — or not — pertains to this AfD.MWFwiki (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bibliography of Donald Trump. As a practical matter it is unlikely that there will ever be enough about this book for an article. Unlike "art of the deal" this one is a re-hash of already seen photos of events covered in the media, so there is no new content, and from what I understand, nothing that we do not already know. Lamona (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This needs to be handled carefully. The main question here is less "is this notable" as much as it "is it individually notable from Donald Trump". My concern here is that the coverage for this seems to be pretty light and when it is discussed, it tends to be discussed in relation to his successful 2024 re-election campaign and his plans for if (as this was released prior to the elections) he was re-elected.
So I think that when people are mentioning this in the AfD as campaign literature they're probably concerned that sourcing coverage tends to shift from the book and its contents to coverage of the (then) impending elections as a whole - as was the case with CBS's coverage of the book. I'm going to see what I can find, but offhand I can see concerns that the existing coverage isn't exactly for the book itself. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 16:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was initially skeptical that there was enough out there but a search did bring up quite a bit - it's not a lot, mind you. Most tended to focus on the claims of Mark Zuckerberg committing election fraud and threats to arrest him if this was done again. But there's just enough to say that this passes NBOOK.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walden Asset Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 10:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PAAMCO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Had a lot of COI and promotional edits. A quick search focuses only on the subject being part of a merger with another entity so the current subject in article no longer operates under this name. Imcdc Contact 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Common and Public Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We already have articles for the separate entities Boston Public Garden and Boston Common. There is no purpose to this duplicative article. Although the Garden and Common were listed on the National Register of Historic Places together (before being superseded by more appropriate separate listings later), an NRHP listing itself is not notable, rather the places it designates are notable, and they already have articles. The original author User:Doncram, who made articles for thousands of NRHP listings, even redirected it the day after making it with the note "'Boston Common and Public Garden' was the name given to the combination of the Boston Common and the Boston Public Garden when they were listed as a single entry on the National Register of Historic Places in 1972, with refnum 72000144. In 1987, the two were listed on the Register separately. It seems not helpful to have an article on the arbitrary combination of the two. Please see, instead, the individual articles for Boston Common and Boston Public Garden."

While I had redirected the page to National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Boston because neither individual site was a better target (Doncram originally pointed it to Boston Common), a redirect is likely not necessary either. This is an unlikely search/navigation target since these are separate entities that already have their own articles that link to each other with full histories, and replicating information in a third page just because they previously had a simultaneous historical designation is completely unnecessary. Reywas92Talk 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Reywas92Talk 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Boston. I agree that an article on this is totally unnecessary, as it's a listing covering two already-notable parks, and the listing is not in itself notable. However, a redirect can still help with navigation, especially for people who are specifically looking for the NRHP listing. (As far as I can tell, this listing is still on the National Register, but there are additional, separate NHL district listings for both parks, which are overlaid onto this listing.) – Epicgenius (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, long-standing consensus that heritage listings are notable. Secondly, there are plenty of district listings that include individually listed items. The question is, what makes this district distinctive for historic reasons? It is the combination, which is what the article is about. Not one; not the other; but how the relate to each other over time. Rather than deleting it, elaborating on the relationship between the entities is the proper thing to do. Magic♪piano 01:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect, there's a long-standing consensus that places listed on heritage listings are notable, not that the listing as a concept itself is or must have a separate page. Absolutely the Common and Garden are notable, but the fact that they were listed together doesn't make that listing a notable entity. Many listed districts do cover a whole neighborhood that includes multiple individual places, or may delineate a new place in a way that justifies its own entry, but those often also include dozens of contributing and non-contributing items, and it's still the place(s) that's notable, not the listing. Unlike for such districts (whose articles should never just be duplicative like for a neighborhood and a district spanning it), here there are just two specific places, and both articles already have history sections that describe their relationships. Those can be expanded, sure, but it doesn't need a redundant page that few will read and most will wonder why exists. Reywas92Talk 02:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there's a long-standing consensus that places listed on heritage listings are notable" vs. "the fact that they were listed together doesn't make that listing a notable entity". Well, which is it? Either a listing is notable or it isn't. Magic♪piano 22:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(a) "because neither individual site was a better target" vs. (b) "both articles already have history sections that describe their relationships". If (a) is true, why not improve one or the other, and then propose a redirect to that place? If (b), well, why not propose a redirect rather than starting a confrontational process like AfD. In either case, there is no reason to delete the article NOW. If for no other reason, it provides a linking point from the NRHP list on which it appears until such a time as a more suitable redirect can be erected. Magic♪piano 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
J.P. Turner & Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues for years. Firm is defunct. Was previously deleted under a different name. Imcdc Contact 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayer's unrealized projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Wikipedia as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Wikipedia article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic fightpicking.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to David Ayer – it makes more sense to discuss these projects in the context of his larger career (or to omit certain projects if their coverage is too trivial, but that can happen after a merge). Regardless of notability, at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic (WP:PAGEDECIDE). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brysam Global Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 06:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RLH Equity Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 02:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The North American Discworld Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BEFORE only showed unreliable sources such as blogs and fan sites, or other passing mentions. This does not have reliable secondary sources to achieve WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That the album got a Star Trek actor, Robert Ricardo, to perform on it makes the album noteworthy and therefore its page should not be deleted from Wikipedia.

BiTrektual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 20:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aurelio Voltaire: found no reliable coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hate Lives in a Small Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 20:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austin City Council District 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual city council districts like this aren't usually notable, perhaps a merge to the main article on the Austin City Council would be suitable, a discussion on the Austin City Council District 1 ended with consensus to merge. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austin City Council District 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual city council districts aren't usually notable. Feels WP:MILL. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Ononiwu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is largely based on 4 sources about her being "awarded the US Presidential Lifetime Achievers Award (Presidential Volunteer Service Award) (PVSA) by American President Joe Biden." This is apparently only reported in Nigerian sources, not in any official source, and she isn't listed on the official list[8]. The award is apparently only intended for "U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents", so not for a Nigerian in France. If the sources have this basic fact, the premisse for the articles, wrong, then they aren't reliable sources to start with but just repeating something spoonfed by the subject or someone trying to promote them. Fram (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete I've just done a deep dive into this. The President's Volunteer Service Award has various grades, and is given to numerous people every year, and is not generally notable. Only at the highest level, people receiving the the President's Call to Service Award (also called the "President's Lifetime Achievement Award"), may be notable for receiving the award. But even that is doubtful, as recipients are usually notable already in their own right. In any case, it's pretty clear that Martina Ononiwu did not receive the President's Call to Service Award, as there are no US-based notable sources testifying to this. A search for the name "Martina Ononiwu" is the news sources yields nothing except Nigerian news sources stating that she was given the President's Lifetime Achievement Award. It is highly unlikely that a person would be honored with the President's Lifetime Achievement Award, without leaving any sort of trace in the news sources. --LK (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to be a HOAX based on the fact that USA sources mention nothing about the awards. I don't see notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The President's Volunteer Service Award is notable. If it is not, it won't have a page in Wikipedia. Very clear. Royalrumblebee (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the pages listing the winners of the award don't list Ononiwu, and she wouldn't be eligible in the first place. The notability that is disputed is not that of the award, but of Õnoniwu. Fram (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : The article fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline WP:GNG as it solely focuses on a single event without providing significant coverage of the topic. The subject's notability is questionable, given the award by the United States, despite being based in France with Nigerian origins. There is no international media coverage, with most coverage coming from Nigerian local and national dailies. This lack of international coverage and reliance on local publications gives the impression that the article may be sponsored or promotional in nature, further undermining its notability.Royalesignature (talk). 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many notable people already in Wikipedia who have little or no foreign press mentioning them, but are very well covered in reliable sources in their home countries, especially movie actors and actresses. See Indian actors etc. So this argument is not very strong. GNG mentions national publications as notable, especially if these sources have pages themselves in Wikipedia, such as Vanguard (Nigeria),The Nation (Nigeria), and The Guardian (Nigeria), all in which Martina Ononiwu was significantly covered. I rather think the nomination for deletion is too hasty and I think it should have been an article placed for redrafting as I am already seeing more sources that are reliable. Royalrumblebee (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this [[9]] does not list her, nor this [[10]], so this at least appears to be false. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Having done thorough check of the references, I realized that some of the sources in the article are personal websites,here, here, link to google drive (which was used 5 times in the article) is a pdf document written by an individual this. Other reliable sources mentioned the award and being a strategist only. Aderiqueza (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So she's a business consultant in France? We take out the award (which seems to be a false statement), what's left... A consultant with no coverage in France and only in Nigeria. They seem to cover everyone and his or her brother in media there, so that's not terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that once you except WP:NEWSORGINDIA (because Nigeria has the same issue) type sources there is nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a non-notable subject that is well-written but relies on unverifiable information to establish notability. Since this and this did not list the subject on their website, it is definitely not an awardee. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is not really ready for inclusion on Wikipedia as the subject is not notable enough. Wår (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noventi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. The notability requirements for companies is much higher now. Article seems to be created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Zubretsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a health insurance executive, not adequately sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, health insurance CEOs are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on coverage that's substantively about them and their work, but the referencing here isn't really cutting it: the best sources are two short blurbs published on the same day announcing his initial hiring for the job, which aren't substantive enough to get him over GNG all by themselves, while the rest of the footnotes comprise a press release self-published by his company (which isn't an independent source), an industry trade newsletter that isn't a GNG-worthy publication, and three articles that aren't about him in any non-trivial sense, but just glancingly namecheck him in the process of being principally about the overall phenomenon of how much insurance executives are getting paid.
Further, the information about his annual financial compensation over several years is a bit of a BLP minefield, especially in the wake of last week's shooting -- the amount that a person gets paid is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, but that appears to be this article's primary concern.
Simply existing as an insurance CEO, regardless of how much money he is or isn't making, is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the principal subject of more GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work than this article is showing. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the mention in the article, "While at Aetna, Zubretsky increased telecommuting for employees as a way to save on office and real estate costs." Maybe so, but this was already the going trend in corporate America about the time he started doing that. — Maile (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I mean, this is well-sourced. A "Run of the mill CEO article" isn't exactly routine, there aren't thousands of health-care CEOs, he's one of a handful... A company of this size is akin to General Motors or Enron, so the CEO would be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well-sourced how, if the only footnotes that actually represent real media outlets writing about him are both short blurbs? Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's generally at least enough for a stub article. We have confirmation of employment at a large healthcare enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd be interested in hearing from a few more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothstack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Post-PROD undeletion; article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. All coverage based on a single incident. As disclosed, I am an employee of the company. TimJohn67 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Committee of Concerned Journalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD was 17 years ago with promises to work on the article. I'm not finding significant coverage and with this organization no longer existing unlikely to be any new sources generated. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biometric Consortium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable program. Per a WP:BEFORE], there is no WP:SIGCOV, only routine coverage of conference announcements. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dorsey Road Warehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable logistics warehouse for the National Security Agency. The NSA likely has hundreds of such warehouses to store equipment, most of which do not pass WP:GNG, like this one. Longhornsg (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete or if we have to, merge back to parent NSA article. This is really near the nadir of notability: "NSA has a nearby warehouse to hold their spare stuff." Big whoop-de-do. And no, don't merge to Hanover, as this is just one of dozens such facilities in an extensive industrial/business area. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Terry Blade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated on behalf of a non-autoconfirmed user claiming to be the article subject:

Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability BladeTerry (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
— Special:Diff/1263157720

I am the subject of this article, Terry Blade.
— Edit summary of Special:Diff/1263146142

I am the subject of this article: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Terry_Blade. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? BladeTerry (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
— Special:Diff/1263156892

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not the best quality article for sure, and some of the cited sources are better than others. But based on WP:BLP, Blade seems to meet the criteria of having multiple reliable independent sources. Him not wanting an article isn't a criteria for BLP. guninvalid (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I referenced the wrong part of BLP, my bad, but my argument still stands. Whether he likes it or not, this guy is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and should be treated as one. If there are specific allegations or specific sections of the article that are undercited, those can be removed. But blanket removing the article in whole is inexcusable. guninvalid (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch 06:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has a ton of problems, and Binksternet fixed many of them some time back with me trying to assist. The real question is simply "does he pass WP:GNG?" and I have to say yes, he does, although barely, as demonstrated by the sources, and the claim of winning the American Songwriting contest. If the subject of the article can be verified as the editor who wants it deleted, I would probably be ok deleting it because it isn't a slam dunk on notability, and we have a long history of respecting the subject's wishes with borderline notability cases. 14.1.92.185 (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (aka: Dennis Brown, trying to take a wikibreak logged out but reading my talk page....)[reply]
  • Keep. The article could be improved, but agree with the consensus that subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC No.1 and No. 9. Beyond what's cited in the article, this Earmilk article about the subject is one of the first listed on Google. Dug further and see the subject in a past issue of New Music Weekly, listed on page 33 under the "Country Up & Coming" chart, which is evidence he might also be notable per No. 11 of WP:NMUSIC. Rainydaywindows (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kentucky Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a small, single state, third-party in the United States which has as of this nomination only contested a single election. Fails WP:NORG. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the KYP had nothing to do with Jill Stein besides nominating her. They have bylaws and a notable member with a Wikipedia page (Geoff Young)
Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://thekentuckian.bearblog.dev/ is their website (Young is listed as Party Treasurer) Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically we need sources that are substantially about the party. It would also be good to finally determine if the party is "official" or not, and where we can confirm that. Lamona (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Kentucky Party is "a group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power," making it a political party. However, it does not have automatic ballot access; As a result, the party must place its candidates on the ballot via petition, as demonstrated in the 2024 presidential election, where they collected 5,000 signatures statewide.
The party has local coverage [15][16] and plans to nominate candidates statewide in 2026, 27, and 28 (per their website) Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Endangered Species" (magazine cover) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perhaps the worst WP:REFBOMB I've ever seen. Despite the large number of sources, many don't even even mention "Endangered Species", and none are significant coverage.

In the current version citations 1-5 source the background and do not mention the article at all.

6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 are the barest passing mentions of the article.

14 through 20 again are about electoral history but do not even mention the article.

21 is a brief mention where Grunwald says the article didn't hold up and 22 is likewise nothing more than the quote used here.

23-26 are again just passing mentions.

In sum, there's certainly acknowledgement that the magazine's provocative headline was memorably wrong, but there's no substantial analysis of the article or a single source with depth to it to pass GNG – I guess it make sense that the title has simply "(magazine cover)". There's certainly more to be said at Democratic Party (United States)#21st century/Republican Party (United States)#21st century or elsewhere that can reference this, but not a standalone article for this. Reywas92Talk 05:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch 05:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to a TBD target. The WP:RS citations 9, 10, 11, and 13 each provide 1-2 paragraphs of coverage of the magazine cover (not the article) as a subject in itself. While references 23, 24, 25, 26 provide only fleeting, or single-sentence, mentions which don't contribute to SIGCOV, the first four (9, 10, 11, 13) are -- by themselves -- enough to sustain the standard of WP:SIGCOV. The fact the article is unnecessarily long and over-referenced doesn't really impact the WP:N of the subject. It could probably use a good trim but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Chetsford (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    9 is a single sentence.11 and 13 are the same source and also a single sentence. 12 simply quotes a single sentence from the article: "As Time magazine reporter Michael Grunwald observed at the time, 'Republicans have the desperate aura of an endangered species...the electorate is getting less white, less rural, less Christian—in short, less demographically Republican.'" with no additional coverage.
    No depth whatsover in any of these. So I really fail to see how this is sigcov. Reywas92Talk 14:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The breadth of coverage of the directly related sources which -- per our standards -- do "not need to be the main topic of the source material", taken in combination with those sources that have mere fleeting mentions, collectively define WP:ARTN. But I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Best - 18:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't expect this magazine article to necessarily be the main topic of the sources, but I do expect more than a single sentence in any one of them. The parties' histories or 2008 United States presidential election#Analysis can reflect the expectations of the time that existed beyond this magazine cover, but the cover itself doesn't need an article. Reywas92Talk 22:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, I think the "single-sentence" mentions merely reinforce the longer, more focused references and the article may be unnecessarily long and over-referenced. Again, though, I'm happy to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reywas92's analysis of the sources identified by Chetsford is correct. As with the other sources that refer to the cover, these are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of the magazine cover, not WP:SIGCOV. This whole article is full of WP:SYNTH, assembling a narrative that somehow this WP:MILL magazine cover influenced U.S. politics. Take the sentence In 2010, the year after "Endangered Species" was published, the Democratic Party began one of its least successful periods in its modern history. The source for this statement doesn't mention the cover or article at all, so tying it to the claim about Democratic party success is SYNTH. The "Reactions" section is also basically a whole paragraph of SYNTH. Finally, it's unclear whether this page is about the cover or the article (those are distinct things), and the page appears to amass a range of trivial mentions of either the cover or the magazine to synthesize the impression of in-depth coverage that doesn't exist. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This isn't a notable magazine cover. It's never won any awards for photography (to be honest, it looks like it was created in Photoshop in under five minutes), without any sort of artistic planning or other notable artistic effort. Using articles from 2024 that briefly (if at all) mention a 15 year old magazine cover is not notable. Sources are as discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Using articles from 2024 " Just in point of clarification, the sources that substantively discuss it are from 2010 (2) and 2017 (2). That said, I'm not sure what policy argument is being invoked here to assert that sources from a specific year render an article non-notable. Chetsford (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more recent articles than articles from the period, and the new ones don't mention this article. Some version of SYNTH at play. Oaktree b (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Chetsford (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused where "substantively discuss it" comes from, can you please quote the part any source that's more than one sentence? Reywas92Talk 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are discussed above, please review there if you have further questions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that was my analysis of the sources, and none are longer, focused, or substantive. Reywas92Talk 18:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads as an interesting essay but it is SYNTH as Dclemens1971 states, and as Oaktree b points out, the cover is not itself notable. In fact, very little of the WP article here is even marginally about the cover; it is mostly about Obama's election and presidency. Lamona (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
American Chamber of Commerce in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The people in the 2016 discussion at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chamber_of_Commerce_in_Turkey who did not want the article deleted have not added or suggested any inline sources and I don't think the general sources listed are enough to show notability. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jms Brynt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Steven Svoboda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a lawyer and activist has been tagged with too much reliance on primary sources since 2016. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added what I can, but am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I do not think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirefreaks.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable company. The only reliable sources I could find that covered it were passing mentions to the website as a result of the Murder of Carly Ryan. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll be blunt, User:Knitsey, are you arguing for Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You're supposes to guess @Liz! Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:GNGKnitsey (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence James Ludovici (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the author of the first biography on Alexander Fleming, which received significant international attention at the time of its publication. I would have to disagree with your view. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more input from the community on the recent edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fitzmartin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my WP:BEFORE I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Much of the coverage that there was was related to the subject's role as musical director of the Keystone State Boychoir, and only passing mention at that. I couldn't find any critical reviews of the Concert Mass that is referred to in the article, although its premiere was at Carnegie Hall [17]. I therefore propose that the notability bar is not met, and that the content should be merged into the Keystone State Boychoir article (not that that itself is without problems!) with a Redirect from this article. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge to Keystone State Boychoir.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason-Shane Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I struggled to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources during my WP:BEFORE (there are a few interviews on soap opera related websites, but nothing of substance to my mind. The one significant role in One Life to Live does not meet the bar for WP:NACTOR, and so I submit that the subject is not notable. I proposed a Redirect to One Life to Live. The article is also not written from a terribly neutral point of view either, but that is somewhat by-the-by. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tinychat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles about companies must meet WP:NCORP requirements. This one clearly fails them.

1. [18] Puff piece by WP:TECHCRUNCH, an outlet infamous for its COI articles

2. [19] Very brief and clearly promotional article, even including calls to action with a link to the website. Fails WP:ORGIND.

3. [20] non-independent interview article, doesn't say anything of substance about Tinychat.

4. [21] reads like a routine announcement, not deep enough coverage to satisfy ORGDEPTH.

5. [22] Reproduction of another WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece.

6. [23] Routine announcement, doesn't say anything about the company in any depth (WP:ORGDEPTH). Also relies on TechCrunch.

Other sources I found were PR articles and top 10 lists. This article was also created by an editor with the same name as a co-founder of this company [24]. Badbluebus (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any good sources either. I found this article that alleges that two celebrity investors used the software to "flirt with underage girls", but the article states that these are merely "rumors". At best, this source is unreliable, and at worst, it's a violation of WP: BLP and should not be added to the article. I also found a book called "Introduction to Omegle" by Gilad James, PhD. I thought that this source would be reliable, but the author's LinkedIn profile indicates that their PhD was obtained from a "distance learning institution". This, regrettably, makes the book an unreliable source. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a selective Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uniswap Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources found for this software developer Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge things if necessary per WP:NOPAGE. With how closely related the two are, a separate article is not really suitable unless there is a truly compelling reason the two should be separate. I see no such reason. Alpha3031 (tc) 09:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - seems to meet GNG and NCORP per GeorgiaHuman. I'm not strongly opposed to a merge, since the other article has plenty of room. But strictly speaking, the company and protocol are distinct, and things like the company's finances might seem somewhat inappropriate for the article about the protocol. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PeerStream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. This company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [35] [36] [37], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Soviet–Afghan War. Besides the reasons suggested above, there's not enough content to warrant a standalone article. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 06:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This does not qualify under Wikipedia guidelines for a standalone article. It could be argued if the "raids" ever occurred in Soviet Afghan or it is just a mere hoax, quoting from the Foreign involvement section:MI6 directly remitted money into an account of Pakistani leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Qazi Hussain Ahmad who had close links with Hekmatyar & Massoud. MI6's aim was for Ahmad to spread radical and anti-Soviet Islamic literature in the Soviet republics in the hope of rebellions against their Communist governments. I do not find a single raid so far, rather there are just plannings and some covert money transfers to terrorist organisations it seems like a WP:HOAX. Do not merge it when there are only passing mentions of a few words regarding Pakistani raids which are dubious or say hoax event. Nxcrypto Message 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge: The article is quite notable but has not been given much attention.

The book what we won in America secret war by Bruce riedel highlights the notability and states that :-

"The cross-border operations were extraordinarily provocative—“bear baiting,” as the ISI later called them. The Russian archives show that on several occasions they successfully disrupted traffic on a critical rail line from Samarkand in Central Asia to the Termez border checkpoint, but they never sparked any dissidence against the Soviets among the Muslim populations of Soviet Uzbekistan or Tajikistan. Eventually the Russians decided that the attacks were too much to tolerate. In April 1987 the Soviet ambassador in Islamabad warned the Pakistani foreign minis ter that if they continued, the Soviet army and air force would retaliate inside Pakistan. By April 1987 General Akhtar had been promoted to a new assignment as chairman of Pakistan’s Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hamid Gul, his successor as director general of the ISI, ordered an end to cross border operations. The pot was boiling a bit too hot for Zia."

Further more in a book by Hein Günter Kiessling Page number 57-58 also mentions:

the mujahideen activities inside soviet union which penetrated 25 km beyond the Amu river which was international border. For example in 1986 a attack on hydro-electric power plants were carried out by mujahideen using Chinese and egyption supplied rocket launchers. These activities caused anger amongst the Russian high command and warning by the soviet ambassador was given and eventually Pakistani high command halted further attacks/Operations given the consequences.

Book link :- https://www.google.com.pk/books/edition/Faith_Unity_Discipline/pIQjDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=isi+book&printsec=frontcover

I'm sure more research on this topic will help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahim231 (talkcontribs)

You should thoroughly go through WP:MILNG, as there is little to no information available about the raids, such as details on how they unfolded, their results, or their impact. It appears to be a passing mention of an insignificant event that does not warrant an article, let alone using an infobox template for it. Garuda Talk! 20:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I struggle to understand this nomination's logic for delete. The Soviet-Afghan war article is over-WP:SIZE-ed and in dire need of WP:OKFORKing; merging is not a solution. Numerous sources discuss the interventions in the Soviet Union. What sources speak of the raids as "measly"? How does the article glorify the raids or push a particular POV? And *even if* it was possible to answer these questions in the positive, that would be a content issue, not one of notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should go through the Raid section and sources have only passing mentions of such militant raids, only spun around the Soviet Afghan War. There's not enough significant coverage to have its own standalone article. Garuda Talk! 14:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a content discussion, it is a notability discussion. WP:NEXIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is WP:BUTITEXISTS argument. In order to meet WP:GNG, an article must be sourced by reliable sources with substantial coverage, here it's not the same case. Notability could be established through few lines of passing mentions but that doesn't validate to have a standalone article. Garuda Talk! 01:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

[edit]

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