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

$25,000 High Roller H.O.R.S.E.

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

I have been unable to find significant coverage of this poker event in reliable sources, other than Poker News, which counts as a single source for notability purposes. This article should be redirected to World Series of Poker. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, United States of America, and Nevada. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation accidents in Japan involving U.S. military and government aircraft post-World War II

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

WP:NLIST Laun chba ller 13:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Aviation, Japan, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:SAL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:SAL. 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. Aviation accidents in Japan involving U.S. military and government aircraft have been discussed as a group eg. [1], [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bastard Fairies

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

This band doesn't appear to be notable. There's an AllMusic biography and an AllMusic review of their only album. Most of the sources used in the article don't even mention the band, and PlugInMusic doesn't seem to be a reliable source. toweli (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote "keep" for the band name alone, but alas it's definitely a Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC with no notable discography, awards or label work. And for being about a rock band, there's nothing about their music in the article, instead focusing on a documentary film and some meaningless YouTube video, not to mention being full of useless fluff and terrible sourcing. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Quincy Adams (Bingham)

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

Notability not established with significant sources. Prod removal claimed "artworks are usually accepted with one good source" – besides this being completely false, the single citation has only a single sentence on it and is not a good source toward GNG at all. The only sources I can find are routine data generic to any painting and no substantive coverage about the piece. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United States of America. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to many sources covering the painting:
- Portraits of the presidents: the National Portrait Gallery pp. 14-15 (p. 34): "The Missouri-born artist George Caleb Bingham painted the original version of this portrait in the spring of 1844 in his temporary hut-like studio situated at the bottom of Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Bingham would later gain much acclaim for his depictions of life on the transMississippi frontier. At the moment, however, he was an unproven quantity, and Adams’s willingness to sit for him stemmed largely from the fact that Bingham was sharing his studio with painter John Cranch, who was an Adams kinsman."
- The Life Portraits of John Quincy Adams (p. 13)
- Portraits of John Quincy Adams and his wife (pp. 231-235): "The third example catalogued by Bloch (Fig. 100) is considerably different from the other two but undoubtedly derived from one of them. Adams is shown, turned slightly to his right and looking to the viewer's left." (And so on)
- George Caleb Bingham: Missouri's famed painter and forgotten politician (p. 130) has a paragraph on "Portrait of John Quincy Adams (1844-1850)"
- Bingham's Portrait of Adams Owned by Rollins (Columbia Missourian 1929-09-28).
- Suggests Need of Preserving The Works of Missouri's Great, But Almost Forgotten, Painter The Kansas City Star, 1932-11-13.
- A Pioneer Preacher. St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 1910-12-11: "Of these the one of John Quincy Adams, president of the United States, is probably the most famous. It was painted on a slab of walnut wood."
the article should be expanded (I'm not an expert on painting but I may make a go at extending it sometime... looks like it's been expanded with different sources than I found). Skynxnex (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources used in the article come from multiple books and two different news organiations. In conjunction with others mentioned by Skynxnex, this article has enough coverage to meet notability. Demt1298 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College Lacrosse Records

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

Article has been previously speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A10 as a duplicate article of NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records. The article re-created again by the same creator in the exact same state it was in prior to deletion (including apparently the CSD#A10 tag, which has been in the article since the very first edit). The creator then contested the CSD that they themselves nominated the article for.

At first glance the content of the article appears to be all duplicated, but looking closely there are some very slight differences in the content of the tables. It seems that this list is supposed to be a more general list of all college lacrosse records, while the existing NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records is only for records that occurred under the NCAA - but obviously there is significant overlap.

If the additions do indeed turn out to be notable per WP:NLIST, then the question should be whether we need an article that is almost a duplicate, or if the scope of the existing NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records should be expanded to allow inclusion of the new information. RachelTensions (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the article title currently does not follow WP:AT conventions and the whole lead paragraph is written in an unencyclopedic manner.RachelTensions (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Zerzan

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

Heavily promotional resume-like article with no established and WP:SUSTAINED notability with WP:RSes Amigao (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oronike Odeleye

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

She is only discussed by reliable, independent sources in the context of the Mute R. Kelly movement, which she founded. Even the awards she won are all in relation to this movement. The only source I could find that was not related to the R Kelly stuff was this puff piece, which was published at the same time that she had gotten a PR company to publish this other puff piece that looks the same. In fact, most sources that talk about her art career are either not independent or look like very routine annoucements. We would do better by leaving this as a redirect to Mute R. Kelly. Badbluebus (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Women, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Badbluebus (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Passes GNG I don't believe the nominator checked all sources. I have found a lot of coverage about them using Google and other search engines Monophile 💬 10:57, 01 October2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Zimidar, see investigation)

Can you show those sources? I'm also seeing that you have been indef blocked. Badbluebus (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that she passes GNG. Here's another article that isn't currently cited by the page. NHCLS (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interview, it's not independent from the subject, most of it is Odeleye talking about herself. Badbluebus (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House/Wife

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

Not meeting notability criteria WP:NFF. - The9Man ^Talk 09:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danis_Goulet#Career: with the sources (all or some) to indicate it was a project for Netflix, who was the writer and other details (presence of Alice Braga) (and plot line, if judged necessary). A redirect allow to preserve history and is standard in such cases (sources+notable diredtor+cast+etc) even if the project crashed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pantherism

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

Not having references or not notable enough to have a separate article. Probable Redirect to New Afrikan Black Panther Party#Ideology - The9Man ^Talk 08:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Afrikan Black Panther Party#Ideology. Yue🌙 01:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Giansiracusa

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

Subject fails WP:NACADEMIC and references could not prove WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Just as Ldm1954 stated on the talk page, this is indeed WP:TOOSOON. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Utterly unremarkable minor academic, fails NPROF and the GNG going away. Ravenswing 06:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record not strong enough to carry the article in the absence of anything else that contributes to notability. I didn't find any reviews of his one book, and even if I did one book isn't generally enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. His citation record is not as yet strong enough to qualify. He is doing some interesting things with opinion pieces etc, and these are beyond routine. However, I don't see enough as yet for notability. I think it is too soon, but he is on an interesting path and may well qualify in 2-3 years. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gumshoe2 (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasamike

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG; random program manager among a multitude who had similar positions at NASA flight centers. Yes, was mentioned in a random NSF newsletter page, but that doesn't make one notable. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed TheHalalanator (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no enough secondary, reliable and independent sources to establish the subject's notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Spaceflight. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravieshwar Singh

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. It's just the blatant non adherence to the reviewer's comment/decline reason by the page creator/submitter. If we are considering the sources, they are mostly WP:SELFPUB. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Fashion, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Law, India, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, self-published sourcing, and editor has not taken into account advice. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - editor corrected TV Guide link, author published through reputable sources (not blogs), many citations to his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B837:8C03:E011:E929:8629:EFF (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. If it is kept then "Rgs21" should clarify if they have any link to Ravi Guru Singh, the nickname of the article subject. Ttwaring (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - substantively this page has more citations and support than many other notability pages. Rgs21 may be on vacation or unavailable and the page should not hinge on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.114.12 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost entirely self-published sources. A lawyer or writer is famous for writing; they are not notable for that. One can make yourself famous; to become notable requires other people writing about you. See WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I reviewed, the people writing about the subject include Marc Bain at the Business of Fashion (extensively), Divya Bhandari at the Hindu (extensively -- on the digital fashion and the future for India) -- articles are behind paywalls. To a lesser extent, the subject is written about and cited in other law.com articles on decentralized autonomous organizations, by the author Robert Schwinger, a prominent partner at Norton Rose Fulbright, an elite law firm. The Business of Fashion and the Hindu, are credible, reputable and independent sources. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.105.72 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rutledge

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

Couldn't find any sources, just some images of his work. This unreliable blog states, "When compared to his widely recognized contemporaries, Richard Rutledge remains relatively obscure today. Little is known about the slightly enigmatic photographer". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: but with regret and reluctance. Rutledge seems to have been a prolific photographer[her whose work was often published in Vogue. However it has proved impossible to find online references. Obviousy his date of death militates against the online world, yet archived copies are being digitised all the time. If verifiably notable later n it will not be hard to write a substantially different article from this rather sparse stub. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Photography. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hall (musician)

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

Fails WP:NBIO despite being known for his work as the bass guitarist, backing and lead vocalist for the rock band REO Speedwagon. GTrang (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and Illinois. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. I’m astounded that nobody has ever written a secondary source on a leader of such a notable band. The usual outcome is to redirect rather than delete. Bearian (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC) P.S. I found this. Bearian (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Grubb

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

After three declined by three reviewers, the page creator continued resubmitting without properly reviewing the decline reason. Aside that, the sources aren't reliable, and this individual doesn't meet WP:NATH. More opinions are usually expressed in AFDs. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a soccer coach with the same name, not sure if it's him or not. Regardless, there is no sourcing for this crossfit athlete, with only database listings now used for sourcing. I can't find anything about him. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen-Craig Aristei

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nom as AfD1 closer since, while not a G4, it does not seem the issues raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen-Craig Aristei have been addressed sufficiently. Should the consensus remain draftify recommend move protection. Star Mississippi 22:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Entertainment. Star Mississippi 22:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to all who participated: @SafariScribe @TarnishedPath @Spiderone @Timtrent @Rkg5514 @Bearian @Andy Dingley Star Mississippi 22:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think other editors were accommodating because it was the Creator's first article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys -- added section regarding SCA's management of Survivor, from a primary source text (Jim Peterik's memoir). Being GM of WB Music, discovering a multi-platinum act, additional management of acts across the late-70s and 80s I think establish his notability. I've cited contemporaneous news stories (Billboard, Cash Box). He's not David Geffen, but so few of us are... Rkg5514 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have added information and citation regarding SCA's role in placing a number one hit single with David Cassidy in '73. Trying to alleviate concerns SCA was not associated with any substantial hits... Rkg5514 (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. What is your connection with Aristei? Star Mississippi 01:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to bludgeon, just wanted to keep this space apprised on changes. Relationship is, served as copy editor on a manuscript in which he was featured. Rkg5514 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move protect. I have been always fine with protecting articles, especially move protection. My record has been absolutely clear for 17 years. Thank you for the ping. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The edtior who moved this back to mainspace had their chance to demonstrate notability prior to moving it back to mainspace and they've failed.Draftify and Move Protect and guidance provided to the editor that they must utilise AFC on this subject. Only one source has anything more than passing mentions and that's a blog (hosted by WordPress). The rest of the references only mention the subject once or not at all. There's only one article I can't access which is reference 6. I was unable to find anything else through doing searches which demonstrates notability. TarnishedPath^talk 02:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and Move Protect: Nothing to verify notability has changed. As a key tenet of Wikipedia WP:V must be demonstrated. The creating editor's ambition in returning this to mainspace exceeds Aristel's claim to notability. While AFC is not compulsory I believe they should be given firm guidance to await a review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't much like this article. It's mostly a big list of notable bands with no obvious reason to connect them to the article subject. However I do think that basic BLPN is being met, so I'd keep it.

What I don't like are all the things that are mentioned, but not explained - like the Survivor litigation. That's no use in an encyclopedia. I don't even know what a 'song plugger' does? It seems to be someone who plugs songs (i.e. written sheet music) to generate cover versions by popular artists. But IMHE (in the UK), the term is more commonly someone who plugs recorded songs to generate airplay and sales. An article, even a short one like this, is far from complete until such loose ends are tied off. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Good Neighbor Day

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

Orphan article with no meaningful content and three contradictory facts. Nick Levine (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It’s an orphan article, and a stub at that, but the holiday is real, a quick google throws up literally hundreds of current references to it in various local newspapers talking about local events celebrating it this year, and the three contradictory facts aren’t contradictory - all three have sources proving they happened, as simply clicking on the source links shows immediately. It was invented, THEN Carter make a proclamation, THEN the senate passed a resolution, three different steps, taken over time, to promote the holiday. Like, sure, someone should absolutely edit the article to make it better, and I would have thought that would be the first step rather than listing it for deletion, policy certainly suggests it should be, but this is a no-brainer for keeping with THAT many sources showing sustained news coverage over literally decades, including 6 articles filed today alone. Absurdum4242 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT, which requires WP:DEPTH in sourcing. There are literally thousands of news stories about this holiday, but they're all brief and light human-interest news items that do not go into any depth on the subject. All we're left with are the presidential proclamations and congressional resolution, which are (a) WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs and (b) the kind of thing that presidents and Congress issue in vast volumes every business day. We do not have articles on every pretend holiday or observance month Congress has recognized with a courtesy resolution, because there would be thousands if not tens of thousands of them, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Bottom line: No WP:SIGCOV, no WP:DEPTH, no WP:GNG, no WP:NEVENT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 African Entertainment Awards USA

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

Sensational and routine coverages. Fails the inclusion criteria for events. Best, Reading Beans 00:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am bundling these two here per my nomination statement.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Nigeria, and United States of America. Reading Beans 00:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagon and Trencher

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions and brief descriptions (for example, on ProQuest). toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, History, Organizations, and United States of America. toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found some pieces that document the activity of the organization. Take a look [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Piscili (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those don't provide significant coverage and/or aren't reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flash Element TD

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

New Federalism

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

This article seems to be almost entirely WP:OR about a term so rarely used that it appears to have meant something different every time it was used, with no discernible concept behind it. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 17:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: New Federalism is not a rarely used term, appearing in American history and government textbooks (e.g. "We The People" from McGraw Hill). Should the page be rewritten? Maybe. Deleted? No. Pie GGuy (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then could you please rewrite the article, citing this textbook and other reliable sources if you think the page is worth something? Because otherwise there is no point in keeping it in its current (miserable) shape really. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 10:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Pie GGuy. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary This is a very poor and rambling essay filled with unfocused detours and things that ended up having absolutely no force (45's executive order is the equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in presidential form and had no true force of law). More appropriate as a dic-def than an article. Nate • (chatter) 16:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT this page contains too many problems to be salvaged, specifically WP:OR and terrible referencing. It's not possible to establish how much of what is currently on the page is the personal opinion of a main editor and how much can be justified from the sources. Let's just delete and hope someone else can have a better stab at writing a good quality page. JMWt (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A quick Google Scholar shows the term consistently being used in the same way as described in the article [11][12][13][14][15], i.e. a political philosophy of transferral of power back to the states associated with Nixon and Reagan. Shapeyness (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shapeyness. Sourcing cited above is sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This article's issues alone do not justify its deletion; the concept seems to have reliable coverage. The issues can be tagged or dealt with by editors.Yue 🌙 21:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu University of America

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further, NCORP has a higher standard for sources to contribute toward notability. This is due to the levels of (undisclosed; see WP:TOI) paid-coverage frequently engaged in by business entities. So, we look for sources that do not mechanically reproduce what the organization says and show some critical engagement. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I get 290 hits on Newspapers.com, including the fairly substantial Mark I. Pinsky, "School of Thought: Hindu University begins journey in teaching... with a degree of karma", The Hilton Head Island Packet (July 3, 2004), p. 1-C, 3-C, and Amy Limbert, "Kuldip Gupta, 66, helped found, lead Hindu University of America", The Orlando Sentinel (February 9, 2007), p. B6. Also, "Hinduism: Studying the ancients", The Atlanta Constitution (September 28, 1996), p. G4; "Beavercreek: Online Hindu classes", Dayton Daily News (January 9, 2021), p. B3. BD2412 T 01:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trouble Sleeping (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a film of unclear release status, not adequately sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFILM.
This has gone through multiple cycles of "is it released or not?" in the past decade; it was claimed as "upcoming" when the article was created in 2015, then was edited in 2017 to claim that it had been released in 2015, and then got edited again in 2020 to indicate that it was still unreleased -- meanwhile, IMDb claims it was released in 2018, which has proven entirely unverifiable, while this piece in Screen Anarchy claims it was "long-hibernating" when it was "finally released" in 2022, but even that piece is just a short blurb wrapping a YouTube promo clip, not substantive or GNG-building coverage about the film.
As always, however, films are not all "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on coverage about them -- but three of the five footnotes here are unreliable junk that isn't helping to build GNG at all, the two acceptable sources (Dread Central and The Wrap) both have to be discounted if the film didn't come out in 2015 as they claimed it was supposed to, and that Screen Anarchy blurb is the only new thing that's been published in any GNG-worthy reliable source since 2015 at all, which means even the best sources here aren't good enough if they're all either short blurbs or inaccurate problems.
Especially given that there are such unresolved questions about when this was ever actually released in the first place, there's just nothing here of enough enduring significance to exempt it from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with Robert Adetuyi#Career: where it is simply mentioned, and merge content about genre (+simplified plot), cast, date, etc; and sources. Not opposed to~~ Keep, given the existing coverage (and the film seems to have been released; review.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC) and in light of the reviews identified by Donaldd23, at least. (The 3 reviews show the film was released in 2022 and is therefore considered a 2022 film). Thanks-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to the review listed above my Mushy Yank, there are these reviews [16] and [17] . And the question of it being released or not is answered by the fact it is streaming on Tubi [18] DonaldD23 talk to me 13:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "Heyuguys" nor "This Is Film" are reliable sources of GNG-building film reviews at all — film reviews have to come from reputable and established publications to build a film's notability, not just any random WordPress blogger that you can find on the internet. And while AIPT is better, it isn't enough to vault a film over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy review that can be found. And I didn't question that the film has been released, but we've got three conflicting claims about when it was released with no fully satisfactory resolution to the matter of whether it belongs in Category:2015 films, Category:2018 films or Category:2022 films — of which it must be in one of those three, with absolutely no leeway for any "then just don't categorize it for year of release at all" opt-outs, so we can't just handwave that away as a non-issue. "Has been released" is not an instant notability freebie at WP:NFILM in and of itself — even a film that has been released still has to pass GNG on proper reliable source coverage about it, and can't park its notability on blogs or primary sources just because it's available for streaming somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tall Tales of Jim Bridger

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

I did a WP:BEFORE and found only one source of info, which is listed in the article, [19], and also an interview. The other sources in the article are either WP:PRIMARY, WP:ROUTINE press releases, an Instagram post, or IMDb. Therefore, it does not pass WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Urbina, Rafael (2024-01-11). "How to Watch The Tall Tales of Jim Bridger: Stream Series Premiere Live, TV Channel". Sports Illustrated. Archived from the original on 2024-02-05. Retrieved 2024-09-24.
  The article provides 239 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Tall Tales of Jim Bridger is set to make its series premiere on Thursday night on INSP, with the series showing tales from the Western frontier which were inspired by the adventures of the famed mountain man Jim Bridger. As Bridger guides a new wave of Americans heading west, he must help them survive the same life-and-death situations that made him a legend. The series started with the debut episode titled "The Prizefighter," and it tells the story of when Bridger's second-in-command begins enforcing camp discipline with brutal violence."
2. Leydon, Joe (2024-01-11). "C&I Q&A: Rib Hillis of The Tall Tales of Jim Bridger". Cowboys & Indians. Archived from the original on 2024-09-24. Retrieved 2024-09-24.
  The article provides 142 words of non-interview coverage about the subject. The article notes: "It’s a long way from the fashion capitals of Europe to the frontiers of Montana, but Rib Hillis has made the transition smoothly and authoritatively to play the title role in The Tall Tales of Jim Bridger, the new series premiering Thursday on INSP. ... With Tall Tales of Jim Bridger, the multitalented New York native gets his big chance to display his versatility by persuasively portraying the legendary 19th-century mountain man and frontiersman who explored the entire distant West and survived countless hair-raising adventures, and became an invaluable guide for settlers in search of new homes and lives for themselves. Of course, as the title indicates, the real Jim Bridger was known to, shall we say, exaggerate his resume. The series acknowledges his status as a not-always-reliable narrator, but shrewdly invokes dramatic license now and then to amp the entertainment value."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Tall Tales of Jim Bridger to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I disagree with this assessment, mainly that they are partial coverage and not significant. The first source is primarily a press release, while the second lacks the in-depth coverage. But we both find a different interpretation of that and I can accept that. Conyo14 (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: As a publisher, post-2019 Sports Illustrated (SI) is questionable for various reasons. I learned most of this from a recent discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/References (which you may find helpful), and a trip down the RSN archives is also very illuminating. If you can prove that the author of that piece is a real human with respected credentials and reputation in this topic area, then that might be sufficient for establishing reliability akin to how WP:EXPERTSPS works. Left guide (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I didn't know that Sports Illustrated had published AI-generated articles. I am striking out this source as it was likely AI-generated as I cannot confirm that Rafael Urbina is a real person. The article is also no longer on the Sports Illustrated website. This CNN article says, "Sports Illustrated on Monday said it had deleted several articles from its website after a report found the once-celebrated legacy magazine had published the pieces under fake author names and profile images generated by artificial intelligence." With only one source remaining, the television series does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The sources presented by Cunard are convincing and I agree with Cunard's assessment. Also, a redirect being warranted, I am opposed to deletion of this article. Thanks, Cunard.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mushy Yank (talk · contribs). I've changed my recommendation after finding that one of the sources was likely AI-generated. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Is that so? All right, I am a very artificial intelligence myself so this !vote will automatically strike itself out :D. Thanks for the ping. Yours, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over whether found sources are sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I'm not entirely convinced the sources really represent significant independent coverage when the Sports Illustrated reads like an advertisement and the Cowboys & Indians piece is an interview with the actor. I do not think that a preamble introductory explanation of the subject really makes it independent of the interview, when the interview is the headline. That said, if the sources are deemed inadequate to keep the article, it could probably reduced to a section in Jim Bridger until/if more reliable sources are located--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closer, I am also in favor of an WP:ATD as a redirect/merge. Conyo14 (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conyo14, do you agree with the proposed target article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Conyo14 (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jim Bridger#Media portrayals (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory Culture Foundation

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

While there's some coverage in connection with their powering of AO3, it's not ORG level and I don't see where it merits mention at Archive of Our Own since the one source isn't great. Opted against PROD due to its tenure, but this is a borderline A7 with no sourcing found to improve it. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Websites, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Found lots of coverage via ProQuest (New Scientist, The Village Voice, New York Times, etc.). Started adding to the article which was in poor shape, was definitely worth fixing, and could still use further improvement. @Star Mississippi: Let me know if that's enough for now but anyway ProQuest is the place to look. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln cent mintage figures

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

No evidence of any notability for this WP:NOTSTATS list, fails WP:LISTN. Fram (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Merge with United States cent mintage figures as a WP:ATD. If that page is also non-notable it should be added to the deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Do you wish to amend your !vote, now that the target has been added to the nomination? Otherwise, this AfD could be procedurally closed with no action due to the improper mid-process scope expansion. Owen× ☎ 12:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"improper mid-process" as in after just 5 hours in a 1-week process, and after the only two responders explicitly asked to include it? Fram (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where Zxcvbnm agreed to this inclusion. Once he does, there's no problem. Until then, yes, this is an improper mid-process scope expansion, even if it was one minute after he !voted here. You've been an admin, you know how this works. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If that page is also non-notable it should be added to the deletion." You are an admin, you should know how to read. Or to keep such personal remarks which add nothing to the discussion out of it, as they are obviously not helpful. Fram (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for sparking the confusion/argument, but I agree with Fram's addition of the parent list. Both fail WP:NOTSTATS, as said in the nomination. Every single "mintage figure" list is clearly just a database and I see no evidence presented that they are independently notable, I was leaving it open for someone to potentially present that evidence. I'm not sure I'd agree it's "improper" since nobody else actually registered their opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Glad we cleared this up. Owen× ☎ 14:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator, it should be noted that I split this article off from United States cent mintage figures per WP:SIZESPLIT. I have no preference for deleting or keeping the article, so long as the same is done to United States cent mintage figures. However, I am opposed to merging it back into the parent article. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added United States cent mintage figures to the nomination! Fram (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American regions by life expectancy

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

Prod contested. List is original research and synthesis - extracted data in form not present in secondary, reliable sources. Fails WP:NLIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Canada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, United States of America, and North America. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated my point of view at the article's talk page. Though the data in the source database were filtered and simple calculations were made, these transformations are obvious and easily verified. All data in the Wikipedia's page are in the source database or can be easily obtained by an obvious mathematical operation.

It's like retelling a text in your own words. When a Wikipedia editor retells a text, he does not retell the whole text but only a part of it. The same way, a Wikipedia editor has not obligation to use necessarily all records in an original dataset - only a part of it can be used. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any need for this type of list . Agletarang (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete by according to my arguments on the article's talk page. Рулин (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, User:Lady3mlnm and User:Рулин, I assume you are arguing for Keep here? How would you respond to the nomination statement? Please put your arguments here rather than on the article talk page so the discussion is in one place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST. What an odd page. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the request of Liz, this is summary of what I've written above and at the article's talk page.

This is a stand-alone list based on an authoritative reliable secondary source (that we can assume itself based on set of independent reliable sources), which has significant coverage and independent of the subject. Source of information is given and data can be verified. Filtering of records based on obvious criteria, routine calculations, and sorting based on indicated logical principle can't be considered as original research. Users are free to apply their own sorting by the table tool. There is also no contradiction with WP:NOT. So though the article is not great, I don't see enough reasons for deletion.

The list contains evaluation of life expectancy in regions of many countries that doesn't have their separate pages about this topic. The principle of region comparison is not an original research by itself, but presentation of data, within the framework of the encyclopedia tools, that allows people to do their own independent conclusion. So I consider the article as valuable page of Wikipedia. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a confusion here between WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY sources. The material that the article is based upon is not a secondary source, it is a database (Global Data Lab). That database offers no: analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (WP:SECONDARY). Notability of all articles is dependent on the existence of secondary sourcing. The author of the article has extracted information from the database to create the article, hence original research. There is no indication that the database in and of itself is notable. There is no secondary sourcing which compares the subnational administrative units of North America by life expectancy. I did request for secondary sources to be added which would satisfy WP:NLIST, but none were identified. I did find a source which compares subnational units of the USA and Canada (Demography: Analysis and Synthesis, Four Volume Set: A Treatise in Population p.210), but could find nothing else. FWIW, previous consensus has been to delete these list types of subnational unit articles in the absence of specific sourcing satisfying NLIST: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first-level administrative divisions by country. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:57, 30 September 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, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a very useful (if not shocking) list. This seems to be well-sourced on the referenced Wikipedia pages. I'm not seeing what the issue is. Nfitz (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Hashem

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

BLP of the founder of a religious sect. The sect itself appears to be notable but it does not seem that the leader himself is. I think a redirect to Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light would probably be best. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Egypt, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google searches easily turn up hundreds of high-profile mentions. There are articles from Amnesty International, the UN, and various governments, and dozens of major newspapers that all mention him. Easily meets WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV criteria. For sects with that many media mentions, their founders and leaders would usually also be notable enough. There is also plenty of information about Hashem that would fit well into a standalone article. DjembeDrums (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok which three of these do you think provide the best in-depth coverage? Mccapra (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Article only cited one source almost which shows they still need to meet WP:GNG to stand alone Tesleemah (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If merge, merge where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Emer

AfDs for this article:

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

1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page

2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject

3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)

4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject

All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet. WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 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 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [20], [21], [22]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [23], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, California, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 17 September 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 14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Economic Alliance

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

This group received some coverage when it first launched in 2018, but that's mainly a function of having a good publicist. Since 2018, they've received very little in-depth coverage. There's some in-depth coverage of its leadership, but most articles I could find only mention BEA in passing. An editor removed my PROD on this article because they found a "recent NYT article that refers to organization's recent activity," which they said "addresses the issue" I had. There's only one problem: the NYT article in question is about Wes Moore, and there is exactly 1 sentence about BEA. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:N test of WP:SUSTAINED with a few stories upon launch and no WP:SIGCOV since. Subsequent coverage is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. It should go without saying that this organization cannot inherit notability from its members. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

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