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

Lewis Park, Virginia

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

GNIS stub for insignificant subdivision in Fairfax County, VA. WP:BEFORE yields unrelated results and links to sites like Zillow and Nextdoor. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Virginia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Le Fave

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

Subject is not notable; fails WP:GNG. I did a WP:BEFORE search, as well as searched through the Internet Archive book search and ProQuest, and found nothing but trivial mentions of her name, and her own works. The only thing I've found that could be considered "significant" coverage is the short bio page from Image (journal) that is already in the External links section [1] (And the same page live on the web [2]) However, according to that page, she published her poems in that publication, making that source not independent of the subject. GranCavallo (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. GranCavallo (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find absolutely nothing aside from the links you've put, and Amazon. Procyon117 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trump Economic Miracle

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

Book's been out for a month, no independent reviews or coverage beyond summarizing what the book says. I would suggest redirection to the author but there are two, so that's out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is draftify not an option? There may be opportunities to improve this article in the future if independent reviews are forthcoming. Reconrabbit 02:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, with books like this if it hasn't gotten reviews by now I would be surprised if it did, so at that point it just just seems like a backdoor deletion. But sure if that's the route people want to go. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - not separately notable or not detailed enough. There might be another article suitable to merge it in to though.
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have said "draftify", but I can see a back and forth on perspectives of this book. It's been talked about by news talking heads, as far back as September. In fact, the closer to the election, the more we heard about how Trump's pro-growth policies "fueled unprecedented growth and prosperity". The news media viewed this book according to however they already viewed Trump. That aspect is unlikely to change. But I'm not sure Wikipedia needs an article on it. — Maile (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. No objection to someone working on this in draft space provided it go through draft review successfully before being moved back to main space. Reviews in business journals (by that I mean academic ones we can use not trade journals) might still happen, as those kind of reviews often appear later. It may end up dying in draft space if refs can’t be located and that is ok.4meter4 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Economics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 21 November 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 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary M. Hymes

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

The sources Fail General Notability Guide and specific Notability Guidelines for WP:ANYBIO Ibjaja055 (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coverage from current sources does not seem signficant. One nomination for Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Stunt Coordination does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO. A cursory Google search turned up an LA Times article involving Hymes [3], but the coverage of Hymes himself is not significant. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 05:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diahnne Abbott

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

Non-notable actress. Mainly famous for being the first wife of Robert De Niro, but notability is not inherited. Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. She has an encyclopedia entry in Encyclopedia of African American Actresses in Film and Television, see page 4, and there are many other sources in this Internet Archive search; including another biographical entry in Halliwell's who's who in the movies which is a film encyclopedia. Under WP:5P1 we cover the same topics found in specialized encyclopedias, and since two published specialized encyclopedia cover this person we should too. Additionally, she had more significant roles in The King of Comedy and Love Streams, and she has a featured on screen song number in the film New York, New York, performing "Honeysuckle Rose (song)" (also appearing on the soundtrack album). She arguably passes WP:NACTRESS for multiple notable roles.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes WP:SIGCOV. I have noting more to add to above comment. Gharouni^Talk 02:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable actress. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election

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

Reasoning is very similar to my reasoning over on another AfD. Simply put the article is flawed inherently as POV, starting with the very title. It's based on accusations from the opposing parties against the Republicans. As such is gives undue weight to one side's POV. It is therefore, flawed and impossible to present as NPOV. I move the article be deleted, and where appropriate, the contents be merged with other articles. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 20:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 20:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it could be stated the the existence of the article is a logical fallacy, as the election has been since won by the Republican Party, at the presidential, congressional, and the gubernatorial level (in terms of gubernatorial seats). It would be inherently contradictory that the Republican Party would try to disrupt an election that they would end up winning, especially considering the party’s change in messaging earlier this year regarding voter registration efforts. I second the OPs motion, and the article should be a section within the main election article. Cavvy18 (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well-referenced and impartial. In fact, the minority view here is that of the Republican Party; giving it equal weight to the point of view of the Democrats would violate WP:FALSEBALANCE.

JPerez90 (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to know the reasoning as to why someone wants this article deleted. As long as it is factual and has good references it should remain, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabdriver000 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- same as my last nom vote •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No suggestion that the "accusations" are inaccurate – these are all extensively sourced, and your not liking it is not a basis for deletion. It's quite well documented that Republicans laid the groundwork to challenge or undermine the reliability of the election had they lost, and that they didn't need to do so does not negate that. It certainly needs trimming and better use of sections though, some are unreadably long and detailed. Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, the minority views can always submit their own article providing they can provide proof for their viewpoints. 73.166.121.219 (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election

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

The very premise of this article is POV. The title, the idea. It is based on a Democratic talking point that is simply an accusation. As an encyclopedia, our job is to make encyclopedic articles that are factual, and without bias. While one side claims that the legislation passed by Republicans is to “restrict voting” and includes the negative connotation that goes with that wording, I’m sure the Republicans would argue that their actions are only to ensure votes comes from only those that are supposed to vote, without outside interference. My point being, as stated, that the very premise of this article, and even its title, is based on accusations from the Democrat party against the Republicans, and is therefore inherently flawed as a POV, and therefore they have no place as articles on Wikipedia as it gives undue weight to one side. Policies violated with this article existing are including, but not limited to WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:POVNAMING, WP:IMPARTIAL, and more. I therefore move this article be deleted, and it’s contents, where appropriate, be moved to other articles. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 20:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 20:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of voter suppression by the Republican Party is much more than "simply an accusation". The amount of references shown here alone is a pretty clear indicator of a broad trend, which is a widely-studied phenomena that has been covered ad nauseam in news, books, and journal articles. To dismiss this overwhelming evidence as "accusations from the Democrat party" seems like POV to me. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any discussion on the talk page since I was there about 2 years ago. DN (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Anderson, Carol (2018). One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression Is Destroying Our Democracy. Bloomsbury Publishing.
- Bentele, Keith G.; O'Brien, Erin E. (2013). "Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies". Perspectives on Politics. 11 (4): 1088–1116 – via JSTOR.
- Hajnal, Zoltan; Lajevardi, Nazita; Nielson, Lindsay (2017). "Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes". The Journal of Politics. 79 (2): 363–379 – via JSTOR.
- Murty, Komanduri S.; Holyfield-Moss, Bridget (2017). "Racial Microaggressions Related to Voter ID Laws in the United States". Race, Gender & Class. 24 (1–2): 120–132 – via JSTOR.
- Jones, Adrienne; Polsky, Andrew J. (2021). "How to Win a "Long Game": The Voting Rights Act, the Republican Party, and the Politics of Counter-Enforcement". Political Science Quarterly. 136 (2): 215–248. doi:10.1002/polq.13166.
- Shah, Paru; Smith, Robert S. (2013). "Legacies of Segregation and Disenfranchisement: The Road from Plessy to Frank and Voter ID Laws in the United States". RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences. 7 (1): 134146. doi:10.7758/rsf.2021.7.1.08 – via JSTOR.
- Wang, Tova (2012). The Politics of Voter Suppression: defending and expanding Americans' right to vote. Cornell University Press.
Keep We should not refrain from documenting the extent of this classic GOP tactic because people don't like how it reflects on the party. If a name change for the article is required, so be it. I think I recall a lengthy discussion about the title back when it was created. JTtheOG (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is factual, you just can't cope with it. YBSOne (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not very good faith of you, and leaks into WP:NPA territory. Careful. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 22:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is just another case of WP:SOAPBOX. YBSOne (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is extremely biased and I agree it violates WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:POVNAMING, WP:IMPARTIAL. Also for all the talk about how it's harder to vote in certain states like Georgia there's no actual evidence of that when you look at voter turnout.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand the false equivalency in comparing the "efforts to" from "actual results". Efforts to restrict can still be made and are non-democratic ways to battle for votes. Turnout can still be larger from the Republican side therefore the "efforts to" would be sucessfull. YBSOne (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Anotherperson123 (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant academic material exists on this subject. While I would caution people to avoid sensational news reporting in favour of academic material the arguments for deletion boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that's not sufficient grounds. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Extraordinarily well documented phenomenon. If there are WP:COATRACK or WP:POVTITLE or WP:DUE concerns, those are things dealt with by editing rather than through deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep- It’s sourced •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Major sources have extensively established that many Republican legislatures have in fact passed voter suppression measures. The fact that voters still turned out following education and outreach and overcame inconveniences like long lines does not negate that. Reywas92^Talk 15:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan White (DJ)

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

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio DJ and a spinoff article about his purported "television show" that may or may not ever have actually existed, with neither article properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media personalities or their shows.
As always, broadcasters are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage and analysis about them to establish that they've been externally validated as significant by somebody other than their own public relations agent -- but the BLP is "referenced" to one deadlinked unreliable source, one discogs.com directory entry about somebody else who isn't Alan White and one glancing namecheck of Alan White's existence in a newspaper obituary of somebody else who also isn't Alan White, absolutely none of which constitutes support for the notability of Alan White.
And meanwhile, the "television show" article is actually serving primarily as a coatrack for a largely reduplicated summary of the BLP, and not actually saying even one word at all about a "television show" until the very end, when it finally reveals that the "television show" that's posing as the article's nominal subject is "currently in pre-production" -- except it's said that since the day the article was created in 2011, and the article has never been updated since then with any evidence that the show ever actually started airing. And it's also based entirely on unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no GNG-worthy coverage about either Alan White or the "show" present there either.
Nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm getting a headache on this one trying to locate sources. Too many people named "Alan White", and several active in music.4meter4 (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Connecticut, Georgia (U.S. state), Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music & the Spoken Word broadcasts

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

Unreferenced list of unclear utility. This is an episode list of a radio and television music performance show in which the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (always the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, never anybody else) performs religious music along with an inspirational/religious sermon -- but this list just goes "broadcast number, date, recording location, title of sermon, production code, the end", with many entries not even containing all of those details, and right across the board even the recording location is always one or the other of two facilities in Salt Lake City, and never anywhere else.
There's no information at all that would actually be useful, such as the titles of any specific songs that were performed in the episode or a detailed summary of the sermon's theme — so there's effectively nothing of any serious substance said about any of the episodes to differentiate one from another. All of which renders it into a list of meaningless and trivial information, and it's also completely unreferenced for the purposes of actually verifying even what little information is here.
There's just no value to this without a lot more information about each episode and actual referencing for it. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Lists, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Fernandez

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

The book she was the co-author of appears to be close to being notable, but given it's only one she does not quite pass NAUTHOR as there aren't any independent sources on her. If someone wants to flip the article around to being on the book (provided there are more sources for that) then that might be an option but I'm not sure there are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Fashion, United States of America, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson (soccer)

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

Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte (archer). Placements at the early Olympics depended on circumstance, it was not the serious global competition we see today. Specifically, soccer at the 1904 Olympics took place between three random clubs. When not even his name is known, the fact that he won a medal matters little. At best, redirect to either football or the US at the 1904 Summer Olympics. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to e.g. Football at the 1904 Summer Olympics#Medalists or List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners#Football. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners#Football: Fails WP:GNG. Demt1298 (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the previous two users. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. If by some staggering chance it is kept, the title needs changing as it could refer to any one of probably dozens of professionals past and present -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – There isn't even enough information to support the article itself, listing for the 1904 Summer Olympics squads is more than enough. Svartner (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kids These Days (TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG, passing mentions prove show existed, but nothing to prove notability DonaldD23 talk to me 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Lifetime#Original_programming -Mushy Yank. 10:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Lifetime#Former programming Sadly a remnant of when cable, and Lifetime in particular actually entertained and informed daily rather than just pushed one show all day in marathon form (this was not an original Lifetime production, but from an outside producer). Whatever sources there are for the show are likely paper or on a show website with parental resources that was pre-Google and never archived. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plato's Closet

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

This clothing store does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. The page was previously draftified, so I'm taking to AfD for discussion per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. All sources I am able to find are either passing mentions, routine coverage, or not independent of the store. The only mentions in reliable sources I found (e.g., [4][5]) seem to be very routine coverage – "new store opening in x location" type stories from local media outlets. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and United States of America. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Winmark, which already has a subsection on it. I'm finding listings and brief descriptions, but not significant coverage that would support a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I'd agree with a merge and redirect Winmark#Plato's Closet. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I am confident I could likely find enough WP:ORGCRIT to keep based on just a few I found like this and this. Based on my experience with companies, those references indicate there are likely more but I don't have the time or patience. One issue we will run into when searching for soruces is that many franchises shotgun out so many press releases that it creates difficulty going through a sea of churnalism and routine announcements. It is also sufficiently covered at Winmark.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket balance

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

This has been sitting here as a largely unsourced original research essay for over 15 years. Since there's been almost zero attempt to rectify this, I think it should just be removed from the enecylopedia. (Perhaps it could be thrown into a draft for someone to work on over the next 15 years) ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has a list of sources at the bottom, might be OR, but it's not unsourced. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, and why I said "largely unsourced" - the bulk of the content appears to be unsourced OR. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:06, 18 November 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) 16:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be a list of sources at the bottom, but none of them uses the term "ticket balance" and all are talking about different (but related) things, with this article apparently trying to tie them all together into a coherent concept...textbook WP:OR. This source uses the term "balanced ticket": [6], but I don't know about its reliability. I can find passing uses of the phrase in different non-RS articles (blogs and so forth) but it's not clear that they're talking about the same thing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – it took me about 15 minutes to find half a dozen good news articles from different presidential election cycles that mention ticket balancing -- I added them all to this article and will continue to add more. The original author may not have cited any sources, but this is not an original research essay. This is a term frequently mentioned in the news every 4 years, with sources dating back to the 1990s and earlier. Scholars also frequently talk about how JFK picked LBJ to balance the ticket and unite the Democratic party, that was in 1960. It will not be hard to find more sources. This nom was lazy. –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find and add 18 sources in under half an hour. If anyone would like me to find more, please ask! –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps again confirming that unsourced tags are meaningless, but AfDs suddenly get results? Sigh. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The sources added by Aaronw1109 are easily enough to pass the notability threshold. Sal2100 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sal2100. BD2412 T 03:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ponytail canasta

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

I have been unable to find significant coverage of this card game in reliable sources. I do not think a redirect would be appropriate because there's no mention of Ponytail Canasta in the main Canasta article. Also per WP:NOTHOWTO. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Uruguay, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly. I could find no WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canasta. A quick survey of google, gnews, and gbooks shows there are plenty of references to this to verify it exists, even though I see nothing to suggest it is notable. A brief mention at the main Canasta article, with this redirected there, would be sufficient invitation for anyone who likes it enough to expand, possibly spin it out later if notability can be established. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but I haven't been able to find sourcing that's reliable and adequate to even write a full sentence other than to say "something by this name exists" in the main Canasta article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's adequate, since Canasta is unquestionably notable. Jclemens (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can any of these sourcess rescue the article: [7] [8] [9] [10]. If yes, I may help. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 06:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those seem reliable to me, unfortunately. The first two a labeled as WP:BLOGS, the third is an online gaming platform, and the fourth is from an extremely web 1.0 with no indication of who wrote it, which I would imagine is self published. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadair Records

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

No significant coverage or anything more than trivial mentions. Frost 02:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are primarily about the record label itself. I couldn't find any coverage on the record label. Oddly enough the only news source I found was on a record shop in th UK that has the same name. Fails WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not get anyway close to passing notability requirement. Sources in the article have single mentions while some did not even mention it all. This fails WP:GNG and whatever criteria used to create this article. Mekomo (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my source search is coming up dry as well, it appears to be a fairly young company with no significant coverage to speak of. ASUKITE 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanun Pyriadi

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously-unreferenced BLP about an academic and chemist, and have added one reference. I cannot find other coverage, however, and on the basis of what I can find, cannot see that notability is demonstrated. I accept I may be missing coverage in Arabic. Please see the commented-out section headed "Additional contributions by professor Thanun Pyriadi since 2006 up till now": I do not think that anything listed there pushes the article into notability (and it is unreferenced anyway), though would be pleased if other editors can demonstrate otherwise. I do not think there is an obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Iraq, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Tacyarg (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There certainly are a lot of claims of notability, but a lack of reliable sourcing verifying those claims. No prejudice against recreation should such sources appear in the future, but we cannot sustain the article as is. Ravenswing 23:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find anything that would qualify for WP:NPROF, his citation numbers are quite weak and I see no major awards. There is nothing else that might qualify him for a different class of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPROF. I found some passing mentions in the Journal of Chemical Education and the Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society. If there is WP:RS on this man its likely not in English, and likely not online given his age. This is one of those people where the potential for notability is there and there is a possibility sources may exist, but it would be very difficult for most wikipedians to ever access those materials if they indeed are out there.4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Helvenston

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

Delete and redirect to 2004 Fallujah ambush, the redirect target for the other 3 victims of the ambush. Coverage of Helvenston is in relation to the ambush or subsequent events. Otherwise he was one of thousands of individuals killed during the Iraq War. His notability is due only to the ambush, therefore delete per WP:BIO1E. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Terrorism, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is known for more than just one event – he was on a reality TV show and was a credited Hollywood consultant, and was the subject of a dedicated LA Times obituary [11]. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as above. I don't see notability outside of the event. 20 years later and there is no sourcing to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No sourcing?" The LA Times source has been added to the article, and there is notability outside of this one event. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how he's more notable than any one else killed in the attack. There were too many deaths in the war, most aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BIO1E, a few sentences/short para there is all that's warranted. Mztourist (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fuzheado. The journalist/editorial staff written obituary in the Los Angeles Times makes it clear the subject was known for his appearances on television, and as a personal trainer to celebrities in addition to the 2004 Fallujah ambush. WP:BIO1E therefore does not apply as the subject was known for more than one thing. This is further supported by coverage of him in a scholarly book on the History of Reality TV] published by Random House. There is coverage in google books of his work on television and his career as a soldier. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not enough SIGCOV, agree totally on WP:BIO1E and redirect. Last time I looked, personal trainer to the stars didn't shoe you in past WP:GNG. As an interesting footnote, Helvenston v. Blackwater Security. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Home Town Hero

(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, other than a biography ([12]) and an album review ([13]) by AllMusic, which isn't a lot. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Under the Influence of Giants, since three of the members were in both bands. toweli (talk) 21:25, 14 November 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) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group meets WP:MUSIC with two releases on Maverick Records, and the Allmusic entries are serviceable references; they also toured nationally with Stone Temple Pilots and Linkin Park. I managed to dig up [14] this review as well, even though it's gotten very difficult to find album reviews from 20+ years ago on the Internet. Chubbles (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to a member of Under the Influence of Giants, Bitch City was never released ([15]; according to Discogs it was apparently self-released [16]). Regardless, notability is not inherited, and I don't see Linkin Park mentioned anyway. I don't know if ink19 is a reliable source, but even if it is, there's just not enough coverage to establish notability. toweli (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning ~~Keep~~ as presuming MUSICBIO notability per above coverage, and given the age presuming that further coverage is likely. Further evidence is an album review available in Hits 2002; critical coverage Hits 2001; and the CMJ new music reports indicate extensive airplay, including for example: [17]. There's a lot of hits on worldradiohistory that will take time to sift. ResonantDis_tortion 18:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've identified further coverage on ProQuest - not major sigcov, but better than passing mentions: Detroit Free Press - they "often bore", two paragraph gig review supporting Incubus in News Gazette, album review in Morning Call, and paragraph of coverage in Billboard. ResonantDis_tortion 21:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aaron Bruno#Home Town Hero. First, they did not release two albums on Maverick, only one. Second, I think the reviews and other coverage falls just short of the depth that would be required. I also found more reviews, [18] [19] but as you can see these are not reliable or significant enough. Last but not least, we lack independent sources for nearly all the band history. A merger would preserve the edit history and it can be revived later if more sources are scanned/made available. Geschichte (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. I can get behind this as an WP:ATD, and strike my previous !vote to keep. There is certainly sufficient reliable coverage to demonstrate a level of notability, and therefore the subject does warrant a presence on Wikipedia, but we are, at current standing, one in-depth article away from coverage to support a distinct seperate article. ResonantDis_tortion 18:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Under the Influence of Giants as an ATD, per nom. Although I do have SOME reservations based on the lack of sourcing and notability in that target: it's a hot wee mess, that article... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanawha people

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

WP:TNT, this doesn't appear to be about a notable topic, and I can't find any scholarly literature discussing the subject. The idea that the Kanawha people are the ancestor's of Native Americans appears to be fictitious, or at least incredibly fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Piscataway people per sources like [20], which indicate that "Kanawha" is used at least in part as a synonym for the Piscataway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the original Special:PermaLink/229303722 shows this was an essay titled "Kanawha Valley's Prehistoric people", that has been mojibaked into its current form. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I'm suprised an article as bad as this one has stuck around for this long. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a real people group mentioned in history journals and books. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. I'm not saying the current text is accurate, but I have a big problem with deleting an article on a Native American people group. That would be participating in erasure which is morally problematic in light of the history of Native American genocide in the United States. The answer is to trim out unsupported content and validate what we can with the sources we can locate. Stubifying it would be better than deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When people are writing "Kanawha people" are they referring to a distinct ethnic group, or a general term for Native Americans inhabiting the Kanawha area? If the latter, I hardly see how this warrants a standalone article. The sources you mention are passing references that are completely inadequate to construct any kind of meaningful article about the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sources better than this are needed. However, it is clearly a people group as they are being referenced as living in New England in one source, and Kentucky in another at various points in history. It's not attached just to the Kanawha Valley. I'll see if I can find anything in JSTOR or EBSCOE that gives a better defined definition.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first four of those sources appear to be referring to white settlers in the Kanawha Valley. The only mention in the Cotterill source, in a passage about a surveying party in Kentucky, is in the sentence, So many of the Kanawha people had joined the expedition that there were now thirty-three men in the party, although four of the original members had returned home for fear of the Indians. The Stealy source is talking about the cost of hiring slaves in Kanawha County, and the only mention of Kanawha people is in the phrase, I discover that the people of this country don't like to hire to the Kanawha people, it is a long distance & near the state of Ohio. The Davisson source is about the Union army in Kentucky during the Civil War, long after Native Americans had been forced out of Kentucky, and the only mention of 'Kanawha people' is in the sentence, I propose ... to induce the Kanawha people to take a more decided course. The Engineering and Mining Journal source, from 1910, says, The New River and Kanawha people have been busy in New England territory this spring, offering coal at very low prices. I think it is quite clear that those sources are referring to white settlers/residents of the Kanawha Valley, and not to any group Native American people. Donald Albury 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but the Scoggins source below clearly is referring to a Native people group that the Kanawha Valley is named after (not the other way around). That people group lived in several places according to that source. That source is enough to establish that deletion is not the answer here and WP:ATD at the very least is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that the Scoggins source does not support any content in the article other than the possibility that "Kanawha" was the name of a Native American group that moved to the valley. I do not think that there is anything in the present article that can be salvaged. Donald Albury 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? I said I didn’t think current text was accurate and the article should be stubified to the reliable sources we find. Clearly we could write a short paragraph based on Scoggins and the journal article provided above by the nominator. That would take all of five minutes to do.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it would be a sub-stub, unlikely to ever be substantially expanded. Better to be a redirect to an article that can provide context. I understand that you are concerned with Native American history being covered in Wikipedia. I am too. But, if there is next to nothing reliably sourced to say about a group, it is better to put what little can be sourced as a section or sub-section in a larger article, or even as an entry in a Boldlist. Donald Albury 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is referring to St. Albans Site. Haven't looked through all the "Kanawha people" links above but the appear to have been misread. fiveby(zero) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This old article on the history of Kanawha County from West Virginia University political science department says that the Kanawha were a people who lived in the area during the early British colonial Period, but this honestly this isn't a great source and I haven't been able to find anything better, so maybe a redirect to Kanawha_River#History would be better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing article there wood be Adena culture. oops colonial period, will look for more. fiveby(zero) 19:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This tribe, a branch of the Algonquin family, was closely related to the Nanticokes and Delawares who resided in what are now the states of Delaware and Maryland. During the seventeenth century, the name of this tribe was variously recorded by early English settlers as “Conoys,” “Conoise,” “Canawese,” “Cohnawas,” “Canaways,” and ultimately, “Kanawhas.”
— KANAWHA Michael C. Scoggins

Conoys redirects to Piscataway people

looks like a museum bulletin but by a published author. fiveby(zero) 19:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's definitely an improvement. Looking at other sources, they seem to agree on the synonymy between Conoys and Piscataway, so I would support redirecting to that article (though I am unclear if as to whether the term "Kanawha" has been applied to multiple distinct Native American groups). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much forward we are here. Scoggins looks to be from Hale, John P. (1891). History of the great Kanawha Valley. p. 63. That's this John P. Hale. I'd like to find something more recent and more affirmative than the author's "probably derived by evolution from..." fiveby(zero) 21:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There does appear to be some confusion about the issue in the literature. The Lenape and Their Legends (1885} states: [26]

The fourth member of the Wapanachki was that nation variously called in the old records Conoys, Ganawese or Canaways, the proper form of which Mr. Heckewelder states to be Canai. Considerable obscurity has rested on the early location and affiliation of this people. Mr. Heckewelder vaguely places them "at a distance on the Potomac," and supposes them to have been the Kanawhas of West Virginia. This is a loose guess. They were, in fact, none other than the Piscataways of Southern Maryland, who occupied the area between Chesapeake Bay and the lower Potomac, about St. Mary's, and along the Piscataway creek and Patuxent river.

The Indian wars of Pennsylvania (1929) p. 53 states [27]: The Conoy, also called the Ganawese and the Piscataway, inhabited parts of Pennsylvania during the historic period. They were an Algonquin tribe, closely related to the Delawares, whom they called "grandfathers," and from whose ancestral stem they no doubt sprang. Heckewelder, an authority on the history of the Delawares and kindred tribes, believed them to be identical with the Kanawha, for whom the chief river of West Virginia is named ; and it seems that the names, Conoy and Ganawese, are simply different forms of the name Kanawha, though it is difficult to explain the application of the same name to the Piscataway tribe of Maryland, except on the theory that this tribe once lived on the Kanawha.

The 2022 book chapter "Tribal Collaborations and Indigenous Representation in Higher Education: Challenges, Successes, and Suggestions for Attaining the SDGs" states: The Piscataway Rico Newman, Piscataway elder and MIHEA participant, relays some history of the Piscataway people: The Piscataway-Kanawha (Piscataway) are the “People Who Live Where Waters Blend Below Rapids.” Prior to colonization, the Piscataway developed well-orchestrated lifeways that sustained them for centuries.

Reading the literature. "Kanawha" also appears to be used for a stone projectile point type produced in the early Holocene, long before the colonial period. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on Scoggins, it seems like it would be possible to keep the article if it were substantially rewritten. However, it would be equally plausible to incorporate that content into the Piscataway people article and redirect it to that page. Either would be fine, but I do think closing this AFD is going to require someone to step in do the work of either recrafting the current page, or writing a bit in the Piscataway people article so that a redirect is appropriate. That article currently doesn't even mention the Kanawha people.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is really anything to say in any article yet. Appreciate your view on erasure but in my opinion worse would be getting this wrong and creating some fiction about a people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough evidence between the journal article presented by the nominator above (who is advocating for a redirect) and the Scoggins source to put something into the Piscataway people article at the very least. Scoggins is after all a published historian. At some point, we just have to trust subject matter experts and their judgement. Worse in my view would be to ignore these sources as a form of WP:Systemic bias; something wikipedia struggles with when it comes to marginalized people groups (which has been researched).4meter4 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. oncamera _{(talk page)} 10:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate article. - Donald Albury 13:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for input from WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America or Keep and start a renaming or merge discussion on the article talkpage. The article was originally titled Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) then moved to Kanawha valley people and then to Kanawha people. The intent here was clearly to describe a prehistoric people known from St. Albans Site and probably others. I don't think the content is very good and may be including description of the later Adena culture. The article is misnamed, probably has the wrong scope, and not very high quality but i think the original intent of the content is completely appropriate for WP.

The confusing name has led us down the path of looking at the colonial era Conoy tribe and whether or not Kanawha is a synonym. There was some dispute about the name in sources since John Heckewelder's suggestion that Kanawha was from Conoy but i think in our recent sources that has been accepted and not really questioned. Redirects from Kanawha to Piscataway are appropriate but then we have some additional confusion to work out. That is the difference between a 'tribe' and a 'people'. I think there is widespread confusion as to peoples and subdivision such as 'tribe' or 'band' and how they are recorded and named throughout history and how they might be organized or recognized today. There were both a Conoy tribe (the Conoy proper or Piscataway) and it seems a Conoy people.pp 125-6 I think this is represented on WP as Piscataway people (Conoy people) and Piscataway-Conoy Tribe of Maryland (Conoy tribe)?

I don't really have a whole lot of confidence for much of this, so i think input from some more knowledgeable editors is necessary. fiveby(zero) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i do not think it would be easy or practical to have an article that only covers the prehistoric people. The content should probably be merged somewhere but i have no real idea to where. It should definitely not be merged to any Piscataway or Conoy people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 16:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content is frankly so lacklustre that it would need to be entirely rewritten to include anywhere. I think Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) and Kanawha valley people can be redirected to Kanawha River#History as these clearly relate more to the geographical location. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better content, and now i see you suggested that as a target above and i missed it distracted by the Conoy. My confusion is probably more due to distaste as to how WP titles and scopes people and tribe articles in general. The closer might have a tough time with all the confusion and redirects involved but i think you have the best plan here so Note to closer: consider my vote what Hemiauchenia says. fiveby(zero) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Piscataway people: per the reasoning given by Hemiauchenia. TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Piscataway people per Hemiauchenia.Bcbc24 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page, because no single redirect target is satisfactory. Most of the article as written (really more of a school essay than anything) covers the whole experience of the colonization of the Americas by settlers from Asia thousands of years ago. But the object, and the last couple of sections, seems to have been to describe the native people who lived in the Kanawha Valley before it was settled by Europeans. Those were decidedly not Piscataway, even though the word "Kanawha" may have been used at one point synonymously with "Piscataway" and perhaps derived from "Conoy". Our article about the Piscataway seems to exclude any possibility that they ever lived in the Kanawha Valley, and that alone would confuse readers who come across this title.

At the same time, I cannot determine whether there is any other article on a group of American Indians who would be described this way, and be the definitive redirect target: the last major groups who might have inhabited the Kanawha Valley would be the Fort Ancient culture and the Shawnee, who may or may not have been identical (evidently that has not yet been determined). But the degree to which the Kanawha Valley was inhabited, rather than merely transited during this period is also unclear; most archaeological sites are older and probably date to the time of the Mound Builders, a vague term which in this case really refers to the Adena and Hopewell cultures. All of these would correctly be described as "Kanawha people", and it is not unlikely that some readers would also expect this title to describe the later, European settlers of the valley, including but not limited to modern-day Kanawha County, another possible redirect target.

Since all of these are plausible targets, and the article contains almost nothing that is not already in one or more of them, the best way to resolve the issue is to convert this into a disambiguation page—either one that strictly follows the normal disambiguation page criteria, or perhaps a more narrative one that explains how the phrase might apply to different but related groups—including the Piscataway, of course, but certainly not redirecting to them, since that would likely astonish most readers. P Aculeius (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no disagreement with this proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a closer might redirect this article to Piscataway people because of the bolded statements, it's not clear to me that this is the consensus or would be appropriate. First, there are doubts where this "people" is a Native American tribe or just referring to "people who live in Kanawha". Secondly, there is no mention of Kanawha people at this suggested target article. Finally, there are alternative suggestions including Keep, Delete or redirection to a different target article based on the location of Kanawha, West Virginia. So, since I don't see a firm consensus and lots of different arguments floating around here as recently as yesterday, I'm going to relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the arguments that "Kanawha" is an alternate spelling of "Conoy" have some merit. But (largely for the reasons expressed by Liz) I can't endorse the redirect to Piscataway people. Perhaps a DAB page would be an option. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the assertion that there is no "Kanawha people" is fundamentally not true as Scoggins was absolutely clear that the "Kanawha Valley" was named after the "Kanawha people" who lived elsewhere prior to being the first people to settle in the Kanawha Valley. The valley was named after the people group, not the other way around. The sources are also pretty clear that Kanawha were/are a branch of the Piscataway people (ie. Conoy). The best solution here is to add a sentence to the Piscataway people article and then redirect to that page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A viable second option would be to turn this into a dab bage with a reference to the Conoy/Piscataway people. And a possible second meaning of people living or from the "Kanawha Valley". That might be the best so we cover all bases.4meter4 (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be better than a redirect? Any group known to have lived in the valley should be mentioned in the history section of the Kanawha County article. I see that the Kanawha River article does list various cultures and peoples that have occupied the valley, although nothing is sourced. But I don't think people will be looking for "Kanawha people" when they are interested in the Adena or Fort Ancient cultures. And if they are interested in earlier occupants of the valley, how would they look for "Kanawha people" rather "History of Kanawha County" or "History of the Kanawha River"? Donald Albury 02:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly opposed to any solution which doesn't include either a redirect or a navigational link at a DAB page to Piscataway people per the journal article cited towards the top and the Scoggins source. Not doing that erases that this is indeed a real Native American people group and not just natives who happened to live in the Kanawha Valley. Scoggins is clear the Kanawha were the Kanawha before they ever arrived in the Kanawha Valley, and the valley was named for them.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a redirect is my preference. I don't think there is any case for calling any other group that has lived in the valley "Kanawha people" in an encyclopedic sense. Donald Albury 02:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some people commenting who oppose redirecting to Piscataway people arguing that the term "Kanawha people" has been applied more generically to people living the "Kanawha Valley" in some cases. (This is true according to Scoggins who points out the term has been used inconsistently) A dab page would allow us to articulate the discrepancy by saying "Kanawha people" could refer to 1: an alternative spelling of the Conoy people which is a subset of the Piscataway people or 2. people who reside or originated from the Kanawha Valley. This would allow for the various uses of the term as described by Scoggins. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted/redirected at AfD. Recreated by a new user and honestly the coverage doesn't look any better than it did at the first AfD, so I can't see it warranting a standalone article. Serious issues with WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (EDIT: I am also fine redirecting back to Family of Donald Trump) as per the consensus of the last AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, People and Women. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as done previously and lock it to prevent repeated disruption. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Golf, Internet, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per last AfD. This shouldn't even go to AfD, it should be up to those few who think it should be a standalone article to demonstrate what has changed and why that would change the previous AfD consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG with multiple references focusing on her:

These references have all been published after the last AfD, and/or were not in the article during the last AfD. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this coverage suggests that she is notable separate from her relationship to the broader Trump family, and is pretty insubstantial. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is covered in-depth in multiple WP:RS that are independent of her, which satisfies the requirements in WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly post that could be made about any subject whatsoever.

None of the sources at the article Julius Caesar suggest that he is notable separate from his relationship to his broader military and political achievements -- do you here suggest a redirect to Roman Empire per WP:NOPAGE? jp×g 🗯️ 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the valid reason would be that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a point that is often misunderstood on Wikipedia, presumably because of WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts like WP:NOTINHERITED. If you actually read WP:NOTINHERITED, you'll see that it says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. What it actually means is that people are not automatically notable just because they're related to someone – they can still meet GNG, even if that is all they are "known" for. C F A 💬 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has she done that is actually noteworthy? These articles are basically puff pieces. We know she plays golf and that she was invited to give a speech at an RNC convention where she says Donald Trump a normal grandfather and that she has no interest in pursuing politics. The social media stuff in the article is irrelevant puffery. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The social media stuff is obviously not independent of her. But the 5 references above (and there are more in the article, I just listed the top 5) are all in-depth (not a casual mention), independent of her, and independent of each other. That's all that is needed for WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? This isn't a policy-based argument. jp×g 🗯️ 14:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom., Iggy pop goes the weasel, Traumnovelle, and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets GNG. See my comment above. C F A 💬 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do feel that those opting for redirect are really failing to see the huge differences between this AFD and the previous one in July.

1.Firstly, Trump has made a YouTube channel as of October that has already received 220,000 subscribers (and more than 50k of those in the last 24 hours), has a video with over 2 million views in two days which has significant political interest and coverage in major news outlets (and a second video with over a million views).

2. Kai Trump has more than a million followers on TikTok and 500,000 followers on Instagram, which has all changed since the last AfD where she had 100,000 followers on Instagram for example.

3. The election of 9 days ago also casts her in a different light- she is a content creator who will have significant proximity to an in-power president between the ages of 17-21, and already has a huge audience and is receiving notable coverage. Do you really think that Kai Trump is going to fade into obscurity and never again achieve notability? Deleting this article is only going to delay publication for six months or less, and she is already receiving 9,000 plus article visits per day (not that this means anything for notability purposes, but the article clearly has demand and she clearly has significant attention).

In my opinion, the previous AFD fell the right way because of the fact she was only notable for her RNC speech- by all accounts she is now achieving notability for other reasons at this point, and she will continue to do so. There are now [sources] claiming that she is Trump's most important social media ally, etc. I would expect coverage on this subject to increase dramatically in the coming months with the inauguration and as she produces more content. Let us compare with her uncle Barron Trump (as she has been compared with before), who has been deleted via AFD before: this would suggest that Barron has attained nowhere close to the notable achievements or coverage that Kai has now received, with no sections of independent notability as far as I can tell. Kai's article Passes WP:GNG. I edited her article extensively yesterday though, so I would expect some degree of bias from me in trying to keep the article retained.Spiralwidget (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a poorly-written article about a person whose accomplishments I find unimpressive. Sources obviously pass GNG. Is there a BLP issue, or some other urgent concern that makes GNG unsuitable here? Or is it just a politics thing? jp×g 🗯️ 02:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Not seeing any sources that are notable outside of Donald Trump, until she becomes notable by herself I can't vote keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump (1st choice) or back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (2nd choice). (I think the family article is better than the father's article for the same anti-patriarchal reasons I detailed in the first AFD and won't repeat here.)

In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [28] [29] [30] [31], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.

The 5 new sources posted above don't really move the needle for me. #1 WP:DAILYBEAST is yellow at RSP, and anyway it's an opinion piece. #2 I'm not sure that EssentiallySports is an RS. #3 is not technically not independent of the other ABC News article, and anyway is more about the subject's election night vlog than about the subject herself. #4 is a routine signing report which usually don't count as sigcov of an athlete, and #5 NYT is about the RNC speech, like the earlier ABC News article, not in depth of the subject herself. What's missing is like two solid biographies of the subject; then I'd be convinced that there is so much material about the subject that it should be on its own page.

But for now, I think everything that meets WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT in all of those sources that is actually about the subject is only enough to fill up a section in an article, e.g. Family of Donald Trump. Even if the subject meets GNG, for WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons (readers will understand the subject better in the context of her family rather than as a stand-alone article, particularly since most of her notability is derived from her family, with her golf career constituting a minority of the overall RS coverage), I think it's better to cover this topic as part of another article rather than as its own article.

Also, I note that the prior AFD resulted in consensus to redirect, and it was edit-warred back into an article, which led to this second AFD (1, 2, 3). A trout to those editors for editing against consensus. The new information should have been added to the target article, and if a stand-alone was sought, a split should have been proposed on the target article's talk page per WP:PROSPLIT. Levivich (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the distinction between "significant coverage of something a person did" and "significant coverage of the person"? I am confused by this claim. jp×g 🗯️ 14:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, probably easiest to show you examples, all from the same RS:

The #1 stories have some biographical information about the subjects, but they're really focused on specific events/statements/actions/etc. #2 are actual full-length biographies of the subject. You see a lot of differences in these types of stories: #1 is focused on a particular time and place, #2 spans the subject's entire lifetime. #1 includes a lot of quotes from the subject (what the subject said about the event/action/whatever), whereas #2 has much more in the BBC's own voice. (You can scroll through and just see that #2 has fewer quotation marks than #1.) #1 is usually shorter than #2, sometimes by half.

For our purposes -- writing a stand-alone biography article about a subject -- we can kinda/sorta do it with RSes like #1's, but you really need #2's to cover the subject's whole life, as opposed to just some action/event that happened during their life.

For this article subject (Kai Trump), we only have #1's, no #2's. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above discussion. I’m against any minor child of a political person or celebrity having an article, even if they have spoken in public about their parent or grandparent. Only Matt Gaetz is interested. Bearian (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have two comments to make here on this AfD after already giving my "keep" opinion a little further up.

1. Firstly, I would be concerned that a merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump would destroy a lot of potentially important encyclopedic information in the article, such as Trump's RNC speech and her recent coverage of election night, as well as information about her name being related to her grandfather and such. The current Family of Donald Trump article has only a short section on grandchildren, and it would be difficult for me to see how a redirect/merge would fit in with the format of that article. I think that merging to "Donald Trump Jr." would be preferable, but the problem there is that Kai Trump does not actually have any significant activity directly related to her father; appearing at the RNC and her social media and golf activities all seem very unrelated to her father, especially considering the fact her parents are divorced and she actually lives with her mother. It also seems to perpetuate stereotypes relating to patriarchy to redirect to father. I therefore find a redirect or merge to be less than ideal in this circumstance.

2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[32]] and [[33]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "a crying shame," I call the entire point of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Fame and popularity are not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not about her age, or profession (many influencers with huge followings are nevertheless not notable), it's about this: Wikipedia summarizes sources. For a Wikipedia biography article, the sources are other biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish someone's biography. So to vote keep on a biography, I'm looking for at least 2, preferably 3, totally independent (of each other and of the subject) full-length biographies. That's what gives us enough source material to write a Wikipedia biography article that meets NPOV. Kai Trump doesn't appear to have been the subject of any full biographies, much less two or three. (The RSes I've seen so far have some biographical information, but very little, and I wouldn't call any of them in-depth biographies.) As it so happens, there are many famous people who aren't the subject of biographies (athletes, influencers, famous people's kids); they don't qualify for Wikipedia articles IMO. And everything we have to say about Kai Trump--all the info in RSes that's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT--can be said in a paragraph or two that can be part of the family article (which could have multiple mini-biographies about various not-quite-notable members of the family). The RNC speech, for example, is one sentence, that says she gave a speech at the RNC. That's all there is to say about it. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the family of Donald Trump. It doesn't need an independent article. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Notability is not inherited. This is, at best WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per some of the keep discussion above. It clearly passes WP:GNG and this is way different from the previous deletion discussion in July with more references. Kaizenify (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. The new coverage is still entirely connected to her grandfather. Notability is not inherited. I don't doubt at some point this may change, but so far it hasn't. It's WP:TOOSOON for an independent article. FYI, telling us how many followers someone has on social media is a clear sign that someone is scraping desperately at the bottom of the non-notability barrel.4meter4 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Likely TOOSOON. Playing golf isn't notable, there is coverage of a speech given, but being social media star in 2024 isn't notable alone. We've had a flood of coverage since the event, but nothing before. I'm not sure this person is notable for what they've done; outside of the Trump name, what have they done to be notable. She's a "potentially notable" influencer, so nothing notable at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You see the name, you want to know who it is. It's as simple as that. Cyber rigger (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Park

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

Non-notable actress. Could not find SIGCOV about her. Natg 19 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Natg 19 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in the article do not pass any sourcing guidelines and could not find other sources as Google search showed only unreliable sites where the subject is mentioned. Fails WP:NACTRESS. Mekomo (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has a role in the main cast of Snowpiercier (https://thenerdsofcolor.org/2020/05/19/the-spectacular-susan-park-on-snowpiercer/ https://deadline.com/2017/08/snowpiercer-susan-park-cast-series-regular-in-tnt-pilot-1202158674/) and various recurring roles in notable series. Various sources (some being intros of interviews, the focus varying, and the quality too) allow to verify that. So that she meets WP:NACTOR in my view and deletion is not necessary. (also see https://deadline.com/2024/08/twinless-movie-adds-chis-perfetti-francois-arnaud-more-cast-1236050504/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/movies/always-be-my-maybe-review.html (role mentioned with short appraisal) https://www.thewrap.com/keanu-reeves-joins-ali-wong-randall-park-comedy-always-be-my-maybe-at-netflix/ (simple mention) https://cinemadailyus.com/interviews/actress-susan-park-on-sxsw-pilot-lucy-sara/ Other sources in other languages exist. Mushy Yank (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that she has roles in notable films/TV series, but they are usually minor roles. I was not able to find much beyond simple mentions of her in reliable sources. Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Usually", maybe but that means not always, not all, and indeed she is in the main cast of Snowpiercer and has recurring/signficant roles in other productions (see NY Times and other sources mentioning them) and the guideline requires significant roles in notable productions, not that none of her roles (or even only a small part of them) should be minor. Mushy Yank (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Twinless and Snowpiercer. Her role in William also seems to be significant enough. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is moderate coverage, ranging from only trivial to beyond trivial, across multiple reliable sources, which supports weak notability. But sources from Deadline and Cinema Daily US passes WP:ACTOR.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you looking at? I do not believe Cinema Daily US is an RS (seems like a film blog), and the Deadline articles that I have found are simple casting announcements. Natg 19 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Colleges and Employers

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

Unsourced article from 2008 about a professional association. A WP:BEFORE search reveals scattered media, e.g. [34], covering the organization's annual jobs survey, but such coverage is not focused on the organization itself. Sdkb ^talk 05:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Economics, and United States of America. Sdkb ^talk 05:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raw ("Hopsin" album)

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

Contested draft. Duplicate of Raw (Hopsin album) which was WP:BLARed last year due to a lack of notability. Pinging @QuietHere: the editor who performed the BLAR on the previous article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hopsin discography. Lack of usable sources on the album. Ss112 14:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUM. Raw (Hopsin album) already exists, so no need for a redirect. मल्ल (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unlikely search term when properly formatted title already exists (if it is redirected then it should go to Hopsin#2010–2011: Success with Funk Volume and Raw to match with Raw (Hopsin album)'s current target). Shows no amount of notability more than the prior article did. Surprisingly, despite the ping, I appear not to have received a notification for this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Deletion and Redirection and there are two different target articles being suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this was an attempt to sneak an unwanted article into Wikipedia - both by way of the strange title and the unilateral draftification. Geschichte (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milan the Leather Boy

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

The article has 13 references, but the issue with them is that many of them aren't reliable sources and/or don't provide significant coverage. I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions, like less than 30 words about a Milan release in an issue of Cash Box ([35], page 26, bottom right corner). toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 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 New York. toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cane as a Weapon

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

Neither the book nor the author appear notable. This is a book summary. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Martial arts, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything immediately referencing this on Scholar or Newspapers, so this appears to be a factually correct nomination... but I wonder if we're missing something. This is clearly a real book, short though it may be, from 112 years ago. It's in the public domain. Why should we delete this solely on notability grounds? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN, is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. More broadly, it's a form of quality control/way of maintaining encyclopedic standards. Can we create quality content that abides by our policies here? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the improvements made to the article since nomination, it appears the answer is clearly yes. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source in the NYT - I also found this book that mentions the author. If there are more like this, we could probably make this an article about Cunningham and have a section about the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This description of the book is kind of hilarious. It's a favorable advert, of course, but kind of tongue in cheek. With the other source I didn't realize that was put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Is that a society along the lines of the Royal Societies? Would membership in that count towards notability? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that would be the case, but wanted to ask. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. There was a very strong, promising start but I can't really find anything else. I get the feeling that there's probably more out there, just tucked away in various archives and not indexed in any substantial way on the internet. At the same time, I don't really have a ton of proof to back that up, other than the NYT source and a handful of other things, much of which are put out by organizations associated with Cunningham.

So unless someone can provide sourcing, I'm leaning towards a delete. I don't want to make an official judgement call on my end because I'm admittedly hoping someone will find something. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a review of the book in the Saskatoon Daily Star, Feb 1913. Does that help? Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every bit helps! I'd like a little more ideally before I'd be super comfortable arguing for a keep, but this is a good step in the right direction! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saskatoon + NYT are ok. I also found this from the Newark Advocate. The Army and Navy Register bit seems ok. Found an article on NewspaperArchive (NewspaperArchive is kind of annoying so they're hard to read but you can if you use the resource and zoom in), clipped here [36]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an interesting discussion and you all have uncovered some interesting sources. But we still have to have some arguments for a particular outcome. But y'all have another week to consider where you stand on this article or whether you might refocus it to be about the author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dynasty

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

I don't see how WP:NCORP is met given the sources in the article, and I wasn't able to find sources that would be enough to establish notability either. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Underground

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

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[37][38] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --wooden superman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is notable enough (though the article could use some sources that help establish this fact, like the ones my colleague above found).TH1980 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to meet NCORP, but could do a redirect to William Lustig as a compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Lustig as a viable ATD per nom. and KH-1. Fails WP:NCORP. WP:NOPAGE applies. Sal2100 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. Most home video lines have already been deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination), etc.) --wooden superman 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; as for notability, the release of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay has historical value and a chronological list of those films helps document what has been recognized as a valuable contribution to the history and preservation of film: the page documents that in a clear way. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the label itself is notable, the list of films that they licensed for release is not. This is just a catalogue, and largely unreferenceable. It's not like they had any hand in the production of any of these films. Catalogues of way more notable reissue labels have already been deleted, see the linked discussion above and many more similar ones. This is just WP:FANCRUFT. --wooden superman 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but my point is precisely that the list itself has value. I could add references to every item and remove those ”unsourceable” if indeed there are any. Later maybe. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cyberpower7 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Note: Struck comment from blocked user. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; @Cyberpower7 you might want to elaborate if you wish that your !vote receives attention, though. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how encyclopedic is the listing of their 2003 DVD re-issue of The Railway Children for example? Sure, examples of their really notable releases can be and are approriately included at Anchor Bay Entertainment, but including their entire WP:CATALOG here is WP:LISTCRUFT. --wooden superman 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note the following other examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 88 Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Video USA Releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Film Institute releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. No reason to make an exception to WP:NOTCATALOG here. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete useless listcruft. This is not original releases, hence no lasting value. --Altenmann >talk 19:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This distributor simply does not produce any original content themselves. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must insist here: The history and timeline of the releases of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay is encyclopaedic and no "fancruft", whatever that word is supposed to mean. The fact that the films were obviously not original Anchor Bay productions is totally irrelevant! The timeline and scope are of historic value....https://deadline.com/2024/02/anchor-bay-entertainment-relaunched-1235827165/

new iteration of Anchor Bay Entertainment with the goal to curate a new library of films for distribution, projects that range from new release genre films, undiscovered treasures, cult classics, and remastered catalog releases.

(Bloody disgusting!: https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3800174/anchor-bay-entertainment-label-resurrects-with-new-horror/)

See list of articles in Variety; https://variety.com/t/anchor-bay-entertainment/

the company’s trademark to reboot it and release genre films and cult favorites, after Anchor Bay was included in Starz’s 2016 sale to Lionsgate.

(Variety; https://variety.com/2024/film/news/anchor-bay-entertainment-cursed-in-baja-1236078418/

The only thing that could be discussed imv is whether this can be merged back into the article, and I don't think that, sizewise, it should.

Also see GBooks where individual or grouped releases by AC as a project are covered; and open, New Blood: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Horror. (2021) University of Wales Press, p. 115.

Just having a brief look, seeing it's a list and dismiss it as "Listcruft" is certainly not enough. Yes, there's work to be done. But that's not a reason for deletion.Mushy Yank (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources seem to indicate the topic of the list was covered as a set, meeting Wikipedia:NLIST, by the way. Mushy Yank (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I must insist that this is textbook WP:NOTCATALOG. As I mention above, giving examples of individual notable releases in the main article is encyclopedic. Listing every release WP:INDISCRIMINATEly is not, as you can see from the large number of precedents in the other discussions I have mentioned. --wooden superman 12:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

giving examples of individual notable releases is not what I did (your question above, on the other hand, was about one particular film's release...). The large number of AfDs you listed may or may not be comparable with the present one; but that does not change the fact that my point is that this list is encyclopaedic in my view as offering a timeline of the history of the release of rediscovered film and the sources mentioned by me are meant to prove just that (the quotes are about the topic of the list as a set not about the individual entries and just read the page 115 of New Blood and other GBooks hits, please, thank you). I'm leaving it that that because I have the feeling that I am repeating myself here. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a more substantial rationale for why this doesn't meet WP:NLIST? I see we have a lot of precedent here, but that's mostly just people saying "WP:NOTCATALOG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Closing as keep per consensus developed after last relisting and the sources found, which can be incorporated into the article. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Stickell

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

I don't think that this character is notable. This article has 10 sources, of all are not reliable and passing mentions. It was recently tagged for notability and there is no help at all. My WP:BEFORE failed to show anything about him. If he isn't fixed, i recommend a redirect to List of Mission: Impossible characters or at worse, Ving Rhames.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Fictional characters. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mission: Impossible (film series) as an WP:ATD. The List of Mission: Impossible characters is for characters from the original TV series; it omits the late-80s revival let alone the film series. The film series article is a better redirect target. oknazevad (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear a few more opinions on this article. By the way, the nominator didn't sign their statement but it was Toby2023.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doing my usual source hunt. This article on ScreenRant seems to address Luther Sticknell specifically. [39] (Maybe this one in CBR too: [40]) Allowing WP:NOTCRYSTAL, there may be more interest and more sources after this movie comes out if they do kill the character off. So if we convert to redirect, which preserves the previous history of the article, we should prepare for a revert in that event. Now to hit Google Scholar... On first blush, there seems to be plenty of material here: [41]. If someone with a JSTOR subscription or university access can get past these paywalls, it may be possible to add enough critical analysis of this character to establish notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the sources provided by Darkfrog, there is also some character analysis in [42], [43], [44], [45]. Collectively I think this passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to sources provided by the users above which show GNG and SIGCOV. Alternatively, it could be draftified whilst it is being improved. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorted by State

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