Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

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

Go, Baby!

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, even with the primary sources shown, simply listing IMDB and Disney deprives this article's notability TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the most recent IP to contest the redirect created by the last nomination at least partially pointed out, all that has changed since that nomination is that the subject is no longer included in the list of programs broadcast by Disney Jr., and hasn't been since 2022. That, to me, indicates that retaining this in any capacity is no longer warranted (unless another redirect target surfaces). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Disney, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Brea

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

Non-notable YouTuber. None of the sources are reliable, and I found none online. Large parts of the article are unreferenced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. No meaningful media coverage. Snowycats (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of American films of 2028

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

This seems way WP:TOOSOON to be useful for the foreseeable future to be draftified. Only one item is even titled. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; can be re-created when we have more than two press-release-parroting sources. (And I will never understand why some editors have to be the first to create an article about a subject for which literally nothing is known yet).WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Blue Crunchy Things

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

This article does not indicate how the band are notable per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. It looks like they had some popularity around Milwaukee but I can't find significant discussion of them in other reliable sources. Google search brings up results in the usual social media sources and music databases but nothing that indicates they meet Wikipedia's criteria. ... discospinster _talk 20:34, 2 January 2025 (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 Wisconsin. ... discospinster _talk 20:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The American Business Journal

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

Topic is not notable. No major news sources have ever referenced this website and all cited sources are press releases. Wiki article feels like self-promotion. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Business, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sourcing; appears to be WP:PROMO and fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche

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

This is a copy of Draft:Moe Dimanche which the creator of both articles, User:NovembersHeartbeat, submitted to Articles for Creation back in September. This user has now made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, to bypass the AfC process, and redirected Moe Dimanche to lead back to this article. I have suspicions about WP:COI that I have expressed on NovembersHeartbeat's talk page (Dimanche is running to be Governor of Florida, which provides a clear motivation). NovembersHeartbeat also created Dimanche v. Brown for a legal case Dimanche was prominent within, and I am now also considering this for deletion. I would like some external advice on whether any of these articles pass WP:GNG as I am not well versed on American legal stuff like this. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement:

My contributions to Wikipedia have been neutral, informative, and edited by Admins. I like editing on Wikipedia because I like spreading knowledge. My contributions include the Federal Magistrates Act, the JUDGES Act, and I'm currently putting together a page on the concept of Unsettled Law. These are topics that serve public interest and make people wiser, and why people rely on wikipedia more than any other source of enlightenment. This user SpiralWidget on the other hand has had his pages deleted because he abandoned them for 6 months. I take the spread of knowledge seriously, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Redirects and Related Articles: The user SpiralWidget says he has conflict of interest concerns, which were addressed when he first started editing the page Moe Dimanche. I think his primary reason for nominating the article for deletion is because it is a duplicate page. However, the wikipedia deletion policy specifically says

"If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand."

But SpiralWidget moved the redirect page anyway because he wanted a formal discussion. The redirect Moe Dimanche was created to aid navigation for users searching under this common nickname. As for Dimanche v. Brown, it is a separate topic with its own independent notability, as demonstrated by coverage in legal publications and its significance in state-level jurisprudence. These articles serve distinct purposes and are appropriately created.

2. Conflict of Interest: I have no personal or professional connection to Moliere Dimanche. The article was written to document a notable public figure in compliance with Wikipedia’s WP:COI and WP:NPOV guidelines. This was already explained to SpiralWidget, even though I do not owe him an explanation. I came across Mr. Dimanche's YouTube videos after a judge in my city reopened a death investigation into a death of an inmate at a local prison. The only videos I could find on that inmate were done by Mr. Dimanche's Youtube channel and I learned more about him and asked why there wasn't a wikipedia page about him. So I decided to do it, as I began to follow what was going on with him.

I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Crime, Law, Haiti, United States of America, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wall of text isn't going to advance your case. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism without evidence. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally Keep While I share suspicions that this is self-promotion by the primary contributor or meatpuppetry by the subject, I find that this does meet the general criteria for inclusion. Though not all the detail is necessary, the case cited does lend credence to the idea that the case and the subject of the case is notable enough; the precedent set is not nontrivial. Given the numerous local sources (admittedly probably pushing their own agenda), I think it marginally meets the threshold for inclusion. I would strongly advise User:NovembersHeartbeat to back off for a few days and likewise recant/strike his remarks about "vandalism". This is not "your" article. It is open to anyone to edit and improve within our guidelines. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep When I first came across this draft in AfC, I refrained from reviewing as the notability seemed marginal–it could've gone both ways. However, I do feel that there are some significant coverage of him as an artist, but this article needs to be ridden of fluff and promotion. [1] I also found this book by Nicole R. Fleetwood that discusses his art in detail. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimanche v. Brown

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

Non-notable, WP:ROTM legal case that is principally created to add credence to Moliere Dimanche (see also: WP:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche and User talk:NovembersHeartbeat)Spiralwidget (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement:

1. Vandalism: This user Spiralwidget has repeatedly vandalized this topic. In his nomination for deletion of the page for Moe Dimanche he states that Dimanche is "prominent" in the case law, and then states that he doesn't know much about "American legal stuff", but projects himself as an expert on legal case notability here. This is vandalism, and in American jurisprudence, Dimanche v. Brown has been cited in 178 new opinions be United States judges. That means this case law helped our highest courts establish new case law, and will continue to do so forever. Virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, and the 178 citations is just from judges rendering opinions. That doesn't count the many more times litigants have used the citation to protect there positions in our district courts, our appellate courts, and in the Supreme Court of the United States. This is an actual law, and has been one since 2015.

I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NovembersHeartbeat (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I am happy to be proven wrong. I am not well-versed in the laws, so it is possible that I am missing some major source that I could look for coverage. However, a search on Google Scholar, Google, Google News, and Google Books did not return any usable source(that is, reliable and independent). Currently, this article has an WP:original research problem since the topic has zero secondary analysis by reliable sources. This article is also heavily WP:REFBOMBed with primary documents of the lawsuit. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel like my essay WP:NPOV deletion applies here, since lawsuits are naturally a contentious topic. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva Project

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

The notability seems redundant with Minerva University. 🄻 🄰 15:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, United States of America, and California. 🄻 🄰 15:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Association for Palestinian Equal Rights

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

Not finding any other reliable sources discussing this organization. Was going to tag for A7 but there was a claim of significance in the history that it was the "only" pro-Palestine lobbying group. On the other hand, this has been tagged with notability issues and the topic has not garnered any serious attention in other reliable sources. In fact, I am finding zero reliable sources, only Weebly blogs and the like. Awesome Aasim 19:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Palestine, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Organization does not seem to have any online notability or coverage as highlighted in the nom, fails WP:SIGCOV. On the comment of being the "only pro-Palestine lobbying group" in the U.S., I don't think this is true. Other groups such as American Palestine Public Affairs Forum and American Task Force on Palestine have wiki-articles that establish greater notability, and there exist many formalized part-activist/part-lobbying groups in the country (i.e. Students for Justice in Palestine or Code Pink. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyner Rushing

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, notability for actors is not automatically passed just because they've had acting roles -- the test doesn't hinge on listing acting roles, it hinges on showing reliable source coverage about them and their performances to establish the significance of those roles. But this is referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability -- IMDb, a YouTube clip and a Q&A interview in which she's answering questions in the first person -- with absolutely no evidence of third-party coverage about her shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim than just existing and better sourcing for the significance of her career, but working actors are not automatically exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 31 December 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. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks for bringing attention to page needing more sources. I added about 10 references - credible news coverage showing she is an actress of notability and needs a Wikipedia page. She is a lead on my favorite Apple TV television show. Slamdunkeroo (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks again for helping me make the page more credible. To sum up, I added about 10 references - credible news coverage showing she is an actress of notability and needs a Wikipedia page. She is a lead on my favorite Apple TV television show. I propose we remove Tyner Rushing from the deletion discussion list. Slamdunkeroo (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of health insurance executives in the United States

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AFD of this article was reviewed at DRV with a closure of no consensus. I exercised my discretion to relist the article here at AFD. This is a procedural nomination with no opinion. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Lists of people, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the 'Delete' from the earlier nomination and can't say it better than the closure notice: "the underlying claim that the list fails both WP:NLIST and WP:CROSSCAT was not adequately refuted by those voting Keep." JeffUK 12:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I said in the previous discussion, this does not meet WP:NLIST because this list, as envisaged here, cannot be demonstrated to be significant as a discrete topic, discussed as a group or set. An editor attempted to answer that with lists of top 10 best paid CEOs, but that is not this set. This list is a list of all health insurance executives, regardless of pay. Not just CEOs, not grouped by anything but that they are heallth insurance executives. The list was created 8 December after one of its members was murdered, and after it was reported that companies were removing information from websites on safety grounds. That is, this list was created - not because of any NLIST criteria that guided it - but because someone thought Wikipedia should have a list of all health insurance executives now, at this time. It is an NLIST fail.
It is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and a violation of WP:CROSSCAT. List articles can be frustrating because our policies are vague on them, and we often retain list articles that fall in the grey area, but in this case there are very clear reasons why this article should not be retained. This is very clearly a WP:COATRACK, and an absolutely astonishing example of unwise drafting based on current events. Whatever the intentions of the drafter, it could be used as a hit list, but also it is highly likely that it will be used to attack Wikipedia itself. The existence of a page such as this fails on neutrality and public safety. It risks bringing the encyclopaedia into disrepute, and it does not serve any true encyclopaedic function. WP:IAR is Wikipedia policy too, and this is the time to use it.
So it should be deleted for multiple policy reasons, including, but not limited to, IAR. The information about the notable executives remains on their pages, so there is no censorship (defined as an attempt to hide material we think is objectional). But this should be deleted because it is a dangerous synthesis of our source material. That is what a list such as this is. It is WP:SYNTH based on Wikipedia sources, and should not be countenanced because it is bad for people for whom we are painting targets on their back, and bad for the encyclopaedia. The collation of this list adds no encyclopaedic value. It can be safely deleted. It cannot be safely kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sources
1. There are sources that discuss President Obama meeting with health insurance executives in 2013. This Washington Post article notes, "The White House hosted a group of health insurance executives this afternoon to discuss - you guessed it! - HealthCare.Gov." This Modern Healthcare article notes:
  Fourteen insurance industry heavyweights were called to the White House Wednesday to advise the Obama administration on how to fix the dysfunctional federal health insurance exchange. ... Kaiser Permanente CEO Bernard Tyson, WellPoint CEO Joseph Swedish, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini and Humana CEO Bruce Broussard were part of the delegation that met with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Deputy Assistant to the President for Health Policy Chris Jennings. ... Other healthcare industry leaders participating in Wednesday's meeting were: Patrick Geraghty, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida; Jay Gellert, president and CEO of Health Net; Patricia Hemingway Hall, president and CEO of Health Care Services Corp.; Daniel Hilferty, president and CEO of Independence Blue Cross; Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans; John Molina, chief financial officer of Molina Healthcare; Michael Neidorff, chairman and CEO of Centene Corp.; James Roosevelt Jr., president and CEO of Tufts Health Plan Foundation; and Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association."
  This article also lists the "health insurance executives" who participated in the meeting.
2. Hellander, Ida (2002). "A Review of Data on the Health Sector of the United States January 2002". International Journal of Health Services. 32 (3): 587–588. JSTOR 45131234.
  The study notes: "Twenty-three top HMO executives at 15 publicly traded companies received a 60 percent raise to a total of $63.3 million in pay in 2000, excluding stock options. They received stock options valued at another $109.2 million." It discusses Aetna's William Donaldson, Aetna's John Rowe, Aetna's Richard Huber, edHealth Group's William McGuire ($7.7 million); Cigna's Edward Hanway ($5.4 million) and Wilson Taylor ($5 million); Wellpoint's Leonard Schaeffer ($4.8 million); Humana's Michael McCallister ($2.7 million) and David Jones ($1.9 million); Trigon's Thomas Snead ($1.8 million); First Health's James Smith ($1.7 million); MAMSI's Thomas Barbera ($1.2 million) and Mark Groban ($1.2 million); and Pacificare's Alan Hoops ($1.1 million). It also discusses Pacificare's Howard Phanstiel.
3. Livingston, Shelby (2017-05-29). "Silence from healthcare CEOs on AHCA politics is deafening". Modern Healthcare. Archived from the original on 2024-12-31. Retrieved 2024-12-31.
  In the context of healthcare CEOs largely avoiding discussion of the Affordable Care Act, the article lists Paul Markovich, CEO of Blue Shield of California; Northwell Health's CEO, Michael Dowling; and J. Mario Molina, CEO of Medicaid insurer Molina Healthcare.
4. Adeel, Noor Ul Ain; Hammel, Tyler (2024-08-27). "UnitedHealth's Witty was highest-paid US health insurer CEO in 2023". S&P Global. Archived from the original on 2024-12-05. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
  The article lists UnitedHealth Group Inc.'s Andrew Witty; Elevance Health Inc.'s Gail Boudreaux; Molina Healthcare Inc.'s Joseph Zubretsky; Cigna Group's David Cordani; Centene Corp. CEO Sarah London; and Humana Inc.'s Bruce Broussard.
5. Stannard, Ed (2024-03-11). "Health insurance CEOs rake in millions, including in CT. Here's the top 10 list". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2024-03-11. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
  The article lists UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty, Elevant Health (formerly Anthem) CEO Gail Boudreaux, Centene Corporation CEO Sarah London, Humana CEO Bruce Broussard, CVS CEO Karen Lynch, HCSC CEO Maurice Smith, Cigna Health Group CEO David Cordani, GuideWell Mutual Holding CEO Patrick Geraghty, Molina Healthcare CEO Joseph Zubretsky, and Independence Health Group CEO George Deavens.
6. Formisano, Ronald P. (2015). Plutocracy in America: How Increasing Inequality Destroys the Middle Class and Exploits the Poor. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-4214-1740-0. Retrieved 2024-12-22 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance executives are being paid millions, reaching Wall Street levels, mirroring the disproportionate compensation that prevails in the United States more than in any other advanced economy. Though they opposed the ACA's new regulations, the CEOs of the 11 largest for-profit companies hauled in packages in 2013 worth $125 million. The biggest winners were Mark Bertolini, CEO of Aetna, whose compensation totaled $30.7 million—a 131 percent increase from the year before—and Centene's CEO Michael Neirdorff, whose earnings climbed from $8.5 million to $14.5 million. Meanwhile, though they are turning large profits, these companies warned patients and businesses that premiums would probably rise in 2015. In 2009, insurance executive Wendell Potter became a whistleblower and began to expose profiteering in the health-insurance industry. He has collected data showing that the more health insurers deny claims, the higher their executives' pay."
7. Sanders, Bernie (2024). It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism. New York: Crown Publishing Group. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-593-23873-8. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
  The book notes: "Meanwhile, the six largest health insurance companies in America made over $60 billion in profits in 2021, led by the UnitedHealth Group, which made $24 billion. And, not surprisingly, the CEOs in the industry receive huge compensation packages. In 2021, the CEO of Centene, Michael Neidorff, made $20.6 million; the CEO of CVS Health, Karen Lynch, made $20.3 million; the CEO of Cigna, David Cordani, took home just under $20 million; and the CEO of Anthem, Gail Boudreaux, received more than $19 million in total compensation."
8. Livingston, Shelby (2018-03-12). "Health insurer CEOs see some significant pay bumps in 2017". Modern Healthcare. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
  The article lists Anthem President and CEO Gail Boudreaux; Molina Healthcare's CEO Joseph Zubretsky; Molina Healthcare's previous CEO J. Mario Molina; Cigna CEO David Cordani; Humana CEO Bruce Broussard; and Centene CEO Michael Neidorff.
9. Livingston, Shelby (2019-03-18). "Some insurer CEOs see bigger paychecks in 2018". Modern Healthcare. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
  The article lists Centene CEO Michael Neidorff; Cigna CEO David Cordani; Anthem CEO Gail Boudreaux; Anthem's previous CEO Joseph Swedish; Humana CEO Bruce Broussard; and Molina Healthcare CEO Joseph Zubretsky.
10. Livingston, Shelby (2017-04-29). "Health insurer CEOs awarded raises in 2016 despite a year of tumult". Modern Healthcare. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
  The article lists Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini, Humana CEO Bruce Broussard, Anthem CEO Joseph Swedish, Cigna CEO David Cordani, UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley, Centene CEO Michael Neidorff, WellCare Health Plans CEO Kenneth Burdick, and Molina CEO J. Mario Molina.
11. Mattera, Marianne Dekker (2006-06-02). "How about cutting insurance execs' pay?". Medical Economics. Vol. 83, no. 11. p. 8. ISSN 0025-7206. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22 – via Gale.
  The article lists UnitedHealth Chairman and CEO William W. McGuire, Humana's President/CEO Michael B. McCallister, Chairman/CEO of Cigna H. Edward Hanway, WellPoint's Larry C. Glasscock, and Aetna's John W. Rowe.
12. Herman, Bob (2022-05-12). "Seven health insurance CEOs raked in a record $283 million last year". Stat. Archived from the original on 2023-08-31. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
  The article notes: "The CEOs of America’s seven largest publicly traded health insurance and services companies cumulatively earned more than $283 million in 2021 — by far the most of any year in the past decade." The article lists Cigna CEO David Cordani and UnitedHealth CEO Dave Wichmann.
13. Herman, Bob (2023-04-27). "Health insurance CEOs set another record for pay in 2022". Stat. Archived from the original on 2023-08-31. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
  The article notes: "In 2022, the CEOs of the seven major publicly traded health insurance and services conglomerates — CVS Health, UnitedHealth Group, Cigna, Elevance Health, Centene, Humana, and Molina Healthcare — combined to make more than $335 million, according to a STAT analysis of annual financial disclosures." The article lists Joseph Zubretsky, the CEO of Molina; David Cordani, the head of Cigna; Bruce Broussard of Humana; and CVS CEO Karen Lynch.
14. Crystal, Graef (2004-10-06). "Well Paid Insurance CEOs vs. 45 Million Uninsured Americans". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2024-12-31. Retrieved 2024-12-31 – via Physicians for a National Health Program.
  The article lists Anthem's Larry Glasscock, Coventry Health's Allen Wise, Wellpoint Health's Leonard Schaeffer, Sierra Health's Anthony Marlon, UnitedHealth Group's William McGuire, Amerigroup Corp.'s Jeffrey McWaters, Wellchoice's Michael Stocker, Aetna's John Rowe, Pacificare Health's Howard Phanstiel, Oxford Health's Charles Berg, Health Net's Jay Gellert, Humana's Michael McCallister.
15. Healthcare executives:
  1. Behm, Carly (2024-05-21). "Kevin Lobo 10th highest-paid healthcare CEO: WSJ". Becker's Spine Review. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
    The article lists 10 healthcare CEOs.
  2. Gooch, Kelly (2024-05-21). "10 highest-paid healthcare CEOs". Becker's Hospital Review. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
    The article notes: "Here are the 10 top-paid healthcare CEOs, according to the analysis:". The article lists Joseph Hogan, Align Technology; Peter Arduini, GE Healthcare Technologies; Andrew Witty, UnitedHealth; Robert Ford, Abbott Laboratories; Gail Boudreaux, Elevance Health; Karen Lynch, CVS Health; Joseph Zubretsky, Molina Healthcare; Samuel Hazen, HCA Healthcare; David Cordani, Cigna; and Kevin Lobo, Stryker.
  3. Galloro, Vince; Vesely, Rebecca; Zigmond, Jessica (2007-07-30). "Trying to compensate: Latest ranking of CEO compensation finds stock options still key to pay as experts monitor for effects of SEC rule changes". Modern Healthcare. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
    The article lists Tenet Healthcare's president and CEO, Trevor Fetter; chairman and CEO of HCA, Jack Bovender Jr.; DaVita's CEO, Kent Thiry; Cigna's H. Edward Hanway; Humana's president and CEO, Michael McCallister; UnitedHealth Group former CEO William McGuire; UnitedHealth's new CEO, Stephen Hemsley; Aetna CEO Jack Rowe; and the chairman, president, and CEO of Universal Health Services, Alan Miller.
WP:CROSSCAT
WP:CROSSCAT says:
Wikipedia articles are not:
- Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.
This article does not violate WP:CROSSCAT because the grouping of "health insurance executives in the United States" has been discussed in reliable sources for many years. A "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" would not have so much coverage.
WP:INDISCRIMINATE
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says that "Wikipedia articles should not be":
1. "Summary-only descriptions of works."
2. "Lyrics databases."
3. "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics."
4. "Exhaustive logs of software updates."
Since this article is none of those, it does not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
The list's scope and its perceived flaws
As defined in the lead, the list's scope is "notable executives of companies in the United States health insurance industry". I consider this to be a clear scope that matches what the sources say.
Some editors above think that the list's scope should be changed. This can be discussed on the talk page. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.

Advantages of a list
From Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Advantages of a list:
1. Good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia.
2. Can be embellished with annotations (further details).
The benefit of this list is that it includes "further details" through having the executive's title and company. A category does not have that functionality. As the sources largely focus on the executives' compensation, the list could be further enhanced by adding this information.
Addressing some comments directly
Given the range of executive titles encompassed and the unlimited time period, we could have any number of chief financial officers, chief risk officers, chief marketing officers, chief technology officers, chief investment officers, chief administrative officers, chief legal officers, chief operating officers, and so forth. – it is likely that nearly all of the people in these roles are non-notable, so they would be excluded from the list. Any executive who is notable should be included in the list.
the list potentially puts people in danger and the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence – these are not policy-based reasons for deletion. This information is widely publicly available and well-sourced to high quality reliable sources, so the list does not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The list passed Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists before the killing happened. Deletion under this basis violates the policy WP:NOTCENSORED and the guideline Wikipedia:Offensive material. As one AfD participant wrote:
Finally, I think it's dangerous territory to limit the creation of controversial articles based on timing. Was this page made in response to a terrible event? Yes. But at what arbitrary point would we then be allowed to create controversial articles? Who gets to decide what's controversial? Slippery slope. I think the timing of this needs to be taken out of the equation.
This is very clearly a WP:COATRACK – WP:COATRACK defines a coatrack article as "a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects". This is a list of health insurance executives in the United States. It does not "ge[t] away from its nominal subject".
But this should be deleted because it is a dangerous synthesis of our source material. That is what a list such as this is. It is WP:SYNTH based on Wikipedia sources – every entry on this list is sourced to a non-Wikipedia source. This list is not based on Wikipedia sources. This list is not WP:SYNTH as it does not "combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on source list As with all sources, those that demonstrate notability are WP:SECONDARY sources. Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, sources that report news are primary sources. This ought to be obvious in this case. A report that healthcare insurance executives were asked to advise on how to fix healthcare is a discursive primary source. Put another way, the calling of experts together to advise on policy does not show that the list of all who work in the expert industry is a notable list. If the experts are called together as a panel, and if that panel meets repeatedly, and especially if its membership changes over time, then what is notable is the list of members of the expert panel. What such sources do not show is that the list of all people who work in the industry, whether they are considered suitable for the expert panel or not, and whether called to it or not, is a notable list
  I have already described above why the list of top paid executives is not a reason to have a list of all executives. None of these sources meet NLIST, and just reposting this huge table merely buries this AfD with stuff without demonstrating that NLIST is met. It is not. None of these sources meet NLIST, and what we have here is an attempt to work backwards to justify a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list by scraping together any grouping possible. None of them show that this list is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AS well as being indiscriminate (in general terms) I also think WP:NOTDIRECTORY is also relevant here; there's no context, just a list of people who have at some point, held a certain role. There are many hundreds of people who fit the definition, so a category would be much more useful. JeffUK 14:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States participants: Mbdfar (talk · contribs), TheTechnician27 (talk · contribs), Sirfurboy (talk · contribs), ZimZalaBim (talk · contribs), Kopf1988 (talk · contribs), The Anome (talk · contribs), Dclemens1971 (talk · contribs), GeorgiaHuman (talk · contribs), Jcmcc450 (talk · contribs), Cakelot1 (talk · contribs), Fish and karate (talk · contribs), SchallundRauch (talk · contribs), Ze0n983 (talk · contribs), Prototyperspective (talk · contribs), WikiUser70176 (talk · contribs), DharmaDrummer (talk · contribs), Aaronw1109 (talk · contribs), Rager7 (talk · contribs), BootsED (talk · contribs), SilviaASH (talk · contribs), Snokalok (talk · contribs), LuciusRex5 (talk · contribs), Bluerasberry (talk · contribs), RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk · contribs), Visviva (talk · contribs), Zanahary (talk · contribs), Pedrogmartins (talk · contribs), Acebulf (talk · contribs), HAL333 (talk · contribs), Chessrat (talk · contribs), L1A1 FAL (talk · contribs), TheLoyalOrder (talk · contribs), Babysharkboss2 (talk · contribs), Amber388 (talk · contribs), MildLoser (talk · contribs), Chefmikesf (talk · contribs), Dympies (talk · contribs), MandRaiden (talk · contribs), Astaire (talk · contribs), Conyo14 (talk · contribs), Esolo5002 (talk · contribs), RWall514 (talk · contribs), and Jellyfish (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I stated before there is no good reason to delete the page as it contains information that is relevant to the healthcare industry. Rager7 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 23#List of health insurance executives in the United States participants who were not pinged in my previous comment: Alalch E. (talk · contribs), Frank Anchor (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), JoelleJay (talk · contribs), OwenX (talk · contribs), SportingFlyer (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), Spartaz (talk · contribs), and Enos733 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no valid reason for deletion as before: It would be good to convert this list into a table with more details about each like relevant qualifications and maybe also to make this broader and/or create similar lists for other countries and industrial branches. The timing for this list may be bad but one has to admit that currently there is a lot of discussion and news reports about the article's subject (btw due to that it's now a "culturally significant phenomenon" per WP:CROSSCAT). More articles like it would be useful to e.g. compare politicians' qualifications or CEO salaries among other things within and across countries. It does not fail WP:CROSSCAT, e.g. it's not a "cross-categorization" and is encyclopedic. I agree with the strong argumentation by Cunard above. --Prototyperspective (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One has to admit that currently there is a lot of discussion and news reports about the article's subject - No, there is a lot of talk about the potential for harm to the individual subjects and their families. And that is not the same thing at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated by the former closure notice: “the underlying claim that the list fails both WP:NLIST and WP:CROSSCAT was not adequately refuted by those voting Keep.” BootsED (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or else Keep. My opinion is much the same as before.^[a] There is, as far as I can tell, no valid reason to argue that this list is inherently inappropriate for Wikipedia. This is public information about public individuals, and protecting their safety or obfuscating their identities is not our concern as editors; we are WP:NOTCENSORED, and they are already WP:FAMOUS.
If there are concerns as to the editorial quality of the content, or that this list may be redundant to previously existing pages or categories, and no consensus among editors as to whether or not the current state of the list is acceptable, then the appropriate place to resolve those concerns is in draftspace. If the article is not draftified, however, then it should be allowed to remain, provided that the information is presented neutrally and there are no other valid concerns. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ My opinion in the previous AfD was: "This list is not inherently inappropriate, and could be improved, but the timing of its creation is certainly suspect and it is likely to be a vandalism magnet in the near future if kept. As such I think it should be workshopped in draftspace until it meets a higher standard. It can be moved back into mainspace later, provided that it has been sufficiently improved and there is consensus among editors to do so."

Delete on grounds of WP:NOT, WP:NLIST, WP:CROSSCAT, WP:IAR. I will be repeating myself from the previous AfD and also addressing Cunard and other "keep" !voters' takes above:
- This list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDATABASE. In the last discussion Mbdfar identified the scope of the article to executives of companies that manage health insurance. Basically, any person who has ever been a c-suite executive or in an executive senior management position (presidents, chairmen). Given the range of executive titles encompassed and the unlimited time period, we could have any number of chief financial officers, chief risk officers, chief marketing officers, chief technology officers, chief investment officers, chief administrative officers, chief legal officers, chief operating officers, and so forth. Cunard's argument above is that these roles are not in scope if the people holding them are not notable, but that's based on a lead sentence that is easy to change. If we were to decided that the topic is notable (it's not), then the scope could very easily be expanded to include non-notable members of this group. The scope of the article based on its title is truly indiscriminate, and this article seems like a WP:COATRACK to build a database of people in these roles, which again Wikipedia is WP:NOT. (Not to mention this list is going to require immense levels of maintenance to be kept up to date as people switch between different jobs.)
- It fails NLIST because no one has supplied any sources that provide WP:SIGCOV of all of these individuals as a discrete topic. Note that the title is health insurance executives. Every single one of Cunard's sources covers a narrower range (and as discussed in the previous AfD and at DRV, they aren't really SIGCOV of the group). Virtually all of the sources cover healthcare CEOs (a bigger category than health insurance) or health insurance CEOs (a narrower category than health insurance executives). One source covers HMO executives, a narrower category than health insurance. As a result, the list fails WP:CROSSCAT because this list has not been proven to be discussed in reliable sources.
- Finally, I argued before and will argue again for a mildly WP:IAR reason for deletion: that such a list created in the immediate aftermath of the murder of Brian Thompson will be viewed as (although hopefully not used as) a hit list. The fact that the original discussion was heavily canvassed outside Wikipedia suggests there's an inappropriate desire (outside of our community; I am not making any aspersions about the established editors offering good-faith policy-based arguments here) by a segment of non-Wikipedians who want to use this site to make some kind of WP:SOAPBOX statement that Wikipedia should not be used for. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've been going back and forth on this; this one's complicated. It was plainly created as a means of slacktivist soapboxing, and its previous deletion discussion was brigaded to hell and back. I think Sirfurboy's argument about "painting targets on their backs" is understandable and needs to be taken seriously. It needs to be acknowledged that it's unequivocally what this article was created for, and it was completely transparent and shameless. That said, I call it "slacktivism" for a reason: it's performative, not meaningfully advancing a cause as much as it is a cheap way for the creator to seek validation instead of taking to the streets and organizing. Absolutely all of this information is easily accessible elsewhere (including the insurance companies' own websites, our articles for these high-profile companies, and our articles on these executives). So I have serious doubts this has the potential to harm anyone in a way that an ocean of information on and off Wikipedia doesn't just as easily facilitate. In the same way that I think deleting this is not action against a cause like some brigaders suggest, I think keeping this (if argued properly) is not action for a cause. I think a lot of what Cunard does above is WP:WIKILAWYERing, engaging way too heavily with the precise wording of guidelines like WP:INDISCRIMINATE instead of their underlying principles. For example, their list of articles feels like literally anything they could find instead of simply picking a handful of very strong examples (e.g. they link to Modern Healthcare, a health insurance trade publication, six times). Moreover, I think a lot of lists suffer from WP:RECENTISM, treatment with kid gloves when it comes to inclusion, and much lower overall quality and oversight, and this is one of them. I came into this sharing Prototyperspective's view that this has potential to be at least vaguely useful as long as it's made into a table format to give more information and keep the types of information consistent across entries (e.g. "name, title, company, years active, education, notes, refs", etc.). However, given how provably vulnerable this topic is to brigading, I have serious doubts that we can maintain its integrity via only allowing bluelinks, because if you create an article about a non-notable exec under the constant threat of off-site 'Keep' brigading at a potential AfD, you can cobble together a dinky little stub to include anything there anyway. Thus, you can manufacture notability. I think it's widely agreed at this point that just moving it to 'List of health insurance companies' to make it more inclusive doesn't work because the US is so unique in how corporatized its healthcare system is. I'm not sure either that draftifying like silviaASH mentions would be useful here; it feels like the two outcomes are 1) it gets immediately moved back into articlespace without meaningful changes or 2) there aren't any changes that can make it inclusion-worthy and draftifying functions as backdoor deletion. Reading DClemens1971's arguments, however, hit the nail on the head for me both as to why Cunard's arguments feel so much like wikilawyering and to why this should be deleted; I 100% agree with what they wrote. This list was extremely poorly thought-out – made impulsively to soapbox without any regard to quality by a new editor who's obviously never read a single one of these guidelines – and now we're getting ad hoc justifications for why it meets inclusion criteria. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in added value over a simple category; WP:NOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE with a side order of WP:COATRACK. I think this whole list could be replaced with a category Category:American health insurance chief executives, itself a subcategory of Category:American health care chief executives and the to-be-created Category:American insurance company chief executives (itself a child category of Category:Insurance companies of the United States). -- — The Anome (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this clearly passes WP:GNG/WP:NLIST as it's been covered in secondary sources per Cunard. It's very discriminate, so we can't knock it out on that - WP:INDISCRIMINATE is often incorrectly applied at AfD, and it has been here, this list will never be more than n- people large. It's not a cross-category since it's not non-encyclopedic and has been covered by secondary sources. WP:IAR means we should censor the encyclopedia. Lists of CEOs are specifically allowed by the part of WP:NOT which includes WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I don't actually care what the end result is here and will be un-watching the AfD, but it is important to me our guidelines are followed correctly. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Keep. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 17:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it discriminate? It's defined incredibly loosely as any notable executive at companies in the United States health insurance industry. That's not much definition; it could encompass HMOs, managed care organizations, pharmacy benefit managers, health savings account providers (including banks), long-term care insurers, reinsurers, consultants and service providers to the health insurance industry, technology providers/insurtech. It's insufficiently defined to provide useful guidance to readers and editors, and thus WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And to repeat what I've said above, it isn't a list of CEOs allowed under WP:NOT, it's a list of all "executives," a term that is likewise undefined. 20:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As well as 'Top or Senior Manager', it's also defined as 'someone who makes decisions or takes actions, it's used as a generic term to mean '-person', "Sales Executive", "Account Executive", "Support Executive", etc. etc. It's not just 'undefined' it's entirely open to interpretation by definition. (Hilton hotels are currently hiring for a 'Hygiene Executive'! would they be included?). Even the linked Business executive has a short description of '|Person responsible for running a business, or an aspect of it' which is basically anyone with any sort of managerial responsibility. JeffUK 08:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply, since the inclusion criteria are as clear-cut as we could ever ask for. The list provides value beyond a mere category, since it shows who is CEO of what, which a category isn't set up to do. XOR'easter (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really wonder how you think the generic "executive" label is "as clear-cut as we could ever ask for". Anyone could be labeled an "executive" (see general manager). "CEO" is a specific role, but "executive" is extremely nebulous. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm confused by the process here. Seems I have to read up on the AFD rules. None of the "Reasons for deletion" apply. Neither does WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:CROSSCAT. Article has improved considerably and discussion on the possible scope of the article was fruitful. If the list's scope is the problem that can be easily fixed by an introductory note that limits the scope as is common for many lists. --SchallundRauch (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my arguments at the DRV and the reasoning from Dclemens and TheTechnician. The inclusion criteria are "health insurance executives in the US", which covers a broad range of people and isn't actually limited to just those who are notable, even if that's what the lead currently claims. The blurb format also strongly lends itself toward BLPVIOs (and indeed these are already present!). JoelleJay (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems more like an argument for cleanup (and for more precisely articulating inclusion criteria, on the list or on the Talk page). XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources by Cunard show that this is a commonly discussed grouping in secondary sources and meets the WP:LISTN accordingly. In addition a simple google search came up with additional sources such as [[2]] and [[3]]. Let'srun (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first article you linked to (from an insurance trade website) is specifically insurance CEOs, not executives in general and not specifically in the health insurance industry (making it irrelevant to this discussion). The second article you link to (from a very niche publication in the form of CEOworld) is the only one I've seen so far that actually talks about other executives (but just by grouping them by salary without any discussion of them as a coherent group). Even then, it ironically illustrates the point shared by Dclemens1971 that 'executive' is too broad and nebulously defined because it ventures outside of the 'main three' executive types (CEO, COO, and CFO) into things like vice executives, CLOs/General Counsel, CAOs, CPOs (Chief Pharmacy Officers), former presidents, co-presidents, "Chief Data, Digital and Technology Officer"s (for when CTO is too pedestrian), etc. And even that is only a small sample of what an "executive" can actually be, because while what you're thinking of is presumably a "chief executive officer" or potentially the C-suite, an "executive" can functionally be anybody. A branch manager is an executive. It's (pardon my French) a total clusterfuck of a term that was chosen impulsively by this list's creator with no regard to maintainability or guidelines because they had an axe to grind and validation to seek. If you create this list caring only about stochastically terrorizing the parasites who run health insurance companies in the US, this is fine, because the more the merrier. But we're here to build a sustainable encyclopedia, and Spartaz is entirely correct about the fate that awaits this list. Not only is this list's fate being a useless, poorly defined piece of crap, but choosing to 'Keep' now after two discussions will set a precedent that we shouldn't delete it when it inevitably hits the exact moribund, dead-end state they're describing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the threshold for inclusion needs to potentially be evaluated, but that is for another place and as it stands WP:GNG and WP:LISTN have been shown to be met. Let'srun (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is a ridiculous list concept and would far much better managed though a category. If kept we will be left with a monstrous long list of indiscriminate names and roles that has next to no useful information that will quickly become historical and moribund as interest moves on. It's also a safety risk and adds no meaningful benefit over adding cats to the articles of the actually notable executives. Best to be rid. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of all "executives" is meaningless, as the term "executive" isn't being defined, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory of various people who happen to work in a field that is receiving a lot of attention at the moment. Cutlass ^Ciera 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't want to beat a dead horse with what I have said on previous discussions, but my opinions align with those of Cunard. As a group, I believe the subject meets notability as demonstrated above, and this list is a useful navigational aid that helps build the web. I do understand the WP:CROSSCAT argument, however, this occupation is almost uniquely American, or at the very least most notable in an American context. I will reassert my opinion that the idea that a list such as this is dangerous is just silly. Plenty of groups with bad PR have lists that you would not question. Is List of Islamic State members inappropriate? Would those arguing that this is a "hit list" not consider FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives so? The timing of this article's creation cannot be considered. There is no precedent and no basis for delaying or deleting an article because it is controversial. As it stands, the article in question is appropriate and encyclopedic. Mbdfar (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:BUILD, which you've linked, is about how and when to link to other existing articles on a technical, stylistic level, not about what should and shouldn't be included as a standalone article or list on the English Wikipedia. Using a link to the Manual of Style to justify inclusion is exactly as much of a non sequitur as if I were to link to a behavioral guideline like WP:AGF to justify inclusion. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is linked as a reminder of one of the core tenants of Wikipedia. This list serves to help readers access relevant information on other Wikipedia pages easily. Purposefully obscuring the connection of the subjects of this list goes against this tenant. Mbdfar (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
did chatGPT write that as it sounds good but has absolutely no meaning. And it's not policy either. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tenancies aside, Mbdfar does not actually state which of the five tenets of Wikipedia this supposedly hits. But it is certainly excluded under the first, which is:
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.

In unpacking what an encyclopaedia is, we have WP:NOT. No page is encyclopaedic if it is excluded under WP:NOT. Thus WP:NOTDIRECTORY pertains, because their argument is This list serves to help readers access relevant information on other Wikipedia pages easily. That is its purpose, and that is the very definition of a directory, thus the first tenet (or pillar) of Wikipedia excludes it as such. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your argument. It sounds like you are saying that if a "list serves to help readers access relevant information on other Wikipedia pages easily", that is actually the definition of a directory, and is therefore not encyclopedic. Is this correct? Mbdfar (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored but no. I never stated it was policy. Perhaps tenant was too strong of a word, but my response was to those who argued in previous threads to purposely "hide" this list as matter of safety. To me, it goes against the principle of what we do here. Mbdfar (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps tenant was too strong of a word. Trying not to sound like the grammar police here, but my attempt at subtle direction has failed. Tenant is not too strong, it is the wrong word. A tenant is someone who occupies a leasehold estate or similar tenancy. A tenet is a principle or belief. You mean tenet. And regarding the tenets or principles of Wikipedia, as above, no. You are incorrect. The principle is that we host encyclopaedic articles, and this directory is not one. That it is also harmful is relevant but not the only reason for exclusion. That it was created by an editor with an axe to grind also smashes through another of the principles of Wikipedia (neutrality). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, ChatGPT would have gotten that word right 🤦 Mbdfar (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE and undefined list of "executives" whatever that means (every company on the planet defines this level of employee differently). It there are numerous notable CEOs of a particular industry, a category takes care of that. We don't need a WP:DIRECTORY of every single industry's leadership. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment on the previous AFD: Timing is very suspect and does make it much harder to search for sources under WP:NLIST, but I couldn't find anything independent of the recent shooting that mentions the CEO's as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you viewed the sources Cunard has brought to the discussion? Many of them predate the shooting. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other people have their own reasons and perspectives for voting keep. Those are valid perspectives. Here is my own perspective of the sources:

Sources talk about the salary of people in this profession
Sources seek to report health policy positions of people in this profession
Since the murder, there is a new body of commentary on society and people in this profession
Sources routinely list people by name in this profession, often in the context of these others, but still naming these people is a media pattern

Wikipedia's bar for inclusion is low per WP:GNG. We just need two sources with two perspectives, and this topic more than meets that minimal standard. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mention "This profession" a couple of times, what profession exactly are you referring to? I don't think "Health Insurance Executive" is a well-defined profession. JeffUK 23:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK: Perhaps "role" is a better term? Regardless, it is a concept described in sources. As you say, it may not be well-defined, but being well-defined is not a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have a good criteria for what a list includes ( or excludes) we don't have a list, we have a random collection. Seems to me that before we even can start applying the guidelines around what is ,or is not, an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia list we need to be able to articulate what it is actually a list of. JeffUK 15:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK: The Wikipedia editorial process checks to see if multiple reliable sources give different perspectives on a single concept. We have those sources, and the concept is "health insurance company CEO". I agree with you that the sources do not provide a definition of that role, but I disagree with you that Wikipedia needs a definition to make an article. You are right to check whether all the sources are discussing the same concept, but in this case, there is no ambiguity as the sources are definitely all talking about top executives at billion-dollar-revenue, American health insurance companies. If you think this is a random list, then can you point the odd ones out, and say why they are different from the others? Bluerasberry (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the concept is "health insurance company CEO" - which is not what this page is, nor what it was conceived as. If post hoc sources found some other list (best paid CEOs being what was found) then what they provide evidence for is some other list, but not this one. And we can't just say "oh well, that is what this page is about from now on, we'll repurpose it". If We did that, we would delete nothing and keep everything by simply changing what the page is about. But this list was never conceived as that. It was conceived as a list of all health care executives (whatever that term means), and the purpose of the creation was certainly not just to list the top 10 best paid CEOs. And as such it fails NLIST. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit the nail on the head there; the concept supported by the sources is "Current Serving Health insurance company CEOs"; that could be a list, but I think it would be better to turn List_of_United_States_insurance_companies#Health_insurance_(major_medical_insurance) into a table, including 'President/CEO' as a column. JeffUK 18:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per my comment at the previous AFD. Fish+Karate 17:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I get both sides and I'd rather we have a narrower (and thus more clearly defined) set of lists. CEOs, board chairs, etc. "Health insurance executive" is too vague. But that's a matter of improvement, not deletion (the list currently covers what I think it should cover, just not fond of the title). But the narrower topics are clearly notable based on sources found and isn't indiscriminate at all. Right now, in effect, we have all those lists in one article. Which is fine and can be addressed if and when it gets big enough that we should split. I'd also like to see improvements with a table (name, company, title, timeframe, highest salary, etc.). But lots of articles need improvement and that is never a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we have all of those supposed notable narrow topics in one article, then yes, it definitely is indiscriminate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Scattered throughout this discussion is some concern over the impresicion of "executive" which I think needs to be highlghted. While CEOs is a specifical function, "executive" includes all kinds of roles that differs across companies. Do we really think program managers should be itemized in an encylcopedia? And why do health insurance executives need this kind of page all of a sudden, and just in the US? All of this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Albanese

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

This person doesn't seem notable enough to me. I cannot find any news coverage about her. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JCC Maccabi Youth Games

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

Redirect to parent org Maccabi World Union, where it is better contextualized. Youth version of the notable Maccabiah Games. Longhornsg (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Sports, Olympics, Israel, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not see it mentioned at the target so redirect is not really an option. Maybe select merge into Jewish Community Center? gidonb (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Maday

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

Non-notable actor with roles in only one notable film. None of the sources are reliable, and I found none with significant coverage online. I initially BLARed this to Presence (2024 film)#Cast, but it was reverted by the article's creator. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 December 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. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:BIO/WP:NACTOR. No significant coverage exists in reliable sources; most existing sources mention him as a cast member but there is no independent coverage of the subject himself. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources I can find are databases or passing mentions in news sources. Fails WP:NACTOR as mentioned above. Jordano^5³ 04:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uthman Ibn Farooq

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

This is an article about an American Muslim missionary who runs a Masjid in California and also has a YouTube channel. I looked through the article's sourcing, and found it relatively lacking:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
OneMessageFoundation on YouTube	The BLP subject is more or less the person who runs the One Message Foundation	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
Canadian Dawah Conference	This is a speaker bio for a conference at which the BLP subject spoke	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
Know Your Sheik	This is the same speaker bio as given for the Canadian Dahwah Conference, almost verbatim. This appears to be merely a host for self-submitted bios of Sheiks	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
Masjid Ribat	The BLP subject serves as the Imam at Masjid Al-Ribat	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

After noticing this, I also tried to look for independent significant coverage of this individual from reliable news sources via an online search. Google news returned zero results for search terms Uthman Ibn Farooq Khan Yusufzai and عثمان بن فاروق خان یوسفزی (his Pashto name). But I was able to find some articles that mention a certain "Uthman Ibn Farooq" that are not presently cited:

Middle East Forum: 1, 2 (apparent opinion piece), 3, 4, 5, 6
Arab News: 1 (labeled opinion piece)
Trinidad and Tobago Guardian: 1 (describing him as among a group denied into the country)
Voice of the Cape: 1
Politics Nigeria: 1

But I don't think this is enough to warrant an article. Middle East Forum is deemed unreliable at WP:NPPSG and the Arab News source is an editorial and thus not contributing towards notability, so these obviously don't help meet WP:NBASIC. "Voice of the Cape" is a local religious community radio station, and "Politics Nigeria" frankly looks like an online politics blog; while neither are mentioned in the WP:NPPSG (and have never been discussed at RSN, from what I can tell), I don't think either are reliable enough to contribute towards notability. And that leaves us with a single article in the Trinidad and Tobago Guardian, but no single source can satisfy the requirement that multiple qualifying sources cover a subject for them to be presumed notable.

As such, I do not think that this WP:BLP meets the relevant notability guideline of WP:NBASIC. And, in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8, I think we should delete this article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Mexico, and California. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you're correct, there is only 4 references, one of which is a link to his YouTube channel and the another is a link to a website of a random mosque where there is inadequate information regarding him, the remaining two don't give any indepth and verifiable information regarding him. Codonified (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find forums and op eds. There is no independent coverage in reliable sources, and there is way too much unsourced content in the article for it to remain in the main space. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS. Zuck28 (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, Love, Misery: New New York

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM, the only mentions of this film are a handful of online reviews from smaller websites. This film has generally positive reviews but isn't otherwise notable. Many editors have tried to improve the article but there isn't much to work with outside those reviews. See Talk page where this was discussed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, COVID-19, and United States of America. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the significant coverage in reliable/[generally-accepted] sources. -Mushy Yank. 04:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [Edited; see below and TP][reply]
Keep This is a relatively low budget independent documentary film, but that does not mean that it is not notable. Rotten Tomatoes is considered a reliable source for review aggregation, per WP:ROTTENTOMATOES, although not every review that is aggregated is automatically presumed to be reliable. In this case, the film has seven reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, all of them generally positive though not overwhelmingly positive. Four reviews are currently used as references in the article. Those four sources, Film Carnage, Film Threat, High on Films and GhMovieFreak are already used extensively as references in many existing film articles. If it is argued and agreed that those sites are not reliable in this article, then it will be necessary to edit hundreds of film articles to remove references to those sources and the content they support. Is the nominator willing to take on that task? A complicating factor in this case is that the article was created by a highly problematic editor who has since been indefintely blocked. However, other editors in good standing have contributed to the article, and we should not delete articles about notable topics just because they were originally written by editors who have later been blocked. That can be perceived as vindictive. The article was Prodded twice but only one prod per article is allowed. I deprodded it. In conclusion, I believe that the best course of action is to keep this article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Actually, there are 5 reviews cited. -Mushy Yank. 06:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fifth review just added as a reference is from BWRC which is also widely cited as a reliable source in film articles. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Jovanmillic97 removed one, so we are back to 4...For the record, unless we are dealing with a BLP and a potentially libelous source, I disapprove the bold removal of content when a page is being discussed, especially when it’s sourced and sources are, precisely, the main point being discussed. -Mushy Yank. 13:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 The "sources are already used extensively in many articles" or that it's a big hassle to edit them all out arguments are very, very thin and neither are based in any Wikipedia guideline or policy. Just a cursory search on the first one (Film Carnage) reveals that it's a blog by some Rebecca (film fan with no journalistic credits or anything) reviewing indie films. Is that what are we calling "reliable" nowadays? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you do not count the reviews from the three sites mentioned below, including the one you mention, 5-3=2, which is the threshold commonly accepted for the number of reviews necessary for a film, and that is based on NFILM and/or GNG. -Mushy Yank. 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be wary of reviews from Film Carnage, High on Films, and GhMovieFreak. There are a lot of film articles out there that are under the radar, while articles for mainstream films get a lot of attention. So it's always possible that these proliferated inappropriately and may be propping up other articles falsely. As it has been said, "other stuff exists". We have to remember that at the end of the day, Rotten Tomatoes is a commercial website, so it is financially interested in collating all possible reviews for any film. It's basically like IMDb's External reviews page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies as I didn't notice the first PROD.

I came across this article due to the blocked editor, but I didn't want that to be used as a reason for deletion so deliberately didn't mention it here. If the consensus is "keep" then I'm more than happy to tidy up the review section, although I'm not sure how to beef up/expand the remainder since the bulk of the article is the review section - that was one of my concerns during the TP discussion with @Axad12 on what to do next (this is where AFD came up).

I'll gladly accept & seek out any tips or recommendations on how best to proceed with that endeavour if the article stays, so every post here is really helpful in that respect! Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep: Sourcing available in the article itself meets NFILM. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Reading Beans, did you mean to say "Keep"? Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I’ll change it now. I definitely misclicked. Thank you for letting me know. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the set of reviews for this film, only one is a reliable source: Film Threat. The other reviews are not reliable sources. Being used for the Rotten Tomatoes score does not mean anything since RT is a commercial website that will collate everything possible. It's like a film having an IMDb page with a list of external reviews available. If many Wikipedia articles are citing these reviews, that's a big problem. It could be more people like the editor who made this, or editors who thought they can just use any review listed at RT, regardless of reliability. Of course, I work mainly with mainstream film articles, so if there is a WP:RS case to be made for these reviews, go ahead and make it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but what makes you say BRWC is not reliable? -Mushy Yank. 13:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at About Us, I do not see the people involved as having beyond-the-website credentials to be "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" per WP:SOURCEDEF. In the footer, it proclaims itself as "a blog about films". If it is a blog, it can only be acceptable per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Google Books here seems to show only one book that has ever referenced BRWC. I don't see anything in Google Scholar either. What is your take? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s technically a blog but not in the sense of a personal blog and they have a limited team of contibutors not just whoever wants to write there; they exist since 2008, so they might be considered OK, I guess. And the author of the review seems to have wrtitten a lot of reviews that look Okaysih in terms of quality. GhMovieFreak is a bit of the same, it’s not user-generated. If there was a list like Lists of films about the COVID-19 pandemic, I’d say redirect but there does not seem to be one. And with the Film Threat review, that’s generally reliable, i feel it would be unfair to delete this. -Mushy Yank. 23:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page seems lacking in its actual state. The Reception section, which currently is the only section with more than 2 lines of text, has partial and redundant content. Did at least one of the contributors even watch the documentary? Bit-Pasta (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do think at least one did. -Mushy Yank. 00:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Erik above. Axad12 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will say that personally, I see BRWC as a RS as long as it's a non-paid article. However I'm aware that overall the sourcing here isn't the strongest. So what I'm suggesting here isn't that we keep this article but rather than we create an article for the director. She's put out some other films that have received reviews from places like The Hollywood Reporter, Cinema Crazed (typically seen as reliable on here), and Film Journal International. There appears to be enough sourcing to justify creating an article for her - we can have a section on her film career so it's not just a list of films and links to reviews. That could be a good compromise here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shannon Alexander. It's not the biggest or best article I've ever done on a director, but I think there's enough to justify him passing notability. This also gives a good compromise: we can redirect this article to the director's page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. The suggested redirect and possible merge can be a good compromise. Best wishes. -Mushy Yank. 04:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that the newly created article on Alexander passes GNG? It looks to me that there is a shortage of decent coverage about Alexander - just a single interview and a collection of film reviews (i.e. not actually sources about the director himself). I think it would be a good idea if somebody nominated the Shannon Alexander article to AfD to test this in practice.

It doesn't seem a very good idea to recommend a redirect when the redirect article suffers from exactly the same problem as the article which is the subject of this AfD. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Motorcycle Shows

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

Defunct tradeshow. Was nation-wide for about a decade, but it fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. mikeblas (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "being defunct" is not an arugument for deletion. It may fail notability, but the fact it no longer exists isn't relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "being defunct" is not used as an argument for deletion here. Remember: context is important. Here, it's offered as a simple and objective descriptoin of the subject. -- mikeblas (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives by year, 1960

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

Delete: The information on this page is redundant given the new organizational structure by decades as seen in FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, 1960s making it repetitive and clunky. DigitalPhantoms (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Crime, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 19:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect, along with the rest of the decade's years. Great work on the merge, seems like you should just redirect them all to maintain the history. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and I agree. It was recommended I start with one page and see how it fairs to see how to move forward. DigitalPhantoms (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just curious, if redirect becomes the outcome for this page, what would be the best way to have the 1961 - 1969 pages be redirects as well? DigitalPhantoms (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DigitalPhantoms Just redirect them yourself. I think that is the consensus and we've had one AfD for it, so just say following the one AfD, maybe. I wouldn't contest it either way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was the content copied to the new page? Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia explains how to attribute other users which have contributed to the content. Quote from the page: "If an article is deleted, its history is removed and thus its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia—even under the same article title—unless attribution is otherwise provided (or the page undeleted)." Christian75 (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't copied from the original page. It was taken from most likely, the same source (I say most likely source since this page does not cite any sources).

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/topten-history

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/ten-most-wanted-fugitives-faq/ten-most-wanted-101-200

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/ten-most-wanted-fugitives-faq/ten-most-wanted-201-300

I do think attribution should be given though anyway though for creating the structure. If the outcome is a redirect, a history merge may be appropriate. DigitalPhantoms (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sounds like the content was merged into the target Christian75 (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pando

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with apparently only one notable role rather than the multiple ones called for, and subject apparently requests deletion (see the Talk page), which should give a lean in a marginal case. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 27 December 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. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this isn't even a marginal case. The history of the article shows it has been problematic from the start, it has been unsourced since it was first created in 2011, and the few citations added in November 2024 do not demonstrate that this BLP is notable. Passing mentions in a book, a newspaper article and ScreenRant are not significant coverage. It doesn't even pass WP:BASIC - People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. And WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies as well. If editors think his name is a valid search term, then it could be re-directed to List of The Sopranos characters, where his recurring character Agent Frank Grasso redirects to. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note the problematic basis: creating user was blocked less than a year after this article's 2011 creation. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of significant coverage (as opposed to passing mentions) in reliable sources. The subject's wishes alone are not enough, but are certainly a factor when notability is not well established. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear failure of NACTOR and GNG. Noah ^💬 22:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. This subject fails WP:NACTOR. He also lacks WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. JFHJr (㊟) 22:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the points above. The article is poorly sourced, and it does not appear to meet the notability guidelines.Svenska356 (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. 23.158.16.24 (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UP! (Forrest Frank and Connor Price song)

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

Seems to fail WP:NSONG; I am unable to find sufficient WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. There is this with three or four sentences of independent coverage, as well as this blog post and trivial mentions like this. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Christianity, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Child of God (album) as an alternative to deletion. Per nom, does not meet WP:NSONG or WP:SIGCOV - but that doesn't stop this particular author from creating articles that fail to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC criteria. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Child of God (album): agree with Baston's reasoning but would merge. Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus against status quo, but delete, redirect, or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tzameret Fuerst

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

Advert. all sources are PR, no in-depth personal coverage --Altenmann >talk 15:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Israel, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources on Fuerst's page are terrible, and it's unclear if she meets WP:NBIO. However, her startup Circ MedTech absolutely meets WP:GNG, with WP:SIGCOV in New York Times, Haaretz, Tablet, VoA, Times of Israel, NoCamels, Reuters, among others. I'll go ahead and create Circ MedTech, and propose we redirect Fuerst to Circ MedTech. Longhornsg (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC) 05:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please note and check that the start up got raft of criticism, allegedly unproven scientific benefits. It is mentioned briefly in the book "Thou Shalt Innovate" by Avi Jorisch, pp. 190-191, the book dedicated to the start up 33 words, the book discuss the greatest innovations that came out of Israel. And guess what ? Tzameret Fuerst not mentioned there, but the three founders of the company mentioned there. It is not her Start-Up, she was married to one of the founders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC7:50E:22C2:778:5634:1232:5476 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are arguing for a Redirect or Merge, please provide a link to the target article so that it can be reviewed to see if it is suitable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The circumcision device might be notable [4], but this person is only mentioned in context of the company or the device. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Beach

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

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

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

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Housden, Ellie (2006-08-19). "books kids". The Courier-Mail. ProQuest 354009468. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.
  The review provides 243 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "Initiation isn't as wholesome as some teenage fiction; there's some drinking and suggestions of lust that have nothing to do with blood. But the moral of the story is that modern vampires, like ordinary teenagers, have to exercise restraint in their drinking habits to avoid discovery."
2. Jacob, John (Fall 2006). "Vampire Beach: Bloodlust" (PDF). The Alan Review. Vol. 34, no. 1. p. 41. EBSCOhost 507925514. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.
  The review provides 171 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Bloodlust. The review notes: "This is a well-written tale of school life in Malibu, and this book is only one in a series of books about Jason and his sister, Dani, and their “friends” in the high school where they have come to live. ... Only rogue vampires kill and, of course, Jason must confront both the rogue and his competition at school, in a tale that is meant to flow into other stories."
3. McGarvey, Paul (2006-08-12). "Bookshelf: Vampire Beach: Bloodlust, by Alex Duval". South Wales Argus. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review provides 146 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Bloodlust. The review notes: "For the large part, Duval makes no such attempt to do anything original with this Lost Boys-meets-the-OC tale of beautiful immortals in sunny Malibu. ... Towards the end of the novel, Duval takes a great many liberties with the vampire mythology, none of which I can reveal here without spoiling the plot. However, this is an enjoyable enough and breezy read for fans of trashy teen fiction."
4. Squires, Lorraine (August 2006). "Paperback Series Roundup". Voice of Youth Advocates. Vol. 29, no. 3. p. 236. EBSCOhost 502888926.
  The article provides 97 words of coverage. The article notes: "Another twist on the lives of the young and fabulous comes from Vampire Beach, a series that owes a debt to both Beverly Hills 90210 and R. L. Stine. Jason Freeman moves with his parents and younger sister from Michigan to exclusive Malibu Beach, where he falls in with the super-rich, super-hot, popular crowd. But partying has a truly dark side--a girl turns up dead with suspicious bite marks, and Jason discovers that beautiful people can be deadly. This take on vampire myth will drive purists crazy, but might sell well to A-List and The OC fans."
  The article lists the books in the series:
  Vampire Beach by Alex Duval. Simon Pulse/S & S. 3Q 4P J S
  Bloodlust, Book One. 2006. $5.99. 1-4169-1166-9.
  Initiation, Book Two. 2006. $5.99. 1-4169-1167-7.
5. Atkinson, Frances (2006-12-17). "Big Books - Small Readers - Book Review". The Age. ProQuest 367472866. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.
  The review provides 81 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "This second book in the Vampire Beach series is unashamedly cheesy but who can resist the winning combination of Malibu, wealthy teens, seduction and vampires? Jason, the new kid in town, falls for sultry Sienna Devereux as his friend Tyler becomes involved with the "wrong crowd" (the sort that have fangs). Brimming with teen-speak and popular culture references, Initiation is the book you can't wait to read on the beach, although you may have to leave it buried in the sand."
6. "Vampire Beach: Initiation". The Bookseller. No. 5234. 2006-06-16. p. 36. EBSCOhost 21394113.
  The review provides 48 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "Return to the glamour and intrigue of DeVere High, where the cool crowd are in fact the undead and bloodsucking has never been so cool. I can't help loving these books, they are out-rageously addictive, super cool, and as sharp as a wooden stake right to the heart."
7. Fonseca, Tony (2011). "Young Adult Vampire Fiction". In Joshi, S. T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Vampire: The Living Dead in Myth, Legend, and Popular Culture. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 415–416. ISBN 978-0-313-37833-1. ProQuest 2134512314. Retrieved 2024-12-27 – via Google Books.
  The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "In the last five years, the number of YA vampire series has skyrocketed. Popular series include ... the Vampire Beach series by Alex Duval (Bloodlust [2006], Initiation [2006], Ritual [2007], and Legacy [2007]); ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vampire Beach to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of this looks like plot recap, with a few quotable quotes that maybe express some kind of feeling/opinion.

Sure, Housden 2006 provides 235 words of coverage in theory, but all but 46 of those words are straight plot recap and are pretty much useless for notability/citation purposes. And as far as analysis goes, I don't exactly find modern vampires, like ordinary teenagers, have to exercise restraint in their drinking habits to avoid discovery. to be inspiring. (That's half of what i'm calling 'analysis'.)
Jacob 2006 is actually pretty good, although them putting the town after the name makes me feel like it's reader submitted.
McGarvey 2006 is also mostly plot recap, not SIGCOV.
Can't access Squires 2006.
Atkinson 2006 is a small paragraph in large font with barely anything useful in it.
Can't access The Bookseller.
C'mon, Fonseca 2011 clearly isn't SIGCOV.

Taken together, I think calling these the basis for an article would ultimately yield an article that ignores a lot of best practices – like citing sources that make an effort, instead of the routine 75-word book review mill. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American newspaper The Courier-Mail, the American journal The Alan Review, the Welsh newspaper South Wales Argus, the American magazine Voice of Youth Advocates, the Australian newspaper The Age, and the British magazine The Bookseller are not "book review mill[s]". These are all respected publications. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says a book is notable when it "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The notability guideline for books does not say that "straight plot recap" are "pretty much useless for notability/citation purposes". In fact, there was a strong consensus in the August 2023 RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 186#RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability against amending the notability guideline to add this text:

When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes from the book should be omitted when determining whether a source contains significant coverage.

Until and unless the notability guideline is changed to exclude the plot summary parts of sources from contributing to significant coverage, they do contribute to significant coverage. These sources contain sufficient independent analysis and commentary that decent-sized sections that go beyond plot summary can be written at Vampire Beach#Background and Vampire Beach#Reception. Jacob 2006 is not reader submitted. According to the Winter 1994 issue of the journal, John Jacob was an Associate Professor of English at North Central College in Naperville, Illinois. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: The excerpts Cunard posted are the entirety of the coverage Squires 2006 and The Bookseller (accessible via TWL here) provides of this series. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is one of those situations where it would be helpful to have a notability criteria for book series. Out of all the reviews Cunard posted, I'd only consider the first three (and maybe 4/5, but its a bit shaky) to provide sufficient coverage to count towards NBOOK. The problem is most (not 4) of them are reviewing the individual books, not the series. If this were an AfD for an individual book, then two would be enough, but since this is for the series, do we still need only 2 for notability, and if so, do they have to be coverage of the overall series? Or is reviews for a decent portion of the series enough to justify a series article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus here yet on whether the sources cited provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Equestrian Trade Association

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Horse racing, and United States of America. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Trade organization with little to no reliable secondary coverage. All the coverage about it that I could find appears to be promotional in nature. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NORG. Thanks for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Pennsylvania Turnpike crash

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

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

Keep: The fact that the NTSB got involved shows notability, this wasn't a fender-bender with a few people. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NTSB investigating something does not make it notable. Countless road accidents have been investigated by them but that detail doesn't mean each and every one deserves an article. Cutlass ^Ciera 23:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Pennsylvania. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's also coverage in 2022 of the NTSB findings [5], [6]. Coverage of the accident in 2021 [7], that's almost two years work of coverage, that's sustained coverage. Some talk of lawsuits after, but I can't find RS about them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 deaths and 60 injured is more than notable. It was also the most severe one to that point in time on the road [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this wasnt a random accident, people died in this crash Codonified (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of fatal road accidents, This one may be notable, but that doesn't make it notable in itelf. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By virtue of the fact that this was an "accident" carries with the implication that this was random. How can it not be random? Did some dastardly person orchestrate this? Or perhaps it was the Fate of 60 or so people to collide on that day at that specific moment? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of randomness (or lack of being random) is not part of the criteria for notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of non-trivial references, so I think WP:GNG is satisfied, as well as WP:EVENTCRIT. WP:LASTING is not a criteria for notability. -- mikeblas (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is coverage by some news media outlets, I can't see this event as notable. I empathize that people were killed and injured but this type of stuff happens all the time on United States highways. Having this on Wikipedia seems to be pandering to the salacious. In any case, this is a WP:ROUTINE event. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite being an unusually large car crash, it was "just" a large car crash. I don't see it rising to the level of notability set out by WP:EVENTS. In particular, the coverage is concentrated over a very short time - almost exclusively two single days, in fact (the date of the crash, Jan 5, and the release of the NTSB report on Feb 6). --Tserton (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Again, this is not a question of if YOU think this subject is notable but what reliable sources say. Our own opinions are not relevant. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the most part we usually note these large-scale accidents within the History section of the highway it took place (here, Interstate 76 (Ohio–New Jersey)), but no accidents are noted in that article itself, and the PA Turnpike article itself is already long enough. This accident isn't really of note outside a short paragraph, possibly in the article for Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. The article meets WP:RS, but I agree with Steve Quinn's WP:NOTNEWS assertion. According to WP:EVENTS, not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. Thus, merging it will keep the details of the incident intact, but from all indications it does not warrant a separate article.--DesiMoore (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Technology Development Center

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Imcdc Contact 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I found two independent sources ([9], [10]) and added them to the article, but I'm not sure about reliability and the first one seems pretty promotional. I'd be more confident if someone could find another piece of coverage that isn't connected to the ATDC or Georgia Tech. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YL Ventures

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, Israel, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August Capital

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS). QEnigma talk 16:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of coverage that goes back to before the millennium. There's more than a dozen articles in the Wall Steet Journal which detail deals made: [11], [12], [13]. There's New York Times coverage as well: [14], [15], [16], [17]. Plenty more sources out there. This is just from a few minutes search. Thriley (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CORPDEPTH. These are funding announcements (1+2+4+5), brief hiring news (3) and a brief mention (6+7). These would be considered routine trivial coverage. Could be just regurgitation of press releases. No considered in depth enough to fulfill WP:ORGCRIT. The requirements for WP:NCORP are a lot more stringent now and simply having a bit of coverage is not enough to prove notability. Imcdc Contact 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really spend more than a few minutes looking into potential sourcing? Thriley (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the type of coverage that is expected for a firm like this one. It demonstrates that billions of dollars has passed through it over the last 30 years. Thriley (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: You added a source from Fortune to the article . Are you seeing the widespread coverage I am seeing? Thriley (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While a firm with a large AUM is expected to be notable, it is the independent in-depth sources that determine notability per WP:NCORP. Just saying an investment firm has raised XXX amount alone is considered routine since they all need to do that since how else are they going to get money to invest? Speaking of AUM, August Capital has supposedly $1.3B to $2B AUM. Meanwhile BOND has $6B AUM and Accel-KKR has over $20B AUM and they both got deleted. Imcdc Contact 17:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic-Pacific Capital

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Connecticut. Imcdc Contact 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS) criteria. QEnigma talk 15:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Esti92 (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage I could find were WP:ROUTINE mentions in the trades, nothing to notch WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayer's unrealized projects

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

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

Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Wikipedia as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Wikipedia article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic fightpicking.
"In my opinion"... Wikipedia is not about opinions, son. Quit while you're ahead, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. "Power trip", good description to whomever said it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David Ayer – it makes more sense to discuss these projects in the context of his larger career (or to omit certain projects if their coverage is too trivial, but that can happen after a merge). Regardless of notability, at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic (WP:PAGEDECIDE). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Few editors are willing to take responsibility of it. No issue in keeping the article for some more time unless there are no significant improvements. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that "Perfectly standard" or "No issue in keeping the article" are not guideline-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not (although common sense should incite us to believe that a perfectly standard page is very likely an acceptable page as standalone list/article.) But SPLITLIST is a guideline, and a solid reason for keeping list-formatted pages. -Mushy Yank. 13:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge back to David Ayer and maybe thin this out. Right now this comes across as the films he didn't make are the most important part of his work. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The North American Discworld Convention

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in Gnews, nothing in RS that I can find. Sounds interesting, but no RS we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Events, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there coverage of the Discworld fandom as a whole? If so, then we might be able to justify creating a section or subsection (like under reception?) in the main Discworld article that could briefly cover the fandom and the various conventions like this one. I admittedly am not seeing a huge ton of sources, but perhaps someone else could have better luck? (I'm also not delving super deep as far as searching goes). I did find this one about the UK convention and this one about general convention appearances though, though. And this one that's paywalled but mentions a Pratchett superfan. They're all by The Guardian so it's not a huge depth of coverage, but it's a start. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if User:ReaderofthePack had anything more to add to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't really able to find a whole lot - there is some light mention of the conventions, so I think we could probably justify a few short lines. My recommendation is to retitle the critical reception section to just "reception" and include a sentence or two about the conventions. The conventions are a good example of fan reception, so inclusion there wouldn't be too out of the question. I just don't think that we need more than a sentence or so. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biometric Consortium

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a source like that, it is valid that it remains. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[18] is a WP:MILL WP:BLOG and not a WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject does not have enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

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

[1] My opinion in the previous AfD was: "This list is not inherently inappropriate, and could be improved, but the timing of its creation is certainly suspect and it is likely to be a vandalism magnet in the near future if kept. As such I think it should be workshopped in draftspace until it meets a higher standard. It can be moved back into mainspace later, provided that it has been sufficiently improved and there is consensus among editors to do so."

[a]