Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to California. 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|California|~~~~}} 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 California. 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 US.

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

Purge page cache

watch

California

Operation Chico

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

Is this notable? Potential hoax. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dive Studios

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

Was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DIVE Studios. G4 was declined, so bringing it back for discussion. Currently has zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources (one of them does not even mention the subject). Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was the admin which declined the speedy, based on sources varying from the original process. I'm unimpressed with sources applied and my reasonable BEFORE finds nothing better on the web. Run-of-the-mill applies. Happy to see improvement, but now it's still an A7, so far as I can see. BusterD (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comstock's

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

COI editing which was first deleted through a prod, then through AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comstock's magazine, although the article was restored through DRV, due to some behavioral issues. However, Oaktree b's analysis of the sourcing holds true. Not seeing enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the main concern is a lack of WP:RS, which I disagree with. The magazine has been covered multiple times in big newspapers like the Sacramento Bee and Sacramento Business Journal, indicated by source 2 and source 7. It's also been covered by smaller papers like the Elko Daily Free Press (source 14) and The Placer Herald (source 12). But because this is Wikipage on a magazine, we should consider WP:NMEDIA for help determining notability. In the sub-section for "Newspapers, magazines and journals," Comstock's meets the first, second, third and fifth criteria. It has won awards (sources 26 and 27), it has a significant history (source 30), it is considered a reliable source as it's articles have been used as citations on about 30 different Wikipages, and it covers a non-trivial niche market, which is the Sacramento metropolitan area (source 1). Comstock's is a member of the California News Publishers Association (source 4), which is criteria 4 of WP:NEWSNOTE. While Comstock's isn't a newspaper, it's unique for a magazine to be a member of a state-wide journalism organization, so that point should count towards notability. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: I'm still struggling to find anything outside the Sacramento Business Journal, we have multiple articles from it. Some coverage in the Sacramento Bee and Fresno and Elko newspapers. I guess we have enough to confirm notability; very local/focused coverage, but it extends over many years and a semi-large geographic area. Oaktree b (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very !weak keep, I could go either way. If we found better sources, could be a !keep, but I can't find any. Gnews goes for about 30 pages of articles from the magazine itself, then dies off. Oaktree b (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The California Digital Newspapers collection links a number of stories from the Roseville Press-Tribune and other local papers. Thus far none of them seem massively important, but the number of mentions indicates a level of significance to the region. Many of the articles discuss Comstock's role as a sponsor of local awards. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2024 a feature radio interview with Comstock about the magazine's 35 year anniversary [1] , and Bite Sized Finance podcast episode on same topic.

Sacramento Public Radio marked 20th anniversary with an interview (24 minutes in).

Listed in a number of press and business publication directories: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no evidence of lingering COI issues in the text. Key points such as circulation are sourced to several different independent sources, and a number of media organizations have covered anniversaries and the magazine's role in the community. Sourcing is good. I do think the article could benefit from some trimming, e.g. there is more attention given to the publisher's origin story, the vision that came to her in a dream, etc., than seems appropriate to a Wikipedia article. But that's not a matter for AfD. I see no issues that would warrant deletion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in Sac Bee and Sac Business Journal, multiple items of coverage count as one source each... but that's still solidly two Independent RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Duarte

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Oregon. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find no sources for this soccer player. What's in the article are primary only. Appears to still be in the minor leagues, so might not have attained enough notice for more media coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSCRIT. No significant coverage in independent sources. The player doesn’t seem notable enough for a separate article. Pridemanty (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson McCracken

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSBASIC due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Oregon. Let'srun (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues and Answers

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

Deprodded with source, but there's still not much out there

OGOGO

AfDs for this article:

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

Original 2008 argument for keeping this article was based upon the fact they released two albums on major labels. They released albums on Innova Records and III Records, but III Records has notability issues itself, so I don’t see how it can upholster another article.

Also, there are few sources I can find. Google came back with All About Jazz, but that’s a database. They had one passing mention in a book from 2000. Otherwise, I’d say they’re unnotable. Roasted (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further research: I don't believe it should’ve been kept the first time. The argument was that they released an album under a major label (Innova Recordings). The article itself doesn’t source that fact. The only place on the internet I could find stating such a fact was on Discogs.com. Also, Innova's website doesn’t know of an Ogogo.

Lugnuts argued that they released on two notable labels, but I couldn’t find sources for III Records, and placed a PROD tag accordingly. It should also be noted that Armatist participated in the deletion discussion. Armatist was the creator of the Ogogo and III Records article. Roasted (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, their website mentions Ogogo. Roasted (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long Buttes

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

I don't think it meets WP:GNG, I could not find any sources that were more than just geographic information. Thx56 | Talk to me! 17:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thx56 | Talk to me! 17:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No information found, fails WP:NGEO for lack of sources other than a few passing mentions in primary publications, e.g. [8]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that all of the sources that I found mention it simply as part of an "inconspicuous upland" that is the eastern border of the Antelope Valley, that seems to be the place that this belongs in Wikipedia. Alas, neither article gives any clue that these subjects are connected. Uncle G (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-significant mountain range. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P-6 (mountain lion)

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

No indication why this would be a notable animal. There doesn't seem to be an article about the group it belongs to, so I see no good redirect target either. Fram (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and California. Fram (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to be just a named animal, sourced mostly to the National Park Service in the USA. Dying isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I understand the position that not all animals tracked in this study are notable, and I would say this one is a borderline case. The main notability involves the inbreeding with her father, which was reported on by several notable sources and is directly responsible for construction of the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing, something I probably should have included in the article from the beginning.

I don't plan on making pages for every animal in the study, only the notable ones. If P-6 is to be on the non-notable side of the notable/non-notable dividing line, I will adjust my page-making decisions for this topic going forward. Additionally, if P-6 is to be considered not-notable, then P-2 should probably be considered not notable as well. However, I would strongly object to P-1, P-12, and P-64 being considered not notable. Gb321 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think Mountain lions in the Santa Monica Mountains or similar could be an appropriate way to cover not only the at least six mountain lions that have articles but also others that have been tracked and received coverage but don't have enough content for an article. Reywas92^Talk 17:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is a good idea. I'll work on it. Gb321 (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide more reliable sourcing, that would be a good option to !deletion Oaktree b (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see: Mountain_lions_in_the_Santa_Monica_Mountains Gb321 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P-12 (mountain lion)

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable animal, just one of a group which gets closely followed, but not independently notable. We don't seem to have an article about the group, which might be the better solution than articles for all individuals in the group. Fram (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and California. Fram (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the position that not all animals tracked in this study are notable, but P-12 definitely is. Multiple articles from reliable sources establish its notability, and there are lots more articles that the ones that are cited. P-12 was literally credited with a genetic rescue by the National Park Service. That seems very notable to me (the genetic rescue wikipedia page only has three examples in total, I'm about to add this one which would be the fourth Gb321 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: meant to put this in my previous response.

Also, in the nomination for deletion, the nominator notes that it might be better to make an article for the group rather than individual articles. I am all for that, I just don't know what to call it since the study itself doesn't seem to have a name. I was thinking of creating a page titled: Santa Monica Mountains mountain lion study or Mountain lion study in the Santa Monica Mountains but I'm not sure. But even with this page made, I do maintain that some individual animals are deserving of their own page, P-22 obviously is but I think at the very least the following are as well: P-1, P-12, P-64, BB-12, and probably a couple others I haven't got to yet Gb321 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think Mountain lions in the Santa Monica Mountains or similar could be an appropriate way to cover not only the at least six mountain lions that have articles but also others that have been tracked and received coverage but don't have enough content for an article. Reywas92^Talk 17:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see: Mountain_lions_in_the_Santa_Monica_Mountains Gb321 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mountain lions in the Santa Monica Mountains. Does not have any coverage focusing on him as an individual as opposed to the community. Better covered as part of the population article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Square Park

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

Park that fails WP:GNG, and is pretty much WP:MILL, It seems like an ordinary local park with nothing special going for it. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources that I could find were either about Vermont Square, Los Angeles or the Vermont Square Branch Library, with offhanded "and there's a park" mentions. Items on the Crips–Bloods gang war string match, but they definitely are not about the park. I couldn't find any in-depth on-point documentation at all. Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not create articles on parks if you can't be bothered to write more than a single sentence and only city the standard municipal page on it. The park is grass, a playset, and a basketball court, pretty unremarkable. Reywas92^Talk 17:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> List of parks in Los Angeles. Djflem (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Budd Wiener Park

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

Regional park that fails WP:GNG and is WP:MILL, All the sources I could find are local papers that briefly mention the park. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two Eastsider articles on this. The first from 2010 states that they couldn't find out any information about the park; and the second from 2024 cites the first explaining that it is still a mystery area with "just about nothing on it". I found another potential source, which turned out to cite and concur with The Eastsider's documentation that there no recorded knowledge to be had. If there's no knowledge of the thing, other than it is an area whose name and history cannot be explained, we cannot have an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>>List of parks in Los Angeles, where the municipal park is listed. Djflem (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Ritter

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

Craig Ritter is a lineman never played a down of NFL football, and he barely played much of any other professional football. He played in five games in the 1995 CFL season for the Memphis Mad Dogs, per another source, and was briefly a starter on their O-line, and he played arena football. But there's no significant coverage of him at all—and I scoured the Orange County, Phoenix, Memphis, and other papers for it. That's a WP:GNG failure. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Arizona, and California. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My searches have not so far turned up any SIGCOV. The commonness of the name makes searching difficult. Aside from playing at Arizona State (1991-92) and pro (1995-98), I also found references to a Craig Ritter being a football coach at Defiance College c. 2009 -- may or may not be the same person. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All I'm finding right now are transactional announcements and brief mentions like [[9]]. Unless someone else can find some WP:SIGCOV, this is probably a delete. Let'srun (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the article has been significantly expanded since the nomination. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there now sources that can be considered SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Scott Johnson

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

Appears to be edited by UPE recently. None of the cited sources are in-depth enough to pass WP:GNG. For example, among the most cited references, Yahoo Finance article is a press release [10], Malibu Times article is tagged as "13StarsManager" ([11]), "On the Move" articles like this are usually paid, see ([12]). Gheus (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and is WP:COI and WP:PROMO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are mostly newswires [13] that I can find. What's now used for sourcing is primary or PR items. This is very likely PROMO. Not enough sourcing for show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is clearly WP:PROMO and even if this is resolved, it is hard to argue that the subject meets GNG. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 21:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV, and due to WP:TNT. Poor guy apparently was scammed by a professional editor who found four whole references for his participation trophy. I warned you all that this was a serious concern. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing sources that get them close to even WP:NBASIC and the promotional nature of the sources say it all. CPDJay (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melendez Films

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

lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published or promotional sources and does not demonstrate a lasting impact, it would not meet Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutrality standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Comics and animation, England, Mexico, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bill Melendez. The article can very well be merged into Bill's page since the company was his. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Community Center

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

Community Center that fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:SIGCOV, and has been unsourced since 2008. This article was also PRODed back in 2008, which was withdrawn for an AFD that never happened. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. From what little I've found online it looks to be a non-notable local building. Golem08 (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. Barron Trump was recently closed as a redirect, and many of the arguments for he being redirected apply to Tiffany as well: the article isn't very long, she isn't in the public eye very much, and coverage of her invariably mentions her father. Both Barron and Tiffany are adults now. Some presidential children have their own articles; many do not. Her notability hasn't been discussed in nine years (during which there were multiple Barron AfDs) so discussing it now seems fair. _pbp 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women. _pbp 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; the decision with respect to Barron Trump has since been reversed, and in any case this is both an WP:OTHERSTUFF assertion, and one where the subject at hand is clearly more notable. BD2412 T 14:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the assertion "clearly more notable" needs some evidence backing it up... _pbp 16:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the complaints about Barron in the discussion was that he kept a politically lower profile, whereas she was a speaker at the Republican National Convention, with the requisite press coverage. BD2412 T 17:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tiffany in turn keeps a much lower profile than Junior, Eric and Ivanka though... _pbp 19:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She was already deemed notable by the community in two previous AfD attempts, becoming so thanks to media coverage the first time her father ran for President, and notability is not temporary. While she is less political than the rest of the family, her fashion business and occasional speeches in connection with her father have generated media coverage. Also, a person's love or hatred of the limelight is not part of the notability calculus, and we do not have a mathematical formula here for how "low" or "high" someone's profile should be. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sufficient WP:SIGCOV to estabilishes WP:GNG per her own. Svartner (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the amount of significant coverage is massive, as the article clearly shows. Passes WP:GNG with flying colours.--cyclopia ^speak! 11:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has been deemed notable by the folks on here in three previous attempts to kick her off here! The editor who keeps nominating her must have some serious TDS issues. May receive the help they so desperately need!Subman758 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The previous nominations were almost a decade ago by different editors, and AfD #3 was only closed as keep because it was right after AfD #2. _pbp 16:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has been deemed notable. She meets WP:GNG. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coralogix

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

lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Most references are either press releases, primary sources, or non-independent tech blogs, which may not adequately demonstrate the company’s significant coverage in reputable secondary sources. OatPancake (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tenant harassment lawsuits and cases in Santa Monica

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

Feels like WP:MILL. There's no indication that tenant harassment is any more notable/prominent in Santa Monica than anywhere else in the world, so I hardly see why this warrants a standalone article, being essentialy a coatrack of separate unrelated news stories otherwise only of local interest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage found beyond the local press, I don't see that any national news outlets have talked about this. As the nom says, appears to be a purely local issue, not notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Nation is a national news outlet and Donald Sterling is notable and has a Wikipedia page.AwkoTaco19 (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nothing cited appears to demonstrate anything beyond the obvious fact that local media consider local stories to be important. Tenant harassment is a global issue, not a Santa Monica one, and needs to be treated accordingly. Without the media-scraping which is not only questionable on WP:BLP grounds, but liable to encourage more of the same should anyone feel inclined to start a similar article on their own turf. If the world needs a HarrasedTenantOpedia (a proposition I'd not necessarily disagree with), or indeed a SantaMonicaHarrasedTenantOpedia then someone should found one. Elsewhere, where Wikipedia policies on balance etc don't apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Or does the Evil Landlord Association have its global headquarters in Santa Monica? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not an encyclopedically notable standalone subject. The article is based on an agglomeration of merely topical coverage on a local scope. JFHJr (㊟) 01:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: will rename the article to cover national news in major secondary reliable sources and/or merge the article into Landlord harassment and create a redirect. There is news coverage from The Atlantic and The Nation present, and Donald Sterling is a notable person. It is not my intention to single out one person but as it has been said there are no notable persons involved, please take note there is. Furthermore, WP:NEXIST states that "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". It also states that "editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." I am studying finance and related issues and evidently this is an important one - if the subject needs to be renamed and part of a broader article, I am interested in all positive suggestions. Best, AwkoTaco19 (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an inherently local topic with nothing to suggest wider encyclopedic notability. The articles from The Atlantic and The Nation have Donald Sterling as their primary topic, not "tenant harassment lawsuits and cases in Santa Monica", which suggests that this content belongs at Sterling's page. We don't need dozens or hundreds of articles about "Tenant harassment lawsuits and cases in X city". Astaire (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added citations from the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and US Federal News Service. Upon further research through Newspapers.com, I've found that the Wall Street Journal story was syndicated nationally in the Chicago Tribune, Belleville News-Democrat, Miami Herald, Naples Daily News, San Francisco Examiner, The Day, of New London, Connecticut, among others. Additionally, the Federal News Service focuses on events in Washington, D.C., and it is uncommon for them to transcribe local news stories from other regions, unless they gain national attention. For these reasons I strongly believe in improving the page, and if need be, merging it with Landlord harassment rather than outright deleting it. AwkoTaco19 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Golshani

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

There's no indication of notability as per WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. The subject probably passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of a legislative body SCCR, but it's good to reach a clearer consensus. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3. What is the point of starting an AfD when the nomination statement itself states that the subject probably passes a notability criterion, WP:NPOL? But for the record I think he also has a good case for WP:PROF #C2 (Templeton prize), #C3 (Academy of Sciences of Iran), and #C5 (distinguished professor), so the nomination claim of "no indication of notability" through academic notability is both a WP:VAGUEWAVE and completely erroneous. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein. As for #C5 I couldn't find any independent sources for the distinction claim. As for #C2 how is "winner of a course program" and a "former judge" notable? As for #C3 it has hundreds of members most of which are not notable. So I don't think it passes WP:PROF as suggested. Xpander (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point. Why would you nominate a former member of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution for deletion when you say yourself that it's enough for NPOL? People who are notable need only be notable for one thing; even if you don't believe he is notable as an academic, notability as a politician is enough. For that matter, he's also likely not notable as an athlete (because we have no record of any athletic accomplishments) nor as a musician (likewise); do you think that should be a valid rationale to delete someone notable as a politician? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @David Eppstein I certainly respect your points. The issue with SCCR is that it is not a de jure legislative body, and if it is, it is not a common one, i.e. as compared to the US, UK etc. where the only legislature is the Congress/Parliament/Assembly. On their website they mention:
  
  The duties of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution can be divided into three areas: policymaking, regulation development, and supervision^[1].
  
  So it doesn't say lawmaking specifically, although it is mentioned in their by-law, that in case of needing law-changes they can ask the corresponding body to provide the necessary arrangements:
  
  Article 32 - If the Supreme Council resolution requires a law, regulation, or resources to be implemented, the matter will be sent to the head of the relevant authority or the highest official of the relevant body for legal procedures to be carried out, in order to provide the necessary arrangements.^[2]
  
  So maybe it could be interpreted as an executive body rather than a legislative one? That's why I said probably. Some editors have rejected the notability claim based on membership of this body. So the rationale was to reach as clear a consensus as possible. Xpander (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "درباره شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
^ "شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

Raymond C King

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCER. Most of the sources presented are either unreliable or have no connection to the subject in question. A WP:BEFORE shows very little coverage, which proves that the subject isn't notable enough. Article also appears to be an autobiography, so WP:COI issues are a possibility. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Engineering, Software, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any independent coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Any article with AI-lauding claims in the lead is a speedy delete for me. It's a wall of citations, bollocks, and promotional weasel words. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NPRODUCER specifically requires more here than can be found in a google search. Not enough to keep this. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A-Wax

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and GNG, and seems like a trojan horse of BLP violations since a lot of the information around rap feuds is unsourced. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations are fake, article is low quality, possibly generated by a llm and the creator has been banned see here for more info. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: this subject appears to fail WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:ANYBIO for lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 03:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - this page is a compendium of AI, BLP violations, stereotypes, and poor sourcing. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep did find a staff-written AllMusic bio here, haven't done a full search yet Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, similar to my !vote on Nyomi Banxxx, this page also looks like WP:PROMO and does not have enough to meet WP:NMUSICIAN. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, as this fails WP:MUSICIAN. -- mikeblas (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NewsBreak

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

NewsBreak is not nearly notable enough for a Wikipedia page, they do not have enough articles/news information about them to even expand the page further than it is now. There is nothing SIGNIFICANT about this; per Wikipedia guidelines for Notability, to determine if a topic merits its own article, it requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are not self-published or promotional. And so far, this article is WP:UNDUE, ONE Rueters article covers an entire paragraph. No notability. OhNoKaren (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copied this from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsBreak Justi yaya 02:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Comment there is an additional source on the talk and possible coverage in Chinese sources (like [14]) though they're frequently not loading and I'm not familiar with them to comment on their reliability. Justi yaya 02:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't you see? That article literally has local in it's opening paragraph! Well, I mean... You can see that. Everyone with vision can see that. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by how big of an area a news organization covers. We have hundreds of articles on daily newspapers that publish local news. Iiii I I I (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, China, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I found several secondary sources that span a good period after a brief search:

Digiday (October 4, 2021), "Inside Newsbreak’s search for stability in its nearly year-old creators program".
Business Insider (January 31, 2022), "Former NBC 'Today' chief Jim Bell will join local news app startup NewsBreak to set strategy, hire journalists".
NBC News (March 20, 2024), "Crime stories drove readers to GoFundMe campaigns, only the victims didn't exist".
The Wrap (December 18, 2024), "Steve Harvey Death Rumor Sparked by Bogus AI Story".

Plus Chinese-language articles from secondary sources:

The Paper (May 28, 2020), "沈向洋下一站确定：投资并出任News break董事长"
21st Century Business Herald (February 8, 2021), "News Break突围，海外“今日头条”们能否迎来第二春？"
Radio France Internationale (June 6, 2024), "美国新闻应用程式以AI写假新闻？演算法办公室在中国"
Voice of America (June 11, 2024), "又一个TikTok? 美议员担心新闻应用程序NewsBreak的中国背景，呼吁进行严格审查"

Plus many reliable sources covering Reuters' June 5, 2024 article, which shows newsworthiness:

Ars Technica, "Top news app caught sharing “entirely false” AI-generated news"
Engadget, "Popular US news app accused of using AI to make up fake stories"
Entrepreneur, "The Most Downloaded News App in the U.S. May Have Published Dozens of Fake, AI-Written Stories"
Futurism, "Popular News App Caught Publishing Completely Untrue AI Articles"

I don't see a problem with that paragraph citing just one source, considering 1) the source is Reuters, which is reliable, and 2) the article in question is an in-depth, long-form investigative piece. Iiii I I I (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for your detailed research, Iiii I I I (talk · contribs). The sources you found show that NewsBreak passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 10:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It's a company that doesn't seem to promote itself but there's information to be found. tedder (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Networks

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

Fails WP:NORG; WP:BEFORE fails with Google/DDG search; one ref, the first ISP Planet ref, seems reliable, but is old, stands alone, and is from a specialist/industry publication that no longer exists. Second ref only discusses the ISP in passing with greater emphasis on its founder. Apparently survived a PROD in 2006. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find some coverage in digitised newspapers, including one listing of the top 10 national (US) internet providers in 1997 - Epoch is listed at number 7. I'll see what more I can find and add to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just Detention International

AfDs for this article:

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

Partial recreation of article previously deleted via AFD. Still fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator). Not a recreation (I don't know what the article said in 2019), just an article about the same topic. I think the sources cited in the article show that it passes WP:GNG, if not additional coverage can readily be found in Google Books, Wikipedia Library, etc.Prezbo (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was half-wrong yesterday--having looked through Google Books and Wikipedia Library more thoroughly I think the two sources currently cited in the article (Jenness and Singer) are the best ones available. Both of those cover the organization in some detail though. They clear the bar of "significant coverage." Prezbo (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Jenness's study I did not find any reference to organization. In Singer's book how can we be sure that he refers to organization? Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a reference in the book of Jenness's, with the old name, so I was confused. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean? If you get the book and look on the cited page you’ll see where he refers to them. Actually I think that book has more in depth coverage that isn’t available in full on Google Books. Prezbo (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Υou must demonstrate that there is coverage from reliable secondary sources, citing specific books or studies. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not been able to find reliable secondary sources independent of the organisation. I don't think it's notable Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Kramer

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

Unsourced biography from 2006. Could not find SIGCOV about him. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Comics and animation. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage for someone with a similar name [15], I don't know if it's this person though. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is the same person. IMDB (not RS, I know) has several Lance Kramers: [16][17] Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't follow WP:GNG and the lack of sources seems like grounds for deletion. Cottagechez (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm yet undecided. He directed a number of episodes, so there should be sources. Most of the article was written by IP editors, but I reached out to Jdb00. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:CREATIVE#3, as having played a major role (directing) in the creation of a notable work The Simpsons, which has been the subject of multiple, independent reviews. I have found one article about him, from 2000, and several reviews of two short animated films of his shown in animation festivals in the early 1990s. Otherwise, I have found sources that confirm his role as director in the episodes of the Simpsons. I think that is enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE#3, as they provide verification of his role. (This person is not the same as the Lance Kramer who with his brother Brandon Kramer has made The First Step and Holding Liat - that Lance Kramer will probably be notable too.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that he means CREATIVE#3 as Kramer is not the "creator" of the Simpsons - that would be Matt Groening. And CREATIVE#3 mentions (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). However, the 3 articles mentioned may meet WP:BASIC. Can you put links to the articles here? Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE includes WP:DIRECTOR and other creative professions - it does not mean just the original creator of a series. The wording you quote is about what form coverage of "the significant or well-known work or collective body of work" can take: the work "must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work, for example ...". Lance Kramer directed 25 episodes of The Simpsons - it seems to me that he "played a major role in co-creating" it. The sources are in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with you, as directing 25 episodes is very minor, out of the 783 (and growing) number of The Simpsons episodes. That is less than 5%. Will review the sources later on. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many people work on these TV shows, but most do not have their own stand alone article. Does not look notable and sourcing is not that great. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that we don't much care about the sourcing in the article, so much as we care about the total possible sourcing available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My sources above were not helpful. I don't see notability... Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tikhon Bernstam

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, California, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see lots of good sources. There are some issues with the article, but they are solvable. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Optionally, this could be merged into Scribd. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian Yes, there are a lot of sources, but if you take a closer look, none of them are in-depth enough to pass WP:SIGCOV bar (almost all of them barely mention him). I'm ok with the redirect or merge as per your suggestion. Gheus (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many sources to establish his notability. Founder of Scribd, Parse, and Rye. In 2012, named as one of the Top 15 CEOs to Watch by Business Insider. — ERcheck (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes Australia is not in-depth, just brief coverage: Tikhon Bernstam, Jamie Quint, Saurabh Sharma and Robin Chan. Bernstam, the former cofounder of Parse and Scribd, will oversee the startup’s tokenomics. while WP:BI is not much helpful to prove his notability, especially listicles like this. Gheus (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Friedman, another co-founder of Scribd, but with COI and notability concerns. Gheus (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin: If you didn't see it above, I'm ok with a merger. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Art Madrid (via WP:PROD on 28 March 2025)

for occasional archiving

[1] "درباره شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

[2] "شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

[1]

[2]