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

Pieter Lehrer

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

Footballer from Antigua and Barbuda who only played at college level in the US. Fails in WP:GNG and WP:MILL. Svartner (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, Antigua and Barbuda, California, and Massachusetts. Svartner (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable athletic career, some primary coverage from the school for his coaching career, but anything in a non-primary source is thin.... [1] is the only non-primary source I found. Just not enough coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Bragg

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

No evidence of notability from independent reliable sources, only from church sources[2]. The only independent sources are about the sad fate of his mother. Fram (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Latter Day Saints, and California. Fram (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BISHOPS and WP:CLERGY as a holder of an inherently notable position of religious leadership. Per the EL here, while a regular Mormon bishop is equivalent to a local pastor, a General Authority Seventy, which Mr. Bragg is, is a much senior position, with a scope easily equivalent to a Bishop in the Roman Catholic or Anglican traditions. As such, we know that appropriate coverage exists, whether or not we can find it and/or agree on whether coverage in LDS sources is independent. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example SlTrib from earlier this year notes his position as "president of the faith’s North America West Area" which puts him above a Catholic archbishop in terms of adherents, clergy, area, and institutions overseen. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chugh, LLP

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA which is strange since this is a US firm. Likely paid churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty much "churnalism". ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo T. Chua

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

Has lacked sufficient independent sources for a number of years. Appears known only for multi-level-marketing invesigrations, and no real WP:SIGCOV. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thanks, ZimZalaBim for notifying me. I see I did make one substantial edit to this article. It was in relation to Gano Excel, Organo Gold, Direct Selling Association and Vemma—as relates to the Italian government finding Vemma was a pyramid scheme, and Chua was part of it. Whether Chua is wiki-level notable himself, or not, I think there's enough notability for the companies. Since the Chua BLP existed already, it was the article I stuffed the content into. I wouldn't mind if the content was stowed somewhere else and the redirects changed accordingly. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, Philippines, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Forward (startup accelerator)

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

no reliable sources, fails wp:gng ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 01:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 01:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources cited in the article, full of hyperbolic puffery...one of the most clear-cut cases of WP:PROMO I've seen in a while. But as for sources, all I could find were this piece [3] and this one [4], both of which look like lightly-edited PR releases to me. Thus the article fails WP:NCORP. Note there is an unrelated FastForward project at Johns Hopkins, which is not connected with this company but has much more coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hutchings (American football coach)

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

Article does not include any GNG-level sourcing, and a WP:BEFORE search does not reveal any GNG sources. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some sources: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are compelling — I had been looking for coaching sources and didn't find any sigcov, but it looks like he might be notable as a player from his college career? 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete: The issues on the article lacking inline citation is a real problem, articles cites more unreliable sources, even if the subject might be notable, the created piece fails WP:GNG for that reason. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 22:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't based on the article quality (WP:CONTN). I removed the X (Twitter) source. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make a good improvement on the article and add some of the sources you listed on the discussion on the article and develop the article maybe I can consider changing my comment, placing the source here without adding it on the article won’t help much. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 00:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Somewhat borderline but I think being an NFL coach puts him over the bar of notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Afua

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

Most of the references are not about the subject or provide only passing mentions. Fails WP:SIRS so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG Sources include: a full-page article about her on the front page of The Jackson Sun; a full-page article about her on page 2 of the metro section of the New York Daily News; a peer-reviewed book chapter about her work in an academic publications; a master's thesis about her from Georgia State University. NotBartEhrman (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are four RS focussed solely on her, which as far as I can tell passes WP:SIRS twice over. NotBartEhrman (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amrapali Gan

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

WP:RESUME-like, where her notability is mainly inherited from OnlyFans and the positions she has held with the company. 30Four (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. 30Four (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason for deletion. Notable in her own right, not through inheritance, as the cited sources show. A perfectly good stub. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 1,2 and 7 are rock solid RS. Easy keep. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source numbering may now be off as I was editing this and adding citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Cook (American football)

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

Promotion for non notable actor. Best known for his role in the film God of Dreams (2022)? Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, American football, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. His American football career is very minor, his acting career is very minor. In both instances there is nothing to even prove these very minor accomplishments. The article was started, and most of the subsequent edits were made, by the same editor who has exclusively edited on this page also suggesting a potential COI violation too. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV, either in the article, newspapers.com, or google. Cook was also a coach at one point per [[13]], but that article isn't independent. Let'srun (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The John and Jeff Show

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

Nothing on the page to suggest that the topic meets the inclusion criteria. Not much else found, being in a list of "top 100 talk shows" would not appear to be enough. JMWt (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, I wasn’t even able to find significant coverage about this created piece. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge: a small portion to the radio station article, seems to have been a longtime show on the air, just not enough notability for a full article here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael E. Cuomo

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

Associate professor who doesn't meet WP:NPROF. His work has been covered in news outlets, but these seem to be passing churnalism, likely driven by his institution's public relations team. The book seems to be self-published by an out-of-business published (Booktango). Scopus shows H-index of 17, which is modest for the field and correct for career stage. Overall, WP:TOOSOON. Klbrain (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Medicine, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is well known in the field of addiction and cancer. Even just a couple days ago, MSN published the following article:

Raphael Cuomo Is Changing How the World Understands Cancer

A couple months before that, one of his articles published in the Annals of Epidemiology generated a firestorm of media attention:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14659567/habit-millions-daily-colon-cancer-death-rate-study.html

https://nypost.com/2025/04/29/health/colon-cancer-patients-are-24-times-more-likely-to-die-within-5-years-if-they-had-this-habit-before-their-diagnosis/

https://www.deseret.com/lifestyle/2025/04/29/cannabis-use-history-deadly-colon-cancer-patients-die-new-study/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/heavy-cannabis-linked-worse-colon-180248380.html

On social media as well:

r/science High Cannabis Use Linked to Increased Mortality in Colon Cancer Patients

r/worldnews https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1ka03fz/high_cannabis_use_linked_to_increased_mortality/

He's also been cited as a "leading expert" and "top doctor" in a number of outlets. Here are examples:

Professor says 'up to 50% of cancer cases' could be prevented by erasing one factor

Top doctor says that one lifestyle choice could prevent 'up to 50% of cancer cases'

This is just recent stuff. There are plenty of examples before that as well. Also, per his IMDB page, he's frequently recorded on TV interviews, symposia, podcasts, etc. Overall notable enough to meet WP:NPROF per criterion 7. wikicreativity (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC) — Creativitywiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Request to Improve Article

Keep: Subject meets notability through significant academic and media coverage in cancer epidemiology. Request time for article improvements. Lasetunde (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC) — Lasetunde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Request to Improve Article

~~Keep~~: Subject meets notability through significant academic and media coverage in cancer epidemiology. Request time for article improvements. Lasetunde (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC) — Lasetunde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak delete. The highly cited papers I see are also highly coauthored, and I am not convinced by WP:NPROF impact. The Royal Society for Public Health fellowship [14] does not appear to be the kind of fellowship considered in WP:NPROF C3. The coverage discussed in the above !vote is mostly in tabloid sources (see e.g. WP:RSP), other sources tend not to significantly mention the subject here, and I don't think WP:BASIC is met. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree with Russ, the subject is not yet established enough to pass WP:NPROF#1, seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 17:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Having one study mentioned in the Daily Mail and such isn't the same as having biographical sourcing available. Also worth noting that this article has been a target of paid editors, so expect the socks to come out of the woodwork on this one. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_217#Raphael_E._Cuomo The part where they accidentally replied from the incorrect sock puppet account is especially enlightening. - MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a well-known researcher. Per WP:NPROF (C7), he is "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." There are several examples of this (some already discussed here), but here are a couple additional ones where he was interviewed by popular media sources on the topic of early-onset cancer:

Sacramento Bee: https://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/living/wellness/article301115259.html

Miami Herald: https://www.miamiherald.com/living/wellness/article301115259.html

Here is some further coverage where he is quoted on a study he authored on UVB and colon cancer:

SciTech: https://scitechdaily.com/lower-exposure-to-uvb-light-from-the-sun-may-increase-colorectal-cancer-risk/

New Telegraph: https://newtelegraphng.com/study-links-lack-of-sunlight-vitamin-d-to-colon-cancer-risk/

There are many others. CNET, Women's Health, etc. Some are listed on his current page and others are not yet added, so perhaps this needs an update but certainly meets the WP:NPROF standard to keep. Willkgauss (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC) — Willkgauss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Hello, this is Raphael. Please do delete this page. I never wanted a page on this website as I have other sites, like my faculty site and personal webpage, which exist for anyone who wants to learn about my work. However I'm honored that someone wanted to put up this page and I appreciate all the supportive comments here and elsewhere on this website. Rapha1023~enwikibooks (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is absolutely nothing conclusive to indicate that the account Rapha1023~enwikibooks belongs to the subject. Bear in mind that this subject publishes research on things like cannabis and cancer, and also nutrition and cancer, both of which draw a lot of attention and cause controversy. To illustrate, see the massviews analysis below where this page is the most highly-viewed in the category for cancer epidemiologists on Wikipedia. Anyone can create an account and claim to be someone on here, or any other site, in an attempt to influence the removal of a page of someone publishing research that they don't like. The page should be assessed on its merits where it clearly meets C7 of WP:NPROF.

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?platform=all-access&agent=user&source=category&range=latest-20&subjectpage=0&subcategories=0&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&target=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cancer%20epidemiologists wikicreativity (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikibooks account is 19 years old. That's a long time to lie in wait to disrupt an AFD. I think it is rather more likely that this person is who they say they are. And again, see the COIN section linked above. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well-cited enough that I might consider keeping per WP:PROF#C1, but still borderline-enough as a case that I think we should respect WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, taking the comment above this one per WP:AGF as legitimately from the subject despite this not having been verified. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I cleaned up the absolute worst of the deprecated sourcing, and underneath is a very marginal case, for which I'm leaning towards deleting. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angela C. Meyers

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

Possible WP:AUTOBIO of a non notable academic (even counting publications under what seems to be her former name, Angela Cotellessa). The most independent coverage I found was a brief mention in this BBC article. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, United States of America, and California. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and the article also doesn't cite any RS and reads like it was written by a LLM Laura240406 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:PROF and the article is a very obvious ChatGTP job. Leonstojka (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced BLP, no evidence of passing GNG or any other notability criterion. This has already been draftified so re-draftification is not an option. I'm not entirely convinced that this is LLM-written but it doesn't make much difference to my opinion; the reasons for deletion are not about writing style nor hallucinated content. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom & no sign of notability. Jeepday (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Vegantics (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin McPherson

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non-notable minor ice hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and California. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Lion

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

Non-notable musician. All sourced from what appear to be promotional news releases from the same websites. No WP:SIGCOV. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Germany, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's been around for a long time and was in several bands that had notable people in them, but he's a few steps away from his own notability for a personal article. There is a brief AllMusic bio for his main band World War III [15], who are of questionable notability themselves. He received a recent report from Blabbermouth about a new project [16], but otherwise I can only find a few minor announcements about World War III at the band level. That band might qualify for an article here if anyone wants to create it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Kiemele

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

Cannot find strong secondary coverage, minor part-time driver that relies on database sources for most content Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The author has provided this source [17], it should be considered when looking at the article overall Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an independent source: Cronkite News is an Arizona State University publication and the story is about Kiemele being recruited by ASU. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Tyler

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

No significant coverage from reliable sources. The Guardian source is a blogpost that only mentions the subject in passing. Aŭstriano (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Literature, and United States of America. Aŭstriano (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those looking for sources, there appears to be another author with a pen name of Alison Tyler (Elise Title is her real name) who writes romance novels. Given the book titles and geography, I think these are different people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her work has gotten reviews in Publishers Weekly [18] [19] [20] [21] and Library Journal [22] [23] [24] [25]. I'd want to see a little bit more in order to satisfy NAUTHOR, but some of her work seems to be notable. Will keep looking. MCE89 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 San Diego Cessna Citation II crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS: This aviation incident is not notable enough to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia article given it's news coverage. The frequency of accidents alike or similar are often occurrences and are not particularly notable therefore I nominate it for WP:AFD and further discussion. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 06:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 06:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, United States of America, and California. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The crash killed two people with their own Wikipedia articles, namely Daniel Williams (musician) and Dave Shapiro (music agent), which I think is sufficient enough for this crash to have its own article Mr slav999 (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articles for both Daniel Williams (musician) and Dave Shapiro (music agent) were not created until they unfortunately died in this specific aviation accident. With that being said, I still do not believe this aviation accident is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article given the circumstances let alone them having their own Wikipedia articles. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 09:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the largest tragedy to the music community in decades and incredibly noteworthy. 2600:1010:A120:432F:8596:894D:C19C:E6F6 (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing beats this or this Kailash29792 (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles should have been created before the accident. Even if they were created after the accident they were still made. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: light aircraft crashes, including into populated areas, are relatively common. WP:EVENTCRIT #4 tells us Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, [...]) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Nothing here gives such enduring significance, and as pointed out above the musician and the agent killed did not have articles before the crash occurred and would probably not pass WP:NMUSIC. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What then makes Med Jets Flight 056 any more or less significant than this? Xanblu (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia articles like this serve multiple valuable purposes and provides evolving information that are not comparable to or replaceable by individual newspaper articles. This and similar Wikipedia articles will likely be updated as investigations proceed, and the evolution of this article itself will capture details that will otherwise be lost or else difficult to find without great effort. General aviation fatality rates are 40-50x commercial aviation rates; and the lack of flight recorders on flights like this greatly complicate investigations, cost to the public and financial recovery for those injured or killed on the ground -- i.e., victims subsidize plane owners, piolots and manufacturers. Finally the details collected here will help fuel the spee, precision and robustness of harvested by AI systems. 2604:6000:9FC0:17:34F1:B682:C8AA:C987 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: for reasons stated above 2604:6000:9FC0:17:34F1:B682:C8AA:C987 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strike duplicate !vote from identical IP. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: normally I would say delete but there were two celebrity musicians that have their own articles and other music people on board. We kept/made articles for the exact reason a famous person on board died. Also, the least important reason but still something important, is that six people on board were killed and multiple others are the ground were injured. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above “ The articles for both Daniel Williams (musician) and Dave Shapiro (music agent) were not created until they unfortunately died in this specific aviation accident.”

These musicians would likely not pass Wikipedia:NMUSIC either. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 19:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also just stated something above. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE:~~ This is a common general-aviation accident that fails multiple notability criteria:

- WP:EVENT #4 & WP:NOTNEWS: Small-jet crashes with single digit fatalities occur frequently. Absent lasting regulatory, technological, or cultural impact are not presumed notable. Nothing here indicates enduring significance beyond an initial news cycle.

- WP:GNG: Coverage is limited to short lives spot reports and local outlets. There is no sustained, in-depth analysis, investigation series, or treatment that would demonstrate long-term encyclopedic value.

- Victim notability: As previously mentioned, the two biographies cited Daniel Williams (musician) and Dave Shapiro (music agent) were created because of this crash and likely do not meet the critera for WP:NMUSIC nor WP:NBIO on their own. They cannot bootstrap notability for this incident per Wikipedia:ONEEVENT and likely should have their articles contested for WP:AFD too.

- Consistency: Comparable general aviation crashes with similar casualty counts have been merged into location or aviation related articles when they produced no winder consequences. Maintaining this incident as a standalone article would set an inconsistent precedent that is developing already.

The details of this article should be briefly summarized in the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport article. Standalone article offers no additional encyclopedic benefit. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 22:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC) Striking second vote by the nominator. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This accident is at least as notable and destructive as the one which occurred in Philadelphia earlier this year regardless of the higher number of casualties in that accident, if not moreso due to the people who were on board the plane. It wasn't exactly a single-engine C-172 coming down onto a car, in which case I'd agree it isn't notable enough, but rather a mass casualty accident with a fairly large business jet in a densely populated part of San Diego, carrying people with at least some semblance of importance. I mean, the plane that crashed here was larger than the one which came down in Philadelphia and did more physical damage to its surrounding area, which will have a lasting effect on the area. We don't know all the details yet but it's also fairly likely a higher number of people were injured in this accident.

I feel that we can mostly take or leave reasoning about how famous the people on board were and their notability or lack thereof justifying keeping or deleting the article, I don't personally know enough about them to know the significance of the passengers. My justification mostly lies on the fact that we have plenty of similarly destructive general aviation crashes that have articles, and this is extremely similar to one that happened very recently which has its own article. If the Philadelphia crash can get its own article, then for consistency's sake this one absolutely can as well. Xanblu (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify, when I say 'higher number injured' I'm referring to the current number we have on this accident, not in comparison to the Philadelphia crash. My apologies. Xanblu (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This plane damaged 10 houses and had musicians onboard. It literally is as notable as Med Jets Flight 056. 8 people died and dozens were injuried. Zaptain United (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for the same reason as stated, this accident is at least as notable as Philadelphia crash, if not moreso. In spite of its lower casualty count, it caused more structural damage. Xanblu (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article,the accident was in a major city with multiple and notable fatalities. 73.86.53.75 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To expand upon what I originally stated in my opening description for this AFD and to further encourage discussion here are my discussion points:

This is a common general-aviation accident that fails multiple notability criteria:

- WP:EVENT #4 & WP:NOTNEWS: Small-jet crashes with single digit fatalities occur frequently. Absent lasting regulatory, technological, or cultural impact are not presumed notable. Nothing here indicates enduring significance beyond an initial news cycle.

- WP:GNG: Coverage is limited to short lives spot reports and local outlets. There is no sustained, in-depth analysis, investigation series, or treatment that would demonstrate long-term encyclopedic value.

- Victim notability: As previously mentioned, the two biographies cited Daniel Williams (musician) and Dave Shapiro (music agent) were created because of this crash and likely do not meet the critera for WP:NMUSIC nor WP:NBIO on their own. They cannot bootstrap notability for this incident per Wikipedia:ONEEVENT and likely should have their articles contested for WP:AFD too.

- Consistency: Comparable general aviation crashes with similar casualty counts have been merged into location or aviation related articles when they produced no winder consequences. Maintaining this incident as a standalone article would set an inconsistent precedent that is developing already.

The details of this article should be briefly summarized in the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport article. Standalone article offers no additional encyclopedic benefit.

user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 02:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What makes Med Jets Flight 056 any more or less significant than this? It was also a small aircraft that cause few fatalities and a single person on the ground. Tell me how was that was any more significant than this one, then i'll reconsider my stance in the matter. XenithXenaku (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because we have articles on other accidents doesn't mean that this is notable. We have to judge each event on its own merits. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coverage extends beyond local and it is significant because it includes multiple victims who are notable (does not matter if their articles were created as a result of this incident). There's an extensive investigation toward the cause of the crash, which multiple factors are still being published. Filmforme (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS – All the coverage regarding the accident is simply primary news reporting with no secondary in-depth coverage of the event existing. This article is just a collection of primary news coverage reporting on the crash. It doesn't matter whether or not the crash, though tragic, damaged houses, killed people, was similar to Med Jets Flight 056, had people of interest on board, was destructive, crashed in a residential area; it doesn't matter whether or not this article will be "harvested by AI systems." Investigations into aviation accidents are routine and simply having an investigation is not a sign of notability. None of these arguments are based in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 says that routine kinds of news events including accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. At the end of the day, this is just a routine crash of a business jet. If anybody wants to keep the information, I wouldn't oppose merging some content relating to the crash to the airport article or to the biographies. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviationwikiflight I wholeheartedly agree; you explained the situation perfectly. Given the coverage of this incident, quite a few people here are new WP:WIkipedians, which is fantastic; however, they may not yet be familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on article notability.

As you similarly noted, none of the arguments I've read so far in support of keeping the article have cited specific reasons based on Wikipedia's policies for meeting article criteria.

While I love Wikipedia and aviation, it's essential we uphold Wikipedia:CONPOL to preserve Wikipedia’s integrity as an encyclopedia focused on lasting knowledge, rather than a platform for transient news. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 06:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i would love to hear your explanation to

2023 Elmina Beechcraft 390 crash

2023 Virginia Cessna Citation crash

2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash

92.118.205.211 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Short version: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Long version (without looking closely at the articles in question): either they should be deleted for the same reasons that this article should, or they should be kept for a reason that doesn't apply here. But their existence has no bearing on the decision whether to delete this article. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your stance is wrong for the 2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash, it has an episode on Mayday called "Lost Star Footballer" (S24E09), all other crashes in that program have an articles for them. XenithXenaku (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are they wrong regarding 2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash? Rosbif73 just said [...] they should [either] be deleted for the same reasons that this article should, or they should be kept for a reason that doesn't apply here. But their existence has no bearing on the decision whether to delete this article. They didn't assume notability or non-notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This: (without looking closely at the articles in question).

They didn't even bother reading them to see if they ARE noteworthy to keep!

Also, did you even read the comment about that Mayday episode in regards to that crash? XenithXenaku (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They literally just said that the comment they were responding to was in short an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment. And besides, it doesn’t really matter whether these topics are notable or not in regards to this discussion as it’s off-topic. We’re discussing the notability of this event, not the others. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes because 6 deaths with 2 possibly notable people and 8+ injuries with 10+ destroyed houses in the 2nd most populated city in california is not notable, good job. 92.118.205.211 (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the articles in question and form an opinion on their notability if and when someone nominates them for deletion. Until then, their notability has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and the 2 musicians on board Daniel Williams (musician), Dave Shapiro (music agent) have an article now even if they were created after the crash, nonetheless one was apart of a band group that did have an article The Devil Wears Prada (band) 92.118.205.211 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make him any more notable. WP:BANDMEMBER (part of the notability guidelines for musicians) specifically tells us that Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Williams was a member of a notable band but not, as far as I can tell quickly, a notable individual. Equally, his death in this crash doesn't affect his notability. I suspect that in the medium term his article will end up being merged into the band's article. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Happened in a major city under unusual circumstances. If Lynyrd Skynyrd wasn't popular at the time of their crash, the chances of their crash being made into an article would be slim. Same goes for other instances, like Payne Stewart's incident, which likely was made not only due to the strange nature of the incident, but who he was as a celebrity. This event will have lasting ramifications on the metalcore community and music community as a whole. My vote is this article stays. 4rft5 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We judge articles on their own merits based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines so the existence of other articles has no bearing on whether or not this event is notable. We don't know whether or not "This event will have lasting ramifications on the metalcore community and music community as a whole." That's highly speculatory and there's currently no evidence to support such an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It passes every portion of WP:GNG except for the "Sources" bullet, which requires secondary sources. Since this only occurred a few days ago, it's unreasonable to expect that secondary sources would exist yet. Given its national coverage, its impact on the San Diego area and military community of San Diego, and many other factors already explained, secondary sources will eventually document this accident. This accident highlights the congested airspace of a major city. Future works on this topic (and others, such as general aviation safety, the history of San Diego, and San Diego's aviation history specifically) will likely cover this accident. I realize that Wikipedia itself is not a crystal ball, but for a recent event we are predicting the future of its notability when we argue to keep an article and when we argue to delete an article. I also agree with the many reasons already provided (major city, extensive destruction on the ground, larger general aviation aircraft, multiple interesting aviation, human, and weather circumstances involved [I grant that this applies to many aviation disasters, but it also does not apply to many aviation disasters which, correctly, do not have Wikipedia articles]). Holy (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's unreasonable for secondary sources to exist so soon, which is a requirement per WP:WHYN, then such a topic does not deserve to have a standalone article until the aforementioned requirement is fulfilled. For example, 2015 Services Air Airbus A310 crash was kept in the first AfD with one of the reasons being that a "major/large plane crashing killing people on the ground with major effects on the area and on airlines in the area meeting GNG" is notable. Eight years later, there was no evidence that notability was met at all. Another example is the 2019 New York City helicopter crash: It was previously kept at the first AfD for practically the same reasons as those argued over here, and five years later, it was deleted because those arguments didn't hold water. Now obviously, that doesn't mean that this will be/is the case for every recent crash (e.g. Delta Connection Flight 4819) but it's a reminder that what might appear to be currently notable doesn't necessarily mean it will be in the future. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so why not just keep the article for a good amount of time instead of voting to delete it not even 5 days after the crash. make some sense. 92.118.205.211 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe why not wait for the news coverage to cool down before deciding whether or not the event is notable enough for a standalone article? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, i'm not sure what some are thinking but to delete an article within 5 days of the crash is nonsense. atleast give it some time atleast 1 month for all the ongoing reports and preliminary report 92.118.205.211 (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that oftentimes reliable sources come out over time, but that's not an argument for keeping this article in its current form. If it doesn't meet notability at this moment but it may in the future, the better option is to draftify the article so it can be worked on as sources come out, then go through the normal WP:AfC process which is explicitly meant to avoid getting into the mess we are currently in. guninvalid (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: After reading all the arguments provided, I vote to keep the article because the circumstances surrounding this particular incident is different than the typical general aviation accident. In addition to what was mentioned, preliminary information available show that there were other factors involved such as issues with the airport itself that may had contributed to the accident. Although general aviation accidents are common, it’s rare for one that have so many contributing factors. By having an article on this incident can provide useful lessons or case study. 136.26.15.132 (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usual caveats apply to all deletions. If this particular accident ends up being used as a case study, for example, then reliable secondary sources will appear and the article can be recreated. But as things stand today, there's no sign of notability. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: also @Aviationwikiflight, i would love your explanation to 2017 Teterboro Learjet crash, there was absolutely nothing particularly notable in that accident but 2 deaths, you also edited that article plenty of times so you knew it was notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.205.211 (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's off-topic. It does not matter whether or not other articles exist or not. We judge the notability of events individually on their own merits. Feel free to nominate the article for deletion but I'm not going to discuss it here. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeatedly avoided providing or have provided cop-out answers as to what is and isn't notable about comparable accidents. I don't even understand anymore what constitutes "notable" in this context based on how often you've simply declined to describe it. If it isn't casualties, if it isn't property damage, if it isn't important passengers, then what is it? What in hells bells makes a general aviation accident worthy of an article? It's not far-fetched or unfair to ask for a comparison to articles that exist if somebody might not have a straightforward answer. If there's no consistency, what is the point of any of this? Is that not a tenet of Wikipedia, or am I incorrect? Clearly a precedent has been set for articles of this type of aviation accident; for the love of god, adhere to them. Xanblu (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to answer that question because it’s not the topic of this discussion. If you want my opinion on whether or not the other events mentioned are notable, ask me somewhere else or at the deletion nominations of these pages, but I’m not going to respond to them over here. For the time being, in this case, we have to judge the notability of this crash based on the coverage it has received (see WP:GNG, WP:N(E) and WP:WHYN). As I’ve already said above, the coverage needed to establish notability (mainly secondary sources) is nonexistent. However, we don’t determine notability based on the existence of other articles. We judge the notability of an event based on its own merits, not by simply saying that because that crash has an article, so must this one. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any notability criteria specific to general aviation accidents. In addition to WP:GNG, the most relevant guideline is usually WP:EVENT, and specifically WP:EVENTCRIT #4 which tells us that routine accidents are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. That "something further" might be lasting effects such as major changes recommended by the accident investigation, it might be that the event is cited in case studies, and so on. But as has been pointed out repeatedly here, it is not the existence of other articles about comparable events. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xanblu, it's whether reliable sources have analyzed it. WP:GNG explains the requirements. Note that it requires secondary sources, which excludes simple media coverage. All the things you listed are just whether something feels important based on different statistics, which isn't relevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xanblu Please, for your own sake, read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Just skim the lede, I beg of you. guninvalid (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Daniel Williams (musician) and/or Dave Shapiro (music agent). I do agree with some of the deletion arguments that this seems to be a general aviation accident, and while the passengers were special, the event itself was not. Skimming through Williams' article, I see no reason to believe that he is unlikely to survive a WP:AfD, so I think it is definitely worth discussing how he died, but only in his article. I haven't looked at Shapiro's article but I'm sure the same can be said of him. guninvalid (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - I am not opposed to keeping 2025 San Diego Cessna Citation II crash, but I would like to see the article history kept in tact. I do think that this type of aviation accident is somewhat routine. That being said, I believe that the article should be merged into or redirected to Daniel Williams (musician) and/or Dave Shapiro (music agent), preferably the latter, as he is the owner of the plane. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or recreate later: Voting as someone with an interest in aviation accidents. Not too familiar with policy however I believe this particular disaster should meet WP:GNG once the NTSB investigation report is released. Moving this article to draft would allow it to be expanded with potential further coverage and information down the road, and also allow it the opportunity to be assessed by WP:AfC. If in 6 months there is nothing else that comes out in light of the incident, a mention on the relevant pages like 2025 in aviation would probably suffice. 11wallisb (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sy Smith

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

Fails WP:SINGER. While this person has a Emmy Award nomination for a song back in 2002, that can slight notoriety can be merged with the movie Dancing in September of which the song is featured in. Aside from that, they have no major award wins as SoulTracks is not considered a major award. They have any notable charting songs. "Gladly" barely made into the top 100 of the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart in 1999 and "Fly Away with Me" supposedly charted on the Adult R&B Songs chart but they have no other charting entries. They do not have two or more musical releases on a major record label. Most of the sources are store links (Amazon), blog links (SoulTracks), social media/personal links (Twitter or personal website newsletters), and expired links. In closing, their reason for notability leans more on number 10 of the Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Sackkid (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article could use some tidying up, that is not grounds for deletion. Smith meets WP:BASIC with coverage in multiple reliable sources. Also, her work has been reviewed by Billboard, Ebony, Essence. Her regular appearances on American Idol was in a 2007 news article that was widely published (cited as ref #14). DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see anything on Essence.com that mentions Sy Smith. The only results are for Sy'rai Smith, a completely different person. She has not been featured on Ebony magazine either. And mentions in Billboard magazine were for the then-upcoming album on Hollywood Records which did not chart. "Her regular appearances on American Idol was in a 2007 news article that was widely published", the article simply states that she was one of the background singers for the American Idol house band. She was not participant as a contestant on the show. Sackkid (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For American Idol, I did not say she was a contestant. The news article contributes to WP:BASIC because it was an article that was primarily about Smith and the other backup singers. The reviews from for Ebony and Essence are: Ebony: Sounding off Norment, Lynn. Ebony; Houston Vol. 55, Iss. 5, (Mar 2000): 28. ProQuest 232564109; and Essence: Girls of summer, Hill, James; Gordy, Cynthia. Essence; New York Vol. 36, Iss. 4, (Aug 2005): 108. ProQuest 223151742 DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in agreement with the above voter. The article can be expanded with additional sources that are easily found, particularly at her album articles. Her early-2000s albums were frequently reviewed by reliable sources such as Billboard, SoulTracks, and NuSoul and those reviews can be mined for more biographical info about her career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. SoulTracks and NuSoul are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Also please see the above comment. Sackkid (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. 149.115.90.236 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The amount of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV is sufficient to meet WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY requirements for inclusion. The nature of coverage passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates WP:IMPACT, therefore justifying a standalone article. I also find that available sources are reliable and independent, removing any concerns about WP:PROMO. Since the subject is notable, WP:NOTABILITY criteria per WP:GNG are met. ZachH007 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please make sure that you are not falling under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. If you are saying there are sources, provide them. Otherwise, you are falling under WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Sackkid (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appear to be many secondary sources; such as [26], [27] and [28], that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO#1 and WP:BASIC.ResonantDis_tortion 08:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DaffodilOcean added enough references to the article to clear GNG. References that contribute include [29], [30] & [31] in Billboard (need Proquest access), and [32]. Nnev66 (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Earl Emmons

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

The subject receives WP:SIGCOV in only one very specialist regional reliable source, Pacific Coast Architecture Database. WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources, in practice this means at least two. Following an online search, no further reliable sources, even at a regional level, giving significant coverage have emerged. --Boynamedsue (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for me the second Google result is a reported obituary in the Los Angeles Times.[33]. Work in the LA County Museum of Art[34] Jahaza (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahaza:In the UK that result isn't showing up. I suspect there might be some kind of google geoblock going on for the LA Times. Perhaps due to that business a few years back where US websites weren't meeting EU data protection standards?

That source strengthens the case for WP:SIGCOV, but aren't obituaries sometimes paid for in US papers? The fact it only contains interviews with family members is something of a red flag. Could you have a look and see if there is anything else a-couple-of-paragraph-length or longer coming from an LA paper specifically devoted to Emmons and his work rather than his death? If there is I think I should be able to withdraw.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes obituaries in American papers are advertisements, but that's why I wrote "reported obituary." This is an article written by an LA Times staff writer, not a paid obituary. Jahaza (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do see additional sources [35], Eichler: Modernism Rebuilds the American Dream pp. 118-19, and Sunnylands: Art and Architecture of the Annenberg Estate in Rancho Mirage, California p. 5. A difficult one because there's not nothing, but there's not a whole lot, either. I have no opinion since it's possible to make arguments in either direction here, would delete if I had to pick between keep or delete just because GNG might be but is not clearly established. SportingFlyer T·C 04:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My view was that those two did not give sigcov.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LA Times and SFGate obituaries on California modern architect. With his partner, A. Quincy Jones, designed a number of building listed on multiple modern architecture databases like https://www.docomomo-us.org/, Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD) andd Los Angeles Conservancy. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep: I can see some source and it’s sufficient enough for a week keep Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 16:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Ranch Casino

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

Non-notable resort. Promotional page. Lacks WP:RS. Fails WP:N. Cabrils (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Architecture, Games, Travel and tourism, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Borderline A7 No claim to or evidence found of Notability Star Mississippi 05:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC) Comment I' ve struck my !vote on account of Cunard's sources. I haven't had time to look at them so won't actually move to Keep, but I know their work and they don't put forward sources that aren't relevant, so they've definitely refuted my delete vote. I'll try to come back if I can to weigh in further. Star Mississippi 13:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Mississippi. I didn't see any significant coverage in reliable and independent references which are mentioned in the article. Fade258 (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article, I was going to say WP:TNT the article, but theres no notability. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California, the tribe who owns the casino, though both articles do need serious help. Nathannah • 📮 17:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ there is indeed a chance this is or will become a notable building, but I can't make a keep argument, and the article is in such bad shape that even if it is somehow notable, we need to apply WP:TNT. Just noting it here in case this gets recreated at some point. SportingFlyer T·C 23:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even with Cunard's sources showing notability, the article is in such bad shape I don't think it should be in mainspace as it stands. This is either draftify, delete without prejudice of recreation, or a HEY. SportingFlyer T·C 01:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the WP:HEY. Thanks to Cunard. SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. Harden, Olivia (2024-10-29). "Yosemite's newest casino embraces name Feds 'forced' on Calif. tribe". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2025-04-08. Retrieved 2025-05-25.
  The article notes: "The road to Yosemite and some of California’s most stunning natural beauty now includes a detour to an eclectic casino from an Indigenous tribe in the Sierra Nevada. The Chicken Ranch Casino Resort, off Highway 49/108 in Jamestown among the foothills of Tuolumne County, is slated to celebrate a grand opening Nov. 9 after opening for reservations in July. The $325 million casino resort, owned and named after the Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, leans into the poultry namesake, which a tribe’s spokesperson said the federal government “forced” upon them in 1908. ... An hour from the Big Oak Flat Entrance into Yosemite, the nine-story resort spans 100,000 square feet. It has 900 slot machines and 14 table games, not to mention 197 hotel rooms, several restaurants and a 12,000-square-foot conference and event center. The casino is also adding a family arcade later this winter. The new casino and resort replaces the original Chicken Ranch Bingo & Casino, which opened in 1985."
2. "Indians aren't sharing profits promised from Chicken Rang Bingo Palace". Merced Sun-Star. McClatchy News Service. 1986-12-25. Archived from the original on 2025-05-25. Retrieved 2025-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Local Indians aren't getting the profits they were promised when the Chicken Ranch Bingo Palace opened a year and a half ago on their rancheria, according to their tribal chairman. Meanwhile, the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs has ordered the tribe to negotiate a new contract with its bingo management firm. And the management firm is trying to settle a tax dispute with Tuolumne County. ... Under terms of a 15-year contract, the management company runs the games on the rancheria for 45 percent of the profits. Fifty-five percent is to go to the Indians, and that percentage is to increase as the contract matures."
3. "Chicken Ranch Bingo starts paying off tonight". The Sacramento Bee. McClatchy News Service. 1985-05-31. Archived from the original on 2025-05-26. Retrieved 2025-05-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Carpenters, window installers, ceiling hangers and dozens of other craftsmen worked frantically this week to finish the Chicken Ranch Bingo Palace in time for today's 6 p.m. opening. ... A management firm headed by Wayne Mimms of Fresno built the facility at a cost of about $1.4 million and will operate it under a 15-year contract with the rancheria tribal council. The parlor will employ about 120 people."
4. DeLacy, Ron (1987-10-23). "Chicken Ranch Bingo Palace sidesteps federal closure order". Lompoc Record. McClatchy News Service. Archived from the original on 2025-05-26. Retrieved 2025-05-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The federal Bureau of Indian Affairs has ordered the Chicken Ranch Bingo Palace to close because its contract with a management company does not meet BIA standards. ... But the bingo palace remains open, having sidestepped the BIA order by taking the management company out of the operation at the Chicken Ranch Indian Rancheria in Tuolumne County, at least tem-porarily. The Indian family involved has hired a lawyer to try to rectify the problems BIA has with the management contract. ... The Chicken Ranch Rancheria, with fewer than 20 members from the local Mathiesen family of Mi-Wuk Indians, is among the smallest in the United States. It began its bingo games in May 1985 through Chicken Ranch Bingo Management Inc., a Fresno-based firm that built the large bingo hall and runs the games. According to the 15-year contract, the Indians get 55 percent of the profits."
5. DeMain, Don (1985-08-31). "A marriage of Big Bingo and Indians: Reservations not subject to state limits" (pages 1 and 2). Oakland Tribune. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-05-26. Retrieved 2025-05-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Chicken Ranch Bingo, Inc. headquartered in Fresno, has spent $1.6 million just building, furnishing and hiring 110 employees for a 25,000 square foot prefab steel warehouse with ample parking for cars and tour buses, and strict security by citizen guards. It's about a mile off the Jamestown Highway, four miles south of Sonora in the center of what was once land belonging to the Miwok Indian tribe."
6. McCarthy, Guy (2024-07-08). "First look: Interiors of the new $325M Chicken Ranch Casino Resort are revealed". The Union Democrat. Archived from the original on 2025-05-26. Retrieved 2025-05-26.
  The article notes: "Whether you gamble or not, and whether you can afford $266 a night for a room or not, you may be curious about the newest, tallest building in Tuolumne County — the new $325 million Chicken Ranch Casino Resort southwest of Jamestown that is set for its soft opening to the public next Monday, July 15 — and what it will have to offer."
7. The Modesto Bee articles:
  1. DeLacy, Ron (1998-10-22). "Visitors to casino betting on Prop. 5" (pages 1 and 2). The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-05-25. Retrieved 2025-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "At the Chicken Ranch Casino, the ambience hardly reflects the apparent megabucks campaign stakes. With its linoleum floors, plastic chairs, quiet atmosphere and hostesses wandering around offering coffee instead of booze, this isn't like the glitz of Lake Tahoe or Las Vegas. It's more like a warehouse the size of a football field with bingo tables and slot machines - mostly bingo tables. They take up about 80 percent of the space, and could stay even if Proposition 5 fails."
  2. DeLacy, Ron (1998-07-16). "Chicken Ranch slot machines running despite state scrutiny". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-25. Retrieved 2025-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "The Chicken Ranch Rancheria's slot machines, unplugged two months ago for fear of government raids, are operating again. "That's about all I can tell you - we're open," tribal administrator Jan Rydjeske said Wednesday. She said two tribal officials, the only ones authorized to talk about strategy or negotiations with the state, were on vacation. The casino operation, which includes 208 slot machines, runs daily from 10 a.m. to midnight. It suspended operation for two weeks in May because Gov. Wilson had warned that American Indian gambling operations without state contracts risked confiscation of their machines. When the Chicken Ranch casino reopened in late May, the slot machines were replaced by 30 video-style machines somehow less vulnerable to government scrutiny."
  3. DeLacy, Ron (1998-05-14). "Bingo remains, slots go. Chicken Ranch closes casino". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-25. Retrieved 2025-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "The Chicken Ranch Rancheria, threatened with state or federal confiscation of its slot machines, has closed its casino operation, sending home dozens of employees and probably thousands of gamblers. Bingo games continue Thursday through Sunday nights, but the rancheria has unplugged its 208 slot machines — which had been running daily from 10 a.m. to midnight. ... But Wilson signed a compact recently with the Pala Band of Mission Indians in San Diego County. About 100 other tribes and bands in California, including Chicken Ranch, were told to accept the same terms as the Pala band or close their casinos and negotiate their own deals with the state."
  4. Williams, Dominique (2025-03-19). "Kids can play, too, at newest addition to Chicken Ranch Casino Resort". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-25. Retrieved 2025-05-25.
    The article notes: "A new all-ages entertainment option opened Saturday inside the Chicken Ranch Casino Resort in Jamestown. The nine-story resort and casino, an extension of 40-year-old bingo hall and 20-year-old game room, opened July 2024. Amenities have continued to be added since, including restaurants, bars and now an arcade. Cyber Quest is on the first floor of the Tuolumne County casino resort. It features ticket-redemption, crane and video games."
  5. Williams, Dominique (2024-07-08). "See inside the new Chicken Ranch Casino Resort in Tuolumne County before it opens". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-25. Retrieved 2025-05-25.
    The article notes: "The original Chicken Ranch location, including its bingo hall, will remain open. Smoking is allowed in the original casino. The new casino, however, will be smoke-free and feature a dedicated smoking deck. The new casino is open to guests 21 and older because alcohol is served. The original casino, where no alcohol is allowed, is open to guests 18 and older."
  6. Rangel, Delia (2024-06-18). "Chicken Ranch resort shares 2 updates — including big burger name — before grand opening". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-25. Retrieved 2025-05-25.
    The article notes: "Beyond its accommodations, the resort has also expanded its dining options with a new addition. Wahlburgers, the burger chain founded by actors Mark and Donnie Wahlberg and their chef brother Paul, has joined the resort’s culinary lineup. The restaurant will open its doors alongside the resort’s soft opening."
  7. Williams, Dominique (2024-03-14). "Tuolumne County's Chicken Ranch Casino expansion plans kid-friendly, family entertainment". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-25. Retrieved 2025-05-25.
    The article notes: "Gather up the kids and head to Jamestown this summer for a day of family fun at the new Chicken Ranch Casino Resort. I know what you’re probably thinking: “But only adults are allowed to gamble.” That may be so, but the nine-story expansion to the existing gaming floor and bingo hall will include an all-ages arcade, the casino announced Monday."
  8. Williams, Dominique (2024-06-10). "Chicken Ranch Casino announces 4 restaurants that will open in new Tuolumne County resort". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-25. Retrieved 2025-05-25.
    The article notes: "With the opening of the Chicken Ranch Casino Resort will come new restaurants, bars and a coffee shop. Perch Rooftop Dining, (209) Sports Bar + Kitchen, Quill Bar and Trailblazer Coffee Co. will open July 15 inside the expansion of the existing casino in Tuolumne County."
  9. Williams, Dominique (2024-03-03). "Tuolumne County casino expansion set to open this summer. What's new and how to apply". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-25. Retrieved 2025-05-25.
    The article notes: "Chicken Ranch Casino in Tuolumne County is opening its new nine-story resort this summer and is holding four job fairs to recruit workers. The resort will boast 197 hotel rooms, a 12,000-square-foot conference and event space, an expanded gaming floor with more than 100,000 square feet of all-new slots and table games, nightlife options and restaurants and bars. The resort complements the existing 24-hour casino, which has more than 600 gaming machines, table games and other amenities. Chicken Ranch has operated in Jamestown since 1985, when it got its start as a bingo hall, according to previous Bee reporting. The first casino-style gaming machines were added in 2000."
  10. Rowland, Marijke (2021-01-28). "Popular Tuolumne County casino plans major expansion; resort, conference space coming". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-25. Retrieved 2025-05-25.
    The article notes: "One of Tuolumne County’s popular casinos is getting a major upgrade as it plans to add a large resort to its existing gaming center. ... The major project should increase the profile of the casino, which has operated in Jamestown since 1985 when it got its start as a bingo hall. The first casino-style gaming machines were added in 2000, and then in 2011 the casino was renovated to feature its current Western theme. ... Chicken Ranch currently has two restaurants (Ranch House Restaurant and The Roost café bistro), an event hall (where bingo is held five nights a week) and its 24-hour casino operation with more than 600 gaming machines, table games and other amenities."
  11. Williams, Dominique (2024-05-01). "Ready to play? Chicken Ranch Casino Resort is officially opening — and it's still hiring". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-25. Retrieved 2025-05-25.
    The article notes: "An expansion of the existing casino, the Tuolumne County resort will have a soft opening Monday, July 15. The resort will boast 197 hotel rooms, a 12,000-square-foot conference and event space, an expanded gaming floor with more than 100,000 square feet of all-new slots and table games, nightlife options and restaurants and bars. There also will be an all-ages Cyber Quest arcade."
  12. Freeman, Martha (1985-07-22). "Jamestown neighbors adjusting to bingo parlor". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-26. Retrieved 2025-05-26 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Residents of predominantly rural Chicken Ranch Road, two miles west of Jamestown, are adjusting to their unlikely new neighbor - a high stakes bingo parlor. But that doesn't mean they like it. ... Crowds at the Chicken Ranch Bingo parlor, located on land that belongs to a Mi Wuk Indian rancheria, have varied from a low of 350 to 1,250 on opening weekend - May 31 and June 1 - accordinging to General Manager Joe Vernon. The parlor has a capacity of 1,500."
  13. Frank, Russell (1992-11-22). "Bingo — $5 billion a year business across U.S. Waiting, hoping, daubing in vain" (pages 1 and 2). The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-05-26. Retrieved 2025-05-26 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "The lobby and the gift shop feature a curious mix of Indian and bingo-related items. On one wall is a display of 600 arrow-heads. On another are snapshots of big winners. Gifts include Indian jewelry, fluorescent daubers, scented fluorescent daubers, and ball caps, T-shirts and coffee mugs with the Chicken Ranch Bingo logo - a big dollar sign superimposed on a rooster's rump A $20 bill bought me the minimum package of 16 games, six, 12 or 24 cards per game. Additional packages were $5 each. Most of the jackpots were either $250 or $700. There were also several games that had to be bought separately, for prizes that included the car and truck parked in the middle of the hall and progressive jackpots that sometimes exceed $10,000."
  14. Lane, Libby (1992-11-22). "Sure bet for tribes: High-stakes games bring in revenues". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-26. Retrieved 2025-05-26 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Chicken Ranch in Jamestown is one of several Indian reservations in California and one of 140 nationwide offering high-stakes bingo. ... The 27,000-square-foot Chicken Ranch parlor opened in 1985. Whether it has turned out to be the moneymaker the tribal council hoped it would be, whether there have been unforeseen problems, cannot be said. The Bee's request for an interview was denied."
  15. Simas, Dana (2004-08-19). "Who knew you had to be a genius to play bingo?". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-26. Retrieved 2025-05-26 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "My mom, who had been looking for something for us to do together, found Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino in Sonora. When I heard the name, it didn't sound very enticing. I thought it was illegal, seeing as I am not 21. When my mother assured me that you only had to be 18 to play bingo, I agreed to go. When I heard that I could gamble legally, I thought, "Hey, might be fun." When we arrived at Chicken Ranch, we didn't really know what to do."
  16. DeLacy, Ron (1988-09-30). "Bill won't affect Chicken Ranch Bingo". The Modesto Bee. Archived from the original on 2025-05-26. Retrieved 2025-05-26 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "An example was the BIA's refusal to approve a contract the Chicken Ranch Rancheria, or tribe, had with a firm that used to manage the Jamestown bingo games and share the profits with the Indians. The management company was forced to leave the operation, leaving it for the local Indians to run themselves. After nearly a year on their own, the local tribe "is doing great." the worker said."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chicken Ranch Casino, formerly known as Chicken Ranch Bingo Palace, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Cunard (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yucca Inn, California

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

Fails WP:NPLACE and WP:NGEO. Doing a WP:BEFORE search, topos only show this as a point, while aerials show no development besides dirt roads until around 1995. Not a place officially in the US census. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not actually an "unincorporated community" or place in the WP:GEOLAND sense. Per this article in the Hi-Desert Star in Yucca Valley, the Yucca Inn Motor Hotel was a 26-room hotel that opened in 1961. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unrelated Yucca Inns, the motor hotel is by Twentynine Palms, while Yucca Inn (the community) is by Piñon Hills. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So there is a "community"? Or just old USGS coordinates with no real context? Cielquiparle (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant "community" as you said it. It's not officially a place in the US Census. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete There's been serious label drift, but the aerials and older topos make it quite clear it is a literal inn, specifically this place, whose web page helpfully states: "Two years after Hwy 138 was completed, Mabel & William Beekley built The Yucca Inn on what was part of an original 640 acre homestead. [....] The Yucca Inn has been in business almost continually since 1934." This is quite consistent with the older topos, albeit they take their time catching up with on-the-ground reality. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Is it the same as this Yucca Inn where there was a shooting in 1936? Cielquiparle (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely, that one was by Upland and owned by a different owner.

Yucca Inn must have been a common name for early motels. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Brooks (author)

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR: no book reviews that I can find. The assertion that he "has written dozens of scientific papers on eye diseases and eye surgery" is unsourced and word-for-word straight out of his own claim on this commercial website. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finance, Medicine, California, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a shame, he looks a lot like my uncle (who is a nice guy). But, just like my uncle, he is non-notable. I found absolutely no independent coverage to establish GNG or even a case for NAUTHOR/NSCHOLAR. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Holla @Eddie891, This sounds really funny tho, The fact that you made emphasis on your "uncle" is so hilarious, but seriously I was expecting more from this author. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 02:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As fails WP:AUTHOR. I attempted to find reviews of his books and could only locate a few, all on non-notable, unreliable blogs. — Vikram S Pasari (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, I was expecting more for an author, You can barely find source to verify his notability. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 02:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjoy

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

Cannot find any evidence of notability. Refs are non existent. Page is also written very promotionally Taksoh17 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Taksoh17 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V - between a 404 page for Billboards, and unreliable and sketchy sources, nothing has been verified. Also, producers are so common that we rarely keep them after AfD. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although he meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2 by having a song peak at number 14 on the Billboard Dance Club Songs chart, that just means he may be notable. Digging into the cited sources, the only reliable ones that contain significant coverage of him are interviews (such as the LA Weekly piece) which, being Sanjoy talking about Sanjoy, lack independence. Searches of EBSCO, Gale, ProQuest, and Rock's Backpages returned no hits for this Sanjoy. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Roth

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

Fails WP:GNG, not notable as an executive. The LA Mag piece is a short interview in a local publication, and Lioness Magazine is not sufficient on its own to establish significant coverage. The rest of the coverage is limited to brief/routine mentions or local interviews lacking much depth Mooonswimmer 23:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I really appreciate the opportunity to explain why I think Tara Roth deserves inclusion. It has been a while since I submitted anything to Wikipedia, and I apologize if I not hitting all the right notes! Previously, the goal was to add more profiles of prominent women in athletics, because of the reporting on the male-female imbalance in profiles. Now, I thought about doing the same for prominent female civic leaders.

Regarding the LA Mag piece that Mooonswimmer mentions -- at the time it was written, that was an important publication. Tara has also been interviewed multiple times by the Los Angeles Times, the leading periodical in one of the world's top metropolises. I included two of those links in the references. She has also been interviewed by various other outlets including Spectrum News 1, considered LA's best TV news station, (I included the link), and KCRW, which I think it is reasonable to consider one of the two top public media outlets on the west coast, and Inside Philanthropy, which is considered the first or second (along with Chronicle of Philanthropy) philanthropy-focused publications in the USA. And, I think crucially, the Los Angeles Business Journal - a business-centric publication but important and widely read in the region - named Tara Roth as one of the 20 most influential civic leaders in Los Angeles, and one of the 500 most influential people in Los Angeles. Johano27109 (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is Lioness Magazine? It was mentioned earlier in the discussion, but I don't see it mentioned in the profile, and I know that I am not familiar with it either, so on that point, I certainly agree. Johano27109 (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Holding the position of president within an organization does not adequately fulfill the criteria for notability. As per my assessment, I concur that she is a non-notable executive. Fails WP:NBIO. B-Factor 04:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a promotional article with no SIGCOV. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Graham

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

Does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT or Wikipedia:WikiProject_NASCAR/Standards. Regional-level NASCAR driver with no championships. Database sources only. — Moriwen (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Motorsport. — Moriwen (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Allen Cohen

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

The only reliable source is a former Forbes contributor (both of the Forbes articles were written by the same lady). The rest are not reliable sources. (Note that Yahoo is a syndication of LatestLY, which is WP:NEWSORGINDIA). 🄻 🄰 15:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and California. 🄻 🄰 15:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sven Bocklandt

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

The article lacks sustained, notable coverage of the subject via third-party sources. The majority of sources on this page are research papers partially authored by Bocklandt. The TIME article does not mention Bocklandt at all. The subject's work on the "gay gene" is detailed in the Biology and sexual orientation article. Various aspects of their work could be detailed in their respective subjects, but Bocklandt himself doesn't appear to be notable. 30Four (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Science. 30Four (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over 30 references (out of 46) were added to the article, where the subject did not partially author the source. Several links to interviews in magazines, newspapers, radio and TV were included, where the subject's work was the main topic of discussion, which implies notability. Eurenansantos (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:REFBOMB was not the way to go about this, considering 17 of the total references are only used to state that Bocklandt has appeared in media. The sources are not used to support any other claim on the page. The articles that speak to Bocklandt's research would be great applied to the Wikipedia articles about the subject rather than Bocklandt himself, especially considering he typically worked within a team of researchers. There are multiple 45+ minute long pieces of media with no timestamp, multiple primary sources linking to companies that Bocklandt is affiliated with, and some paywalled links that I do not have access to. There are also many blogs linked within here as well.

It still appears that a majority of the press here mentions Bocklandt in passing, where the focus is on the research itself. A Dutch editor may be able to speak to the availability of higher quality sources (unrelated to interviews) in that language, but from what I can see, the reliable sources in English on this page only mention Bocklandt in passing in relation to his work - particularly about the Sexual orientation studies - (The Boston Globe, The Guardian), or not at all (Time, The Conversation).

Also, if you intend to vote "keep" for this article, please format your comment appropriately. If this was meant purely as a comment to persuade others, disregard that sentence. 30Four (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cosm (company)

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

I stumbled upon this article after looking at the LiveLike VR article that was nominated for deletion. Three sources are given in the article, one of which is a press release, and another doesn't exist at all. Fails WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Sports, California, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure this can fall under WP:PROMO as well. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; widespread coverage. // Gargaj (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Gottfried

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

No indication of significance. References are passing mentions, profiles and interviews. scope_creep^Talk 07:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Businesspeople, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Only the Syracuse source counts towards notability, everything else being a press release, unreliable, or an interview. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this topic is notable as a founder and leader in the green building community, especially with the sustainability concerns of today. Bearian has commented here that the Syracuse source counts. I just added another source which shows the subject's notability with significant coverage from a reliable, independent source (the government's EPA archives): https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/pdf/bdcwhitepaperr2.pdf. I also think this USA Today article shows his significance from a reliable, independent source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/25/green-building-big-business-leed-certification/1655367/Jonasstaff (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usa article that uses Gottfried self-published book to expand the article to two small paras. It is WP:PRIMARY. The whitepaper lists references but no reference list, so it can't be verified, which is curious. That is a particularly poor design of a whitepaper. It is also full of adverts and corporate spam. Regarding 2nd ref in the article that was added on the 19 May. It is a passing mention at most. Its not in-depth either. These references are extremely poor and prove most of all that the dude lacks WP:SIGCOV that is independent, indepth and secondary. scope_creep^Talk 00:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep founder of major notable organizations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Headbomb: How goes it? I don't think notability is inherited. Is there a better argument here. I don't know. scope_creep^Talk 19:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Coverage from three different countries/locations [36], [37], [38], spanning a decade. With what's also in the article, we can easily show notability. My sources are a few interviews, but we have more than enough sourcing overall. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Hiestand (actor)

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

Prolific actor, but no major roles as far as I can see, so he fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. He was in some major films, such as The Pride of the Yankees and The Day the Earth Stood Still, but uncredited, as he was in most of his filmography. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Theatre, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is mentioned in a lot of Wikipedia articles]. Maybe there are some refs there that mention him? He seems to have been the announcer for a lot of radio shows in addition to his film/TV roles. I think he needs more investigation before deleting. See this, this, and this. Perhaps someone can search Newspapers.com? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I just inserted the link to the : "AFI|Catalog". catalog.afi.com. Retrieved 16 May 2025. in the film section. This verifies 50 titles in Filmography that he actually made. That was easy to find, and John Hiestand appears to have been a prolific actor. Perhaps what throws people off is that in these older films, for all the actors, and are easy to overlook. In the case of Hiestand, his roles seemed to be as a radio announcer or commentator. Announcers/commentators were propelling the story lines, so they are vital in those old films. Someone else needs to find television or radio sourcing. Also, please click on Find Sources links at the bottom of the above deletion notice. Those will take you to more sourcing. There is no reason to delete this article. It just needs someone to search a little and add the sourcing. — Maile (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal. Find sources shows he got passing mentions only, almost always for being a cast member; the most significant snippet seems to be in the book Animated Personalities, which says he pretended to be Walt Disney when Disney couldn't be there. "credits did not necessarily appear on screen" = uncredited, which means an actor didn't have a significant role. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have spent the better part of the day researching on this individual. He is notable and his career spanned decades through screen, television and radio. And, yes, he did perform with the Kay Kyser band. I have done some of the sourcing, but it's now up to others. Anyone who wants to know more, is welcome to pick up the research and post it here. — Maile (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am currently looking for sources. I have added one profile from the Los Angeles Daily News, and a quote from the Los Angeles Times. The latter is from the section where readers' queries about film, TV and radio personalities are answered - it's short, but does indicate a level of notability at the time. I also note that some newspaper reviews of films that are listed in this article, in which he is said to be uncredited, list him among the cast. The website oldtimeradiodownloads (apparently blacklisted) has an image of a printed profile titled 'Say Hello To ...' - unfortunately, it doesn't seem to give details about the publication it appeared in. I'll come back to !vote, but it does look like he was well known as a narrator and in the role of radio announcer (on actual radio, and in films), and is probably notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see grounds for this to be a Speedy Keep. He certainly has a great many credits but that doesn't automatically translate to notable. Can we get a source review here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources and info. I believe that he meets WP:BASIC, with "multiple independent sources being combined to demonstrate notability", or possibly WP:ENTERTAINER. There is coverage about him in newspapers of the time, and Google Books snippet views suggest that there was also coverage in magazines and periodicals. Being an announcer or the person reading commercials from sponsors may not seem a significant role, but the way it was written about at the time suggests that it was then. There are more radio shows that could be added, but they don't all (yet) have WP articles, so I won't clutter this article with them now. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Almost all of the sources are passing mentions, cast listings, announcements or other fluff, with two exceptions: one substantial bio (the Los Angeles Daily News article) and one iffy one, a bio attached to an archive entry for his papers, held by the American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming. Is that enough? It seems rather weak to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I said that he meets WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". There was other coverage at the time too - the website oldtimeradiodownloads has an image of an article from an unnamed publication about him, which could be used if we knew the publication title and date, etc. (I can't link to that website as it's apparently blacklisted, but the article, "Say Hello To - John "Bud" Hiestand", certainly looks genuine.) The article about his map collection may be considered "fluff", but why did the paper publish it if he was not notable? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers publish lots of articles all the time about people who are not notable, e.g. Ferrari driver caught going 124 km/h in a residential Langley neighbourhood. They'd be pressed for material if they didn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I claim that he meets WP:BASIC, not WP:GNG, so I don't think your source assessment proves anything, except that most sources are independent and reliable. I will leave it to other editors to give their views. However, I will ping @Ssilvers, who asked if someone could search Newspapers.com. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the additional sourcing and information, this article meets WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. He had a very notable career in radio, film and TV and, given his significant body of work in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, is a pioneer of broadcast entertainment of encyclopedic importance. Clarityfiend, please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read BLUDGEON? Am I attacking or intimidating !voters? Do I not have the right to respond? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Clarityfiend
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Los Angeles Evening Post-Record https://www.newspapers.com/article/los-angeles-evening-post-record-all-wave/173161846/	Passing mention: "Glenn became a husband last week to Betty Hiestand, sister of Announcer Bud Hiestand, alias Bud Hallam"	✘ No
Archive notes, American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming https://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:80444/xv869238	130 word "Historical Note"/bio	? Unknown
Los Angeles Daily News		✔ Yes
Guide to Entertainment Industry Records, American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming https://www.uwyo.edu/ahc/_files/collection_guides/ent-ind-guide-2009-ed_jan_2017.pdf	A bit more detailed version of the Archive notes above.	? Unknown
The Peninsula Times Tribune https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-peninsula-times-tribune-stanford-gra/172966199/	A "local boy makes good" short article.	✘ No
The Los Angeles Times https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-personal-palaver/172897101/	Two sentences.	✘ No
Los Angeles Daily News https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-news-lornettes/172967730/	Passing mention.	✘ No
Los Angeles Daily News https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-news-here-and-there-on-the-air-wit/172960767/	Passing mention.	✘ No
Los Angeles Evening Citizen News https://www.newspapers.com/article/los-angeles-evening-citizen-news-the-hou/173092715/	Passing mention.	✘ No
On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio https://books.google.ca/books?id=HqhoAgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y	Couldn't view book page, but probably (based on the source's sole use) just a cast listing.	? Unknown
Tuning In The Great Gildersleeve: The Episodes and Cast of Radio's First Spinoff Show, 1941-1957 https://books.google.ca/books?redir_esc=y&id=u5a6Cvz6HmgC&q=Hiesland#v=onepage&q=Hiesland&f=false	Couldn't view book page, but based on the book title and the pages I can see, most likely a cast listing.	? Unknown
The Santa Anna Register https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-register-lack-of-money-gets-dexter-i/172896106/	Passing mention.	✘ No
Rotten Tomatoes https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/john_hiestand	List of credits mostly.	✘ No
Santa Barbara Morning Press https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-morning-press-marriage-of-wood-hie/172968577/	Wedding announcement.	✘ No
Los Angeles Daily News https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-news-many-changes-made-in-radio-to/173161765/	Passing mention.	✘ No
Los Angeles Evening Citizen News https://www.newspapers.com/article/los-angeles-evening-citizen-news-radio-p/172969458/	Adoption announcement.	✘ No
The Los Angeles Times https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/381298108/	Can't view without a newspapers.com subscription, but appears to be a routine divorce announcement.	? Unknown
The Los Angeles Times https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-obituary-for-john/72295558/	An obituary that appears to have been written by a family member or friend, based on the wording, e.g. "His brilliant and gifted personality will be remembered with love ..."	✘ No
Van Nuys News and Valley Green Sheet (now The Los Angeles Daily News, but in 1940 a free newspaper)	One paragraph in a free newspaper about his map collection.	✘ No
Harrisburg Pennsylvania Evening News https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-evening-news-musical-pleases-colonia/172896869/	Cast listing.	✘ No
Turner Classic Movies entry for Good Morning, Miss Dove https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/76711/good-morning-miss-dove#credits	Cast listing.	✘ No
Syracuse Herald-Journal https://www.newspapers.com/article/syracuse-herald-journal-the-steagle-sm/172897481/	Cast listing.	✘ 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}}.

Jon Hartley

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think a great deal has changed since the previous AFD which I closed as G5, but was clearly going to end in delete otherwise. I'm unable to find any sources that come close to meeting WP:BIO and with an h-index of 10 it's unlikely that WP:PROF is met. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep Appears to be notable enough with his media presence and recognition. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid rationale. Where are the sources providing substantial, independent coverage? SmartSE (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. No GNG as few sources are independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I guess there could be a case for WP:NCREATIVE with the podcast, but I do not see the reviews or other signs of impact (anyway, that would tend to make a case for a redirect to an article on the podcast). No other notability is apparent; in particular, I am not impressed by inclusion in listicles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on my delete rationale. The subject has published several papers, some of them in good journals, as in the GS profile. All academics publish papers, and this in itself is WP:MILL: we look for impact for WP:NPROF notability. At first glance, the first paper is highly cited, but the citation count combines a paper of the subject (which has no citations) with a paper of some of his coauthors. The second item also combines several papers, although less abusively. In a high citation field, I don't think that this demonstrates the needed impact: it would be surprising for a PhD student to have the necessary notability. Authoring pieces in the popular press is similar; we do not consider reporters to be automatically notable. For WP:NPROF C7, I'm seeing a small number of quotations in a quotable field, and I think this also falls short. GNG notability appears to hinge on whether inclusion in a listicle contributes enough. Past discussion has been fairly skeptical of this. My view is that it contributes only slightly. I also wish to comment that I am concerned about a pattern where relatively new accounts that have not previously shown an interest in AfD leave a "keep" !vote here approximately halfway through a string of 10-20 AfD discussion !votes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further expanding on the GNG case. Later keep !votes made a better case for GNG. I am still not convinced -- I do not see independent coverage in reliable sources. The wharton piece is highly non-independent. The USA today opinion piece is authored, so not independent. I discount the Forbes listicle coverage, although I note that past discussion at AfD of similar listicles has gone in both directions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (people) says :"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

Hartley is recognised as "notably influential" within the realm of ideologies, extending beyond his biography as a subject of secondary sources. His contributions to various news outlets, along with his role in conducting interviews with contemporaries and prominent figures AND being interviewed by them for his research, underscore the significance of his work in the field

1. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-:inflation-canadian-government-borrowing-billions/

2.https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jon-hartley-trudeau-should-listen-to-elon-musk-on-productivity

3.https://conversableeconomist.com/2024/03/13/interview-with-stephen-levitt-my-career-and-why-im-retiring-from-academia/

4.https://capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/p/episode-28-steven-d-levitt-freakonomics

5.https://americancompass.org/critics-corner-with-jon-hartley/

6.https://johnbatchelor.substack.com/p/the-future-of-canada-with-jon-hartley

I created this page because I believed his information was fragmented across various sources on the internet, and it would be worthwhile to compile it all in one place on Wikipedia.

Another criterion under WP:NACADEMIC states that a subject must "have had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." This criterion seems to apply to Hartley, given the influence of his research published in journals such as...

1.Journal of Financial Economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/660506eb488a1777a90db94a/1711605484880/HartleyJermann_2024_JFE.pdf

2.Publications under Harvard Business School https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=67312

3.Publications under Economic Letters https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabdb744edb5235541b0b1/1676328375934/HartleyEL2021.pdf

4.Publication under Jurnal of Urban economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabcff916adf2105c011b0/1676328191950/GyourkoHartleyKrimmel_JUE_2021.pdf

Fenharrow (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this meets the 7th criteria of WP:NACADEMIC due to his publications in the Journal of Financial Economics and his appearances/contributions to mainstream media sources and think tanks. He seems to have been frequently interviewed by prominent institutions, the Wharton School as an example. This also seems to be notable since he has been covered in various RSes such as The Globe and Mail, National Post, and more. Lastly, there are lots of professors who have fewer or a similar amount of RSes, content, and notability and remain on Wikipedia and are not being nominated for deletion. Examples include but are not limited to Herman Clarence Nixon, Daniel Nugent, Thomas Sakmar, Avery Craven, James L. Fitzgerald, Lawrence M. Friedman, H. Gregg Lewis, Guy A. Marco, and more. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gjb0zWxOb Sorry but I dont see how writing a couple of articles in newspapers qualifies for NPROF#7, can you specify what exactly his impact was? If such an impact was indeed present, then it should be possible to find WP:RS to cover this impact, without such sources I think NPROF#7 will not apply. While he did write articles in Globe and Mail and NP, he was not covered by these outlets as far as I can see (see WP:JOURNALIST), the coverage would have to be a profile about him to count towards notability. Most of the people you listed had a long and illustrious academic and public career and were notable due to their academic impact as indicated by experts in the field, not really comparable to here (actually making the point here that this is WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 14:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wharton School article, published by a highly reputable academic institution, clearly qualifies as a profile and underscores Hartley's recognition in academia. But even putting WP:NPROF aside, I think it's evident he independently meets WP:GNG. Per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the standard, and that is plainly met here. This includes not just op-eds he authored, but also interviews such as in L'Express. This coverage goes well beyond routine mentions and shows that he is regarded as a notable public commentator and scholar. GNG simply requires reputable, independent sources, which he has here. Also, extensive op-eds should not be so quickly dismissed as they are directly relevant to NPROF#7 which requires that, "The person has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I found he has published work ranging from Globe and Mail, National Post, and USA Today. These are not blogs, they are professionally vetted publications that only platform notable experts. This certainly conforms with the requirement of NPROF#7. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear case of WP:TOOSOON, likely notable in a few years. Writing/publishing articles does not make a person notable by itself, see WP:NPROF and WP:NJOURNALIST so I dont believe that the listing of articles above contributes to notability. --hroest 20:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

expanding on this based on the comments regarding him passing WP:GNG or WP:BIO, I truly dont see WP:THREE independent reliable sources that have in-depth coverage about him (in fact I dont even see one, there is a piece from his alma mater, there are opinion pieces that he has writen himself but nothing about him from an independent source). --hroest 15:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article seems to have been deleted previously due to a lacking of sources that were acceptable by our standards at the time of its prior publication on Wikipedia. However, as of 2025 there seems to be more than enough reliable and independent sources covering the subject of the article. In the two plus years since the prior AfD, sources for the subject appear to be better and more relevant and independent. The subject is pretty clearly active and well established in academia. WP:SIGCOV easily passes. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - winning a made up in one day Forbes award for an up and coming but run of the mill academic. WP:NOTFB. I'm willing to change my mind about this if evidence of full tenure or high citation numbers is added. Right now, he's a fellow at a think tank that has long ago become subject to donor pressure. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jon Hartley meets the criteria for notability under WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC, and concerns about WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTFB do not seem to be applicable in this case. His research appears to have been published in reliable journals such as the Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Political Economy: Microeconomics, and Economics Letters. A Google search reveals Hartley to have been featured in sources including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and National Post. The sources demonstrate significant coverage and in reliable, independent sources, meeting WP:GNG. His recognition by Forbes in their 30 Under 30 list for Law & Policy in 2017 further demonstrates notability. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing papers is what every academic does - it definitely does not confer notability. Similarly, the articles in reliable sources are written by him, not about him and that is a crucial difference - the coverage is not about him. SmartSE (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It is having the publications noted (cited) by others that gives notability through WP:Prof#C1. There is nothing like enough of that here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Meets GNG so the arguments about the SNG (which I did not analyze) are not relevant. IMO exceeds the norm for GNG compliance, including several GNG references. Article really needs expansion using material from those references, but that's an article development issues rather than one for here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, I respect your opinion and experience on AfDs, and I always aim to be persuadable. Would you perhaps detail how you think the sources meet GNG and SIGCOV? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done several thousand NPP reviews and will tell my overall "take" on it. I look at it holistically, including the multiple relevant guidelines and policies combined and the normal community standards of applying them. Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation, even if not 100% bulletproof. The Forbes listing (with bio) bolsters that. High ranking places providing his bio are not GNG but also reflective. Same with what's in some of the other sources. As noted I don't think that the academic SNG is needed, (and I've not analyzed that) but at quick glance some strong and detailed arguments have been presented that he also meets the SNG which would be a "belt and suspenders" thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of experience with the SNG, and I do not think he is very close to meeting WP:NPROF C1 (the main criterion). WP:NPROF C7 is pretty consonant with GNG. Of course, a pass of GNG suffices. As far as that goes, the Wharton piece (#2) fails independence, and I do not place weight on Forbes. I agree that source #1 should be given some weight, although it is an WP:RSOPINION by the subject. I will mull over. Thank you! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Forbes 30 Under 30" designation is not made-up per WP:MADEUP. It involves a thorough vetting process by industry experts too, not just journalists. Overall, the subject's work meets WP:PROF's first stated criterion, and his Google Scholar profile shows a strong body of work in economics that has been cited extensively. The page can be improved, but it's worth keeping in my view. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how did you evaluate his academic profile? His GS profile is far from reaching any of the 8 criteria outlined there. Neither his citation count nor his h-index is anywhere close to a pass of the "average professor" test. Yes it is impressive for a junior researcher, but nowhere close to a lasting impact on his discipline. We cannot go on future potential but on available evidence. --hroest 03:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His GS profile is a long long way from meeting WP:Prof#C1. Maybe he will come up to standard in future but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like WP:NPROF is a red herring here. At any rate it would be really quite extraordinary for someone to pass WP:NPROF before they've even got their doctorate. What isn't clear to me from this discussion is whether he meets WP:GNG in spite of not meeting WP:NPROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Gerrysay (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The "lasting impact on his discipline" standard feels like an arbitrary threshold (e.g. to quantify "lasting" is inherently subjective). This guy seems impactful enough to clear the bar. Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think he's quite reached the level of PROF, and don't see multiple independent GNG qualifying sources Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hoover_Institution#Members I do not think he has enough notability or source coverage for a stand alone article like this. He seems mostly known to be a Hoover Institute fellow. Considering that the previous AFD result was pretty much SNOW delete, this may be a decent alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Review of the references and presence based on Google search and author's profile, suggests that, in my opinion, there's sufficient independent coverage and notability through media coverages, interviews, and invited opinions as "analyst and economist." It's true that he might be up-and-coming, but that doesn't inhibit inclusion on WP at the moment with current information. WeWake (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To meet WP:GNG, I don't see any independent, reliable, secondary sources in the article and I couldn't find anything online. The Wharton article is not independent: the subject was a student there. Forbes 30 under 30 (2017) is two sentences. Mercatus, MacDonald-Laurier, Hoover are not independent. Where are the independent, reliable sources with significant coverage?

For WP:PROF#C1 (academic influence through paper reviews and citations), the subject has one highly cited paper "The local residential land use regulatory environment across U.S. housing markets: Evidence from a new Wharton index" but no others. More is needed. Some here have argued for WP:PROF#C7 (popular influence), but one interview in L'Express and a little-known podcast doesn't meet the standard to me. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor ^{or a keyboard?} 13:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised that this has generated so much discussion when it seems like a fairly clear-cut case to me. If we have determined that WP:PROF is not met, that makes things easier as WP:BIO is less subjective. I still don't see anything which demonstrates that BIO is met - Forbes is independent, but not substantial; Wharton is substantial, but not independent (they are writing about their student and these kinds of articles are inherently promotional and several keep !voters do not seem to acknowledge this). Those are the only non-primary sources where he is the subject, articles he has written are of no use for determining notability. SmartSE (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NPROF is a red herring here. According to NPROF, this guideline "is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines."

I agree this seems like a "fairly clear-cut case". But I think the sources provide clear-cut case for keep given the sourcing which meets WP:GNG.

In particular:

1. WP:SIGCOV

2. Sources are sometimes not independent, but most are.

3. The "Presumed" aspect of GNG does not guarantee inclusion, but it looks to me like a standalone page here has more support than not.

4. I added several new RSes that I found, including some Spanish sources that discuss ex-Governor Jeb Bush and Hartley in the same sentence since they founded the Economic Club of Miami together. This economist is pretty obviously notable in my opinion. [39][40][41][42][43][44]

Lastly, @North8000 also has the right approach in saying, "Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation..." Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This is extremely on the line imo, but the subject seems not to meet WP:GNG. The only independent coverage that's even slightly in-depth is the Miami Herald article (pretty good imo) and the Forbes editor profile, which I quote here in full: Hartley cofounded Real Time Macroeconomics, an economic research organization creating new macroeconomic health indicators using internet based data such as job openings, layoff announcements, and self-reported wages. Hartley is a policy expert and contributor for Forbes and the Huffington Post. This is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, as a smattering of expert quotes, non-independent profiles, and media interviews is the typical coverage for a person who is not yet but will become notable. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note: I wasn't able to access in full the L'Express and El Nuevo Herald articles. The first seemed like an interview and the latter seemed like passing mentions, but if they contain significant coverage it might be useful to quote here in full the paragraphs that discuss Hartley directly and in depth. Suriname0 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wanted the full text quoted out, here it is for your convenience. As you indicated, the Miami Herald article goes into Hartley's founding of the Economic Club of Miami deeply and the purpose of the club and its conference. Specifically, in the article subsection entitled, "How the Economic Club of Miami Started," it goes extensively into Hartley's involvement:

"The Economic Club of Miami was started in 2021. Hartley had started coming down from New York to visit his parents in South Florida and felt like while finance professionals were moving to Miami, they did not have the same type of events or programs they had up North. Hartley reached out to Jeb Bush Jr. who he got to know working as economic advisor to Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign in 2016, and in January 2021, they put together a Google document to brainstorm about creating the group. Lourdes Castillo, a veteran public relations professional and executive, and Jeremy Schwarz, joined, too. All four are co-founders and Hartley serves as chairman."

Hartley is interviewed extensively throughout the article such as here:

"'Our goal is to build the signature emerging markets finance conference that brings financiers from around the world to talk about the trajectories of Latin American economies,' Hartley said in an interview with the Miami Herald. 'And both ways: outsiders investing in Latin America and Latin Americans investing elsewhere.' Recent growth and opportunities in South Florida will be a topic of discussion but without skipping over the emerging challenges, said Hartley, also an economics PhD candidate at Stanford University."

And here "'It won’t be just about investing,' Hartley said. 'We will discuss housing issues in many different respects including the supply of affordable housing.' Not attending but likely to be talked: new Argentine president Javier Milei. 'Milei is sort of a catalyst agent for economic liberalization in Argentina,' said Hartley, 34, the chairman of the Economic Club of Miami, and so, 'with that, you’ve seen a resurgence of interest in investing in Latin America.'"

Hartley is also the lead photo of the article and the subtext of the photo reads, "Jon Hartley giving the introduction at an Economic Club of Miami event on November 7, 2022 featuring Kenneth Griffin of Citadel and Miami Mayor Francis Suarez. Held at Miami Dade College."

In respect to the other articles, this Nuevo Herald article says the following (translated to English for convenience), "Its other founders, businessman Jeb Bush Jr. and economist Jon Hartley, are also scheduled to speak at the private gathering of about 130 people." This prominently puts Jeb Bush and Jon Hartley in the same sentence, Bush is obviously a notable individual and it is listing Hartley and Bush as co-founders of this organization it is writing a piece on.

In this Nuevo Herald article, it reads: "Now it's Miami's turn, now ready to play in the major league. The city has earned a place at the 'same table' with executives from major companies, says Castillo, who serves on the board with Jeb Bush Jr., attorney Jeremy Schwartz, senior advisor to Mayor Suárez, and economist Jon Hartley, the club's president." Once again, the article, that is writing extensively about Hartley's organization, puts Bush and Hartley in the same sentence, demonstrating his notability and bolstering his case to be notable enough for inclusion in this article.

This Nuevo Herald article is a repost of the Miami Herald article (since this is the sister paper), which contributes to the fact that this meets WP:SIGCOV given that this information listed above about Hartley was widely distributed in various languages (which also includes the L'Express article, which is obviously in French).

Given that you mentioned the L'Express article, I will cover the most key points here. This is essentially an interview with this publication that covers Hartley's thoughts on the Trump Administration. Here are some key excerpts (translated to English for convenience, "In this profusion of analyses, Jon Hartley, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a think tank close to the Republican Party, and a doctoral candidate in economics at Stanford University, provides insight. To understand the protectionist shift in the United States, the researcher discusses the emergence, within both the left and the right, of a 'neo-populist' movement that challenges several foundations of the old neo-liberal consensus in Washington, including adherence to the principles of free trade." Now onto the interview, "L'Express: Do you share the fears of Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), regarding the consequences of the trade war between China and the United States on global growth? Jon Hartley: Regarding the potential long-term negative effects of the trade war on the global economy, I am more optimistic than most commentators. Chinese manufacturers depend in part on their ability to export to the United States, and American consumers are very happy to find cheap products from China. These factors are likely to eventually force the two countries to come to the negotiating table. It is also possible that some Chinese trade will be diverted to the United States via other countries, as has already been the case in Vietnam since the late 2010s." This demonstrates that Hartley has a notable opinion per WP:SIGCOV given that he is being interviewed in depth as a notable policy expert worthy of interviewing. The article also asks Hartley about Trump's trade policy, once again demonstrating above average notability, "'Does Donald Trump really have a trade strategy, or is he moving blindly? Donald Trump considered the asymmetry in trade barriers to be fundamentally unfair. And it's true that historically, most countries have imposed higher tariffs on the United States than the rates the United States imposed on them. Donald Trump's tariff increase in early April has opened negotiations with several countries. It's not impossible that, at the end of these negotiations, tariffs will eventually be lowered reciprocally, and in that case, this would be favorable to free trade. This is the most desirable scenario.'" I also plan on adding a couple more articles that bolster notability by showing that Hartley was Jeb Bush's 2016 economic policy adviser. I also found a Bloomberg article that discussed the Economic Club of Miami and quoted Hartley and mentioned Bush and him in the same sentence again. "Their arrival spurred last year the creation of the Economic Club of Miami, which hosted Monday’s event. 'We are trying to capture the zeitgeist of this Miami moment,' said Jon Hartley, chair of the club, which counts Jeb Bush’s son as one of its founders." I think this should do more than enough to bolster notability, not to mention all of other articles that were there before that I didn't even discuss here. Is this the information you were looking for or do you need anything else? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Gjb0zWxOb, this is helpful, thanks for quoting from the sources. These excerpts suggest to me that none of the other sources you quote from (excepting the Miami Herald piece) constitutes WP:SIGCOV, which continues to leave me ambivalent about keeping this article. (On that note, you might consider reviewing the language used in WP:SIGCOV: most of those articles are trivial mentions of Jon Hartley, and the interview is not a secondary source – see WP:INTERVIEWS. Notability in Wikipedia terms means receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not by being quoted alongside notable people or giving media quotes.) Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO few articles meet a stringent interpretation of GNG. IMO this one meets a typical community application of GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think most BLPs meet WP:GNG (edit: or some other SNG, like academics or authors) fairly strictly, hence my ambivalence, but I agree this is not far from GNG interpretations of frequently-cited media experts. A hard call here, I don't envy the closing admin. Suriname0 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Miami Herald article meets WP:GNG as it has extensive quotes from Hartley and showcases him speaking as the main picture of the article. His face is literally part of the article. Additionally, the event was not for a convention he was simply an attendee or speaker, but for the Economic Club of Miami, of which he was a founder. This event included other notable people from multiple industries and domains, such as Ken Griffin of Citadel financial, Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, Anthony Scaramucci, and Jorge Quiroga, the former president of Bolivia. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sol Foundation

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

More than a year ago, Melcous correctly added our template for excessive reliance on non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources to this article on a UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan.

In any case ,the underlying issue has gone unresolved. I conducted a truncated WP:BEFORE consisting exclusively of a Google News search (because, given the subject, it's obviously not going to appear in any journal or book).

This search found pages upon pages of references to this outfit which might incline the casual observer to presume it passes WP:N. However, on close inspection, most of these are to The Debrief, which is unambiguously non-RS. Its editor-in-chief is Micah Hanks (who also reports on Sasquatch, [45] wrote the foreword to a "non-fiction" book on monsters that purportedly live in South Carolina [46], wrote a book about something called "ghost rockets" [47], and used to host a podcast about ghosts and ESP) The other contributors of this site come from a similar pedigree.

Additional sources are WP:ROUTINE (e.g. an event listing at the San Francisco Standard [48]) or are purely incidental mentions, such as organization officers being quoted by title in stories.

Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Paranormal, Politics, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Guideline for establishing notability in this instance is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). 5Q5|^✉ 11:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose deletion. Regardless of individual beliefs about UAPs, the topic is widely covered by mainstream media, government sources, and academic commentary. Wikipedia’s role is to document verifiable information, not to judge its validity. Deleting well-sourced content undermines neutrality and public access to information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempanicker (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. To describe Dr. Nolan as an 'enthusiast' is a deliberately biasing term meant to diminish. Such derogatory language should not be used in a delete argument per rules. Dr. Nolan is a noted research scientist. Of one wants to describe a noted scientist with nearly 400 peer reviewed papers as an enthusiast, then one might also say Chetsford, the person proposing this deletion, is an enthusiast for anti-science propaganda. The Sol Foundation has now published several pure research papers on the subject of NHI (which by the way is mentioned in the UAP Disclosure act as put forward by Senators Schumer and Rounds) multiple times as a global definition of not just the idea of "aliens" but also any other non-human intelligence that might have originated on Earth prior to humanity. The pogrom driven by Chetsford, LuckyLouie and others is a malicious attempt against freedom of information and should be resisted. TruthBeGood (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC) — TruthBeGood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Very Strong Keep I have edited my keep and refactored the prior discussion below. The article has substantially changed since this was nominated. This was the Reference section when The Sol Foundation was sent nominated to delete:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288083567#References

I have now added sources including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Hartford Courant, Catholic News Service, Aleteia, Rice University, Newsweek, Daily Express, PopMatters, Society of Catholic Scientists, la Repubblica, Focus (German magazine), Niconico, La Razón (Madrid), Sunday World, Futurism, the International Social Science Journal, and more, and still have more yet to go through when I have time. This is the References section now after 39 edits by me:

* Archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733#References

* Live: The Sol Foundation#References

Here is all current sources sorted against WP:SIGCOV: Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

That is coverage from seven (7) nations: the United States, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and Japan. I think this is now a trivial keep and the AfD should be withdrawn. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek is considered generally unreliable per WP:NEWSWEEK. The Daily Express is considered generally unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS. "Popmatters.com" - a small pop culture, citizen journalism website [49] that publishes listicles like "the best albums of 1999" - is doubtfully RS for coverage of xenobiology, quantum physics, and astronautical engineering per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The La Razon article mentions the Sol Foundation once (in a title quote attribution to its founder) and is not WP:SIGCOV.
I've gone through the rest of the sources in this latest batch and they all are insufficient in similar ways, however, due to the sheer volume of sources I am truncating the written portion of my analysis for purposes of readability. (I previously evaluated a different shotgun spread of sources by the above editor in a comment I made [50] said editor has taken it upon himself to collapse.) Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Readers: Please pay attention to this.

Your La Razon remark is completely made up of whole cloth and your imagination. Why would you do that? Did you think no one read the content? The La Razon article says, "Inspirados en proyectos científicos y divulgativos, como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nollan con la Fundación SOL, o en Francia UAP Check, los miembros de UAP Digital y UAP Spain prevén la próxima creación de un Panel de expertos multidisciplinar que impulse el debate y el estudio científico sobre los Fenómenos Anómalos No Identificados en territorio europeo." That translates to, "Inspired by scientific and educational projects, such as the one launched by Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation, or by UAP Check in France, the members of UAP Digital and UAP Spain plan to create a multidisciplinary panel of experts to promote debate and scientific study on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena in Europe." Which is the citation for, "La Razón credited the Sol Foundation with having inspired similar research ventures in Spain."

How is that a "a title quote attribution to its founder"? La Razón explicitly credits the SOL Foundation itself, not just Garry Nolan or its title, as an inspiration for UAP Digital and UAP Spain’s planned expert panel. The sentence structure in Spanish--"como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nolan con la Fundación SOL"--clearly attributes the project’s inspiration to both Nolan and the SOL Foundation as entities, not merely using the Foundation’s name as a descriptor. There is no valid counterargument because the conjunction "con" ("with") grammatically links Nolan’s action to the SOL Foundation as an active collaborator or source of the project, making it impossible to interpret the Foundation as a passive or incidental mention.

The nominator has substantially misdiscribed everything. Did you notice how many of the sources are notable enough to have deeply complex Wikipedia articles themselves? The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics is a bad source for the topic of a foundation studying UFOs? Some of the sources are thorough and entire pieces on the SOL Foundation. Some are brief but relevant mentions, and all of them were picked because they were relevant and contributed to Wikipedia:Notability. Look at my user page. I don't mess around with sourcing; this was something I did rapid fire because we simply needed to demonstrate notability, not build a complex 80k+ article... yet.

Remain Very Strong Keep. Parse all of nominator's remarks carefully for accuracy at this time. I don't know what is going on. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage in a debate as to whether the six word phrase "Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation" constitutes WP:SIGCOV. But I acknowledge and appreciate your obvious passion for this subject. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Everyone knows that not every article source needs to be WP:SIGCOV. The point today is I have demonstrated breadth and scope of Wikipedia:Notability, with articles from global scales, from long to short pieces, to some that are significant and some that are minor. That's still notable. You can't minimize major international publications. You have not demonstrated in any way that The Sol Foundation lacks notability. There are still more sources, and more content (multiple citations for some) to pull out of the sourcing I've already added. There is no such thing as an AfD qualification or requirement that the article has to be in any sort of advanced state of development. Please be honest with our peers and fair. Very Strong Keep. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I have demonstrated breadth and scope of" We'll have to agree to disagree. As noted by my previous comments, your sources include WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, a citizen journalism pop culture website, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers, something called "exopolitik.com", [51] etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What version of the site are you even looking at? Hartford Courant, Focus, Sunday World, the Catholic ones, AIAA, and so on? I challenge you, here and now, to show me exactly where Substack is used as a source, or else withdraw the AfD and recuse yourself from this article going forward, in perpeuity, with no option to undo that, and it will be enforced by other Admins? Do you agree?

Here, the current version right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733

Show me exactly where the text string "substack" shows up anywhere in that article. Do you agree to my terms? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it showed up "in that article." You said your comments on this Talk page "demonstrated breadth and scope". Those comments include "Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort ... substack.com/home/post/p-142904928" [52].
"Do you agree?" No thanks! Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is what you are compelled to judge against:

I have been exceptionally clear that I am arguing against the live, production sources. You arguing against what I previously linked here and did not use in the article is irrelevant. All that matters is what is in the live article now, and what is in the article now trivially meets Wikipedia:Notability and particularly, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Not, again, what I linked and withdrew on the AfD. What is now live. This article passes AfD now trivially. If you are unwilling to address all the sources, you are not arguing per policy, and 'good faith' becomes questionable, as you are then arguing against non-acceptable criteria which is not policy. We are all slaves here to outcomes. That includes the nominator. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated my remarks with newly found evidence.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strong Keep -- Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort:

EDIT 1: Upgrading to strong keep. I'm already integrating these. The PopMatters article (link) is literally an entire piece devoted to the Foundation and their Symposium just by itself.

EDIT 2: I'm still finding more sources. Google Sol Foundation without quotes, add various flags like +Nolan, +UAP, +research, +UFO, +military, and so on--there's plenty. I again stand by this being an easy keep. I'm already adding sources to the live article, and there's plenty more I can add in the next few days. Have at it, all. It is unclear how OP missed all these. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 3, again reaffirm my Strong Keep; I've added yet more sources, and here is the current references section: The Sol Foundation#References. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.popmatters.com/sol-foundation-symposium-ufos-uap

https://oxfordre.com/literature/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1348

https://mitechnews.com/guest-columns/sol-foundation-releases-17-videos-from-ufo-conference/

https://substack.com/home/post/p-142904928

https://www.courant.com/2023/11/22/how-a-stanford-professor-aims-to-organize-the-hunt-for-alien-life/

https://www.firstprinciples.org/article/serious-physicists-are-talking-about-ufos-what-changed

https://exopolitik.org/hochrangige-insider-beraten-ueber-die-zukunft-der-ufo-offenlegung/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/issj.12484

https://nowcreations.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/10-Reasons-to-Consider-the-Possibility-of-_Beyond-human-Intelligence-No-11-Sept-2024.pdf

I see more mentions yet on Google News and Google Scholar that are required to be considered. Premature nomination. Just because an article is a stub that no one has had the time or energy or will to build from available data doesn't mean it's not notable or should be deleted based on not being "done".

I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it? Certainly not. The one article I linked on the talk page alone has enough outbound links to quash any AfD there. I have found a raft of material there with a minimum energy of effort--it took me less than 5 minutes to find what I linked here for Sol Foundations. See next Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station that at first glance was hard to source, but I dug into enough data that now it's fine. This is an endemic problem on Wikipedia it appears? Just because the one user cannot or will not find data doens't mean a topic isn't notable. [[53]] is how I found Invention Secrecy Act, and now when I get the will and time to go back to it, I'm not even a third of the way into the sourcing I have saved. A more "done" article will have 70-80+ sources, not just 24. The same thing happened with how I found this article and how it's references look today. This article here was a particular pain to source and had one (1) source when I found it; click to see the current version. Just because an article takes work and is a stub still doesn't mean it's not notable.

It's also obvious "not just The Debrief" as sourcing, which is not a disallowed source in any event under any rational or widely accepted rules nor precedent or RfD or discussions anywhere. Keep for The Sol Foundation. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford reference doesn't mention this at all, "exopolitik.com" is clearly not RS, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers is not RS, a PDF on the website of a guy in Ohio named Vince who works on "raising the consciousness of the planet as part of the Universal Life Force" [sic] is not RS, etc., etc., etc.
"I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it?" Based on the sources you attached to your Keep !vote here, I'm very tempted to look at it. Chetsford (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS are out of place at AfD. Thank you. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Remain Keep. Hartford Courant, Poptech, Mitechnews, First Principles, the social science journal, what's already in the article and I stopped on sources after a few pages. A topic doesn't require sourcing to be WP:GNG that means it can grow beyond a stub. A stub-level topic can be perfectly notable, and no rule says or ever will say otherwise. Keep. Also, you need to change your needlessly aggressive tone and stance, along with the routine WP:Civility boundary-pushing threats you have been applying to your recent spree of UAP-related AfDs after the Harald Malmgren AfD debacle you initiated that led to Jimmy Wales getting involved due to your actions. From an Administrator, it is grossly inappropriate. You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity. Ego has neither role nor allowance here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Chetsford's consistent use of biased terms reveals a strange anti-knowledge bias. Further, Chetsford's characterization of Nolan running a "UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan" dismisses the fact that SOL is an accredited 501-c3 which has garnered several million dollars in funding, ran 2 symposia, been the focus of dozens of news articles (as noted by others), etc. is further indication that Chetsford is running a non-scientific and biased agenda not based on Wiki rules but on his personal belief system. Professor Nolan is a world-renowned immunologist, founder of several successful companies, has dozens of US patents to his name, etc. so the purposeful use of derogatory language is reason alone for ignoring his arguments. Frankly, at this point given his past actions against Malmgren it is a surprise he does not lose his editor status and be banned. TruthBeGood (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both per the nominator's openening argument and their subsequent rebuttal of the supposed 'sourcing' presented. We require independent, third party sources and unfortunately none of any quality have been offered. I note that so far, both 'keep' !votes not only fail to present policy-based arguments for maintaining the article, but are littered with aspersions and near-personal attacks (e,g the nom's so-called "bias", "threats" and alleged immaturity)—while themselves demanding civility! To quote, these have "neither role nor allowance here". Neither, of course, does WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, aka WP:JIMBOSAID. (Also, from a purely formating point of view, could we only bold our !votes once, please.) I have hatted the aspersons, etc., above; if they are repeated I will seek administrative involvement. The ubnderstanable passons that AfD can sometimes generate is no excuse for assuming bad faith. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, have you had the opportunity to review the rewritten article?
- The Sol Foundation#References
- Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
It's almost completely redone since the AfD and youre !vote. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-stating my delete !vote for the record. If it's required, as it seems to be á la mode, call it a Very Strong Delete. The article has been expanded in byteage, but the sources are of no better quality, unfourtunately, so WP:HEY doesn't apply (as an example of WP:HEY in an AfD, see for example at Becky Sharp, for Nations of 1984 or in Concordat of Worms, et al.). As has been established by the nom's thorough analysis of the new sources, few of them are both independent or indepth. None support the claims made to WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG, while support !votes themselves seem to rely on non-policy based arguments (e.g. BUTITEXISTS, an argument to avoid, using WP:OR to analyse sources' claims, and suggesting that all opinions given equal weight). And that's ignoring the continued questioning of other editors' motives. The keep !votes are, perhaps unsurprisingly, greater in number; they are, equally unsurprisingly however, weaker in policy. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated aspersions from now-indefinitely blocked editor

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Per rules please point out exactly the aspersion cast. Don't claim you want sources while not providing any specifics. Chetsford and others have already been chastised for their behavior. Pointing this out is not an aspersion, just a fact. Now-- to policy...

Arguing policy: Under WP:GNG an article is retained when independent, reliable secondary sources provide significant coverage—coverage that is neither trivial nor purely routine. The Sol Foundation article meets that threshold: a feature story in the Hartford Courant profiles the group’s formation and scientific aims, offering far more depth than a press notice; Newsweek devotes several paragraphs to the Foundation’s inaugural symposium and quotes its mission statement in the context of national UAP-policy debates; the Daily Express, Sunday World, and Germany’s Focus supply further analysis of its policy recommendations. Because these outlets have no editorial connection to the Foundation, each instance satisfies WP:RS and demonstrates the independence required by WP:V. Taken together, the sources show sustained, serious reportage—not fleeting mentions—so the article clears GNG without difficulty.

WP:ORG presumes notability when multiple reliable publications discuss an organization in detail, and the Foundation easily qualifies. A culture-journalism treatment in PopMatters chronicles its November 2024 symposium and describes the think-tank’s research agenda; a peer-reviewed paper in Wiley’s International Social Science Journal cites the Foundation’s role in advancing UAP scholarship, establishing academic relevance; trade coverage in Aerospace America and mainstream religious press such as Catholic News Service document its participation in government-civic forums. That range—from metropolitan newspaper to peer-reviewed journal—confirms breadth of interest across sectors and disciplines, negating any claim that the topic relies on press releases or fringe blogs. Because Wikipedia evaluates notability by what independent authors have written, not by the subject’s fame, the clustering of these independent, substantive sources fulfills both the letter and the spirit of WP:ORG; deletion would therefore contradict core inclusion policy.

Under WP:NPOV the encyclopedia must represent all significant, verifiable perspectives without editorial prejudice. The existing Sol Foundation article does exactly that: it reports the group’s origins, research aims, and public activities strictly as described in independent secondary sources, while attributing any evaluative language—positive or skeptical—to those sources. There is no advocacy or promotional tone; where reliable outlets raise doubts the article can and should include them in proportion, preserving balance. By contrast, deletion proposals that dismiss the foundation as a mere “UFO club” or label its founder an “enthusiast” introduce pejorative framing not supported by the cited coverage and thus clash with NPOV’s prohibition on subjective language.

Removing a well-sourced article because some editors question the topic’s legitimacy would itself create a neutrality problem: it would excise documented information from mainstream newspapers, journals, and trade magazines, leaving Wikipedia’s treatment of UAP research incomplete and skewed by omission. NPOV requires that content be judged on the reliability and independence of its sources, not on individual editors’ attitudes toward unconventional subjects. Keeping the article therefore upholds neutrality by presenting verifiable facts for readers to evaluate, whereas deletion would substitute editorial bias for documented evidence—contradicting both NPOV and the broader principle that Wikipedia “does not censor topics that are reliably sourced, even if controversial or fringe.”

Opponents claim the article “fails GNG” because its citations are routine or incidental, yet the record shows multiple feature-length, independent pieces—Hartford Courant profile, PopMatters symposium report, Newsweek analysis, Wiley journal article—that exceed the “significant coverage” threshold in WP:GNG and satisfy WP:ORG’s requirement for reliable, third-party sourcing. Those who invoked WP:BEFORE overlooked or dismissed these sources; the assertion that such material “obviously won’t appear in any journal or book” is disproven by the peer-reviewed ISSJ paper. In short, the corpus is more than adequate, and routine mentions are supplementary, not foundational. Labeling Hartford Courant, Newsweek, or Wiley as “none of any quality” misstates WP:RS; these outlets are plainly reliable under policy, and their presence confirms notability.

Other objections collapse on closer inspection. The article does not “lean on” The Debrief; even if that site were excluded entirely, mainstream and academic coverage remains plentiful. Claims of promotionalism ignore that the text is fully attributed, neutral in tone, and free of puffery, whereas the deletion rationale itself applies pejorative language (“UFO club,” “enthusiast”) that violates WP:NPOV. Finally, WP:ILIKE/IDONTLIKE dictates that editorial sentiment is irrelevant; Wikipedia retains topics documented in reliable, independent sources regardless of their perceived seriousness or controversy. Because those sources exist in abundance and the article can be readily refined to reflect them, deletion would contradict core inclusion policy rather than enforce it.

Applying the consistency principle embedded in WP:N, Wikipedia should judge the Sol Foundation by the same sourcing threshold that has long sustained analogous entries. Earlier UAP bodies such as NICAP and CUFOS were retained once magazines like Time and major newspapers profiled them; the Sol Foundation already matches or exceeds that level of coverage, with features in Newsweek, Hartford Courant, PopMatters, and a peer-reviewed Wiley journal. Comparable new ventures—Harvard’s 2021 Galileo Project, assorted think tanks, and niche NGOs—have been kept on the strength of a handful of reliable articles in mainstream or specialist press; the Foundation’s two well-reported symposia, plus national and international reportage, clearly meet that same bar. To impose a higher standard merely because the topic involves UAPs would contradict WP:ORG’s call for uniform treatment across subject areas.

Wikipedia also favors improvement over excision. During the AfD one editor added additional mainstream and academic citations, after which the article unambiguously satisfied WP:GNG; policy dictates that once independent coverage is shown, remaining disputes—e.g., over one Debrief citation—are resolved by normal editing, not deletion. Finally, WP:V reminds us that inclusion rests on what reliable sources publish, irrespective of whether the work is speculative or controversial. The encyclopedia already hosts entries on paranormal institutes, alternative-medicine centers, and To The Stars Academy precisely because significant independent coverage exists. The Sol Foundation now enjoys a comparable evidentiary record; deleting it would depart from established precedent and apply an inconsistent, topic-specific gate that policy expressly rejects.

Strong keep. The Sol Foundation unambiguously meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG: mainstream and academic outlets—Hartford Courant, Newsweek, PopMatters, Wiley’s International Social Science Journal, among others—provide non-trivial, independent, and reliable coverage. All statements in the article are verifiable (WP:V) from these high-quality sources (WP:RS), and the text is written in an even-handed, fact-based style that satisfies WP:NPOV.

Objections centered on alleged source weakness or routine mention collapse once the full reference set is examined; a handful of marginal citations cannot override the weight of substantial reporting. Policy favors improvement over deletion, and the article has already been fortified with additional reliable citations during the AfD. Removing it would excise well-sourced information and create a gap in Wikipedia’s treatment of contemporary UAP research, contrary to the project’s mandate to document notable topics neutrally and comprehensively. TruthBeGood (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The few sentences I have read of the walls of text above haven't given me much motivation to read more, but evaluating this one on the merits: First, we have 2 unambiguous RS mentions: a brief mention in the Oxford reference ("In 2023, Garry Nolan established the Sol Foundation, a research center dedicated to the interdisciplinary study of UAP."), and an article from Focus discussing the org in depth. Second, we have lots of incidental mentions in RS, which are not themselves sufficient to establish notability but do support it. Third, although sources like The Debrief shouldn't be considered reliable for making claims about UAP, they are being used here to establish the existence and nature of a UAP-related organization, which could be acceptable. This, combined with the fact that several people are continuing to actively seek out and add new sources to the article, paints a picture of a low quality article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, so I'm landing on keep and improve with this one. -- LWG ^talk 22:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer Re Offsite Discussion of this AfD. Extensive and impassioned offsite discussion of this AfD is occurring on Reddit's r/aliens and r/ufos (e.g. [54], etc.) and on X (e.g. [55], [56], etc.). Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as with other topics in this area there seems to have been a certain amount of WP:REFBOMBING going on in this article (with things like PR press releases being cited for some reason). I'm not seeing the multiple reliable WP:SIGCOV sources needed for WP:NORG, and I disagree that the one sentence in the oxford source counts for this, and I also disagree that a bunch of passing mentions/mentions in unreliable sources somehow makes up for this fact (and this isn't supported by my reading of WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what unreliable sources you see here? Express and the PR thing from Japan (which was only there to give easier English language context to the other Japanese media source) are both gone.
- The Sol Foundation#References
- Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
Several of the articles are about SOL specifically. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY and WP:ATD. When it was nominated I would have voted the other way, per WP:TOOSOON, but with the newly added material I feel it now just crosses the line of notability and will likely improve in the future. 5Q5|^✉ 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Among the newly added sources like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, etc., which do you think are the best examples that prove SIGCOV here? Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

I've assembled this here for users to review. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments made by LWG and 5Q5. The article's improved substantially since nomination and good RSes have been identified. An an aside, remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs. National Catholic Reporter and The Debrief aren't RSes for the existence of God or UFOs, but they're fine to verify specific groups of notable people have joined together to promote a shared belief. Noting that someone believes in Sasquatch isn't actually a argument for deletion: Ghosts, Ghost rockets, and the Holy Ghost are all 100% encyclopedic topics. Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs" I'm not familiar with that policy. Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was just an aside. GNG is met per LWG and 5Q5. More abstract discussion is for some other page.Feoffer (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sorted list in Talk:The Sol Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV captures enough of the primary criteria in WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria to justify keeping the article. WP:HEY and WP:ATD also appear to have helped the quality of the article improve in the past week. Tschieggm (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)— Tschieggm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The article passes WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:N, and WP:SIGCOV. This has been evidenced by the above posts of Very Polite Person, Feoffer, and LWG. Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Evaluation. The article has changed considerably since the nomination with the carpet bombing of a dozen new sources into it. As nominator, I'm obligated to evaluate them to determine if the nomination should now be withdrawn. Based on my evaluation (below), I affirm the this article fails WP:ORGCRITE. We would need at least three sources that are across-the-board green (reliable, independent, and significant in coverage) as per WP:SIRS. As per SIRS, several sources that meet 2 of 3 criteria don't add together to create a single quality source. After one year of efforts, we still can only scrape together one.

Source	WP:INDEPENDENT	WP:RS	WP:SIGCOV	Notes
The Central Minnesota Catholic	Yes	Maybe	No	One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation
Marin Independent Journal	Yes	Yes	No	Article is about organization's founder Garry Nolan; contains one sentence mention of Sol Foundation
Rice University "Archives of the Impossible" conference website	No	Maybe	Maybe	Two sentence mention of the Sol Foundation in the speaker bio for Garry Nolan at a conference at which he was speaking
Newsweek	Yes	No	No	Consensus-determined unreliable source per WP:NEWSWEEK
International Social Science Journal	Yes	Yes	No	One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation in this 33-page article
popmatters.com	Yes	No	Yes	WP:USERGENERATED entertainment website
. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
Society of Catholic Scientists	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
la Repubblica	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
Focus Magazine	Yes	Yes	Yes	Report on the club's conference
Niconico	Unknown	No	Unknown	WP:USERGENERATED video sharing site a la YouTube
La Razón	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
arXiv	Unknown	No	Unknown	Community-determined unreliable per WP:ARXIV (preprint hosting service)
The Debrief	Yes	No	Yes	The Debrief is the new website landing page for the podcast of ghosts/cryptozoology/ESP/flying saucer blogger Micah Hanks. While presented with an attractive new skin and under the headline "science and tech", it's the same pseudoscientific entertainment fanzine. Recent podcast episodes have uncritically discussed remote viewing [57], Atlantis / Lemuria [58], Thunderbirds [59], "The Deep State" [60], and Ancient Aliens-style cruft [61].
Sunday World	Yes	No	No	The Sunday World is a tabloid news outlet a la WP:DAILYEXPRESS and regularly peddles a variety of 'weird news' type articles. There's just a one sentence mention, in any case.

Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your source evaluation, you left out Aleteia (2 mentions), Hartford Courant (3 mentions), The_Byte (3 mentions). WP:NEWSWEEK says: "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." WP:ARXIV says: "generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts." The arXiv paper was written by subject matter expert Matthew Szydagis, a university physics professor who is also a member of UAP orgs. This is a lot of media coverage for a foundation less than two years old. Even if the article were to be deleted, it will surely be republished. Just tag it at top with {{more citations needed}}. 5Q5|^✉ 12:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that. It appears each of the three I missed are more fleeting, incidental mentions that only prove the organization exists (which is not in doubt), but don't meet the requirements of WP:ORGCRIT.
Insofar as Newsweek; when we evaluate an outlet, like Newsweek, on a case by case basis that (usually) means we accept some limited use for the mundane and routine. Obviously, reporting on a club of people whose leader may believe aliens are jumping through dimensional portals to conduct medical experiments on humans [62] is not the kind of basic, nuts and bolts use portended by WP:NEWSWEEK.
Insofar as arXiv goes, generously assuming the author is an expert, it may be usable for WP:V under WP:SPS, but unpublished manuscripts are -- by the fact they're unpublished -- not significant in coverage so are not SIGCOV. That said, a physics professor is no more an SME on flying saucers than a professor of music theory, since flying saucer belief is not a subject that falls within the bailiwick of physics. An SME on flying saucers might be a professor of folklore or sociology, or a clinical psychiatrist. Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On this narrow point, I gotta side with Chetsford. If we let everyone with a Phd and ARXIV qualify as a SME expert, we'd be lost. It's not "scientifically important", that's a red herring. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, The Debrief is reliable in the very limited context of profiling a like-minded organization. No one questions that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one questions that the group exists. Indeed, no one does. But see WP:BUTITEXISTS. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll reword. Not to put too fine a point on it: no one questions The Debrief's reporting that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existence ≠ Notability Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one here has suggested otherwise. At issue is whether Debrief functions as an RS in the very limited context of profiling an association of notable people with admittedly fringe beliefs. Feoffer (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community has previously critically discussed TheDebrief [63]. Opinions ranged from "Treat it as a group blog / self published source" (User:MrOllie); "the DeBrief is weighted toward generating sensational clickbait rather than reliably sourced journalism" (User:LuckyLouie); "Largely self-published website with a lean towards UFO/alien crankery and sometimes questionable pop science takes" (User:Bon_courage). MatthewM stated it was "highly credible, least biased, and mostly factual". Chetsford (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, it's a complex source, but look just at the matter at hand. Is there any reason their 'reporting' is mistaken or erroneous about who is in the organization and what they've said in the direct quotes? Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown. We can't undertake the WP:OR needed to analyze the veracity of specific claims. The only thing we can say for certain is it doesn't meet our standards of reliability. Chetsford (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User's assessment of Popmatters is factually completely wrong; it's like saying the "New Yorker" is USERGENERATED because they take open submissions. They clearly have editorial control as seen here. From our own sourced article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopMatters#Staff:

PopMatters publishes content from worldwide contributors. Its staff includes writers from backgrounds ranging from academics and professional journalists to career professionals and first time writers. Many of its writers are published authorities in various fields of study.[2][7] Notable former contributors include David Weigel, political reporter for Slate,[8] Steven Hyden, staff writer for Grantland and author of Whatever Happened to Alternative Nation?,[9] and Rob Horning, executive editor of The New Inquiry.[10] Karen Zarker is the senior editor.

As I said above, assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles in direct opposition to sourcing guidelines. DO NOT take either of us at our word. Take the articles and facts at their word, and remember we are compelled to live and die by Wikipedia rules alone here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be adding them later:

Please evaluate these too and attempt to be accurate. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not tenable. It's the third time you've apparently Google searched "Sol Foundation" and blasted every responsive link into this thread as purported proof of SIGCOV then demanded we prove each one isn't. The San Francisco Standard is addressed in the OP. Word on Fire Catholic Ministries is obviously not RS. Your approach is not conducive to a coherent discussion.
"assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles" This is the third time you've pivoted from discussion into attacking the motivations of individual editors. I would again strongly encourage you to take your concerns to WP:ANI. I'm not personally offended by your ongoing aspersions, they're just derailing to the AfD. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word on Fire is patently WP:RS to discuss a topic of 'Would Extraterrestrial Intelligence Disprove Christianity?'. Again, as I demonstrated to all above with the La Razon example that you utterly mischaracterized--and that finding is incontrovertible--you're doing something here that is problematic. The article passes notability for the small scale of the article that we have. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your actions, as you seem to be tilting at increasingly tall windmills. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AfD closer: nominator has NOT rebutted my revealing they misrepresented Popmatters in their table, because that alone with the rest pushes this into basic trivial Notability compliance. That's why it's such a problem to them getting a successful deletion here; at that point the article subject will always be notable going forward. Diff here; there is no possible policy-based counter-argument to diminuize the Popmatters piece or present the site as not fine for WP:RS. This alone resolves the AFD. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have, thus far in this discussion, scattered more than two dozen different sources into the wind including unambiguously non-RS ones like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, and a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers. It's easier for you to take a pass through Google Search and shotgun any URL you find into the discussion than it is for me to offer rebuttal after surrebuttal for why each of these random links don't pass any realistic threshold of sourcing. So, if I stop responding to any particular item, assume it's for no other reason than I simply can't keep up. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for compiling this table. I'm not sure I agree that a source is unreliable for information about the existence and nature of a pseudoscientific UAP organization simply because the source also publishes similar pseudoscience. If anything it would be reason to scrutinize whether the source is truly WP:INDEPENDENT. But I haven't seen any reason to think that The Debrief is unreliable on the question of whether The Sol Foundation exists and is notable in the realm of UAP-related orgs. Also, as 5Q5 pointed out, you seem to have omitted the Hartford Courant and Aleteia citations, both of which seem to pass all three criteria. By my count the Focus, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia citations are sufficient to satisfy WP:SIRS, and the citations to The Debrief, arXiv, and the organization's own website pass the lower bar of being appropriate for inclusion, if not necessarily for establishing notability. The reason my keep vote is weak is that all the significant coverage about this org seems to relate to a single symposium they hosted in 2023, while the repetition of that event in 2024 doesn't seem to have gotten much if any coverage. There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct". But I'm not there yet. -- LWG ^talk 13:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct"" WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. Either it's notable or it isn't. It's not going to become non-notable in two years. Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but my weak keep vote isn't because I think it's notability might change, it's because I think it's notability is borderline and further information might convince me that it never was notable. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even though I voted keep, the article was a mess. I took a buzz saw to it to clear out the distracting material that will have to go anyway if this closes with keep. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just notification on a relevant matter: Chetsford put in an RfC on the reliability of The Debrief. In the Discussion, they say: "A current and contentious AfD is also presently turning on whether or not this is RS." I would imagine the referenced AfD is this one, (Personal attack removed). Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben.Gowar: How many times do you have to be warned not to cast aspersions? I am sick and tired of your underhand, snide and generally all-round bad faith questioning of Chetsford's motives. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense that my talk page is a better place for those descriptors. In the case of this AfD, I'm mostly trying to keep interested parties informed of consequential RfCs. Especially if the AfD "turns" on it. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are persistently failing to assume good faith, peristently castining aspersions and then persistently sealioning when called on it. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, it is absolutely this AfD. And I purposely avoided mentioning it in the RSN RfC so as to avoid the possibility of canvassing editors from RSN to this AfD. Insofar as the theory in your edited comment [64] that I'm plotting to get The Debrief deprecated to "turn" this AfD ... that's not possible. The RfC on The Debrief will run at least 30 days. This AfD will close in the next week or two. Chetsford (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either this AfD is "presently turning on whether or not this is RS," or it is not. You have stated that it is. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it obviously is; read the above comments -- its name has been invoked 21 times. But that's an entirely separate matter from the RSN listing. Once again, the RSN discussion will run 30 days. This AfD will close somewhere in the next 5-14 days. Nothing that happens at RSN will have any impact here. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you seem convinced there are these far-reaching plots converging on certain subject matter. I'm at a loss as to what I can do to convince you that's not the case. Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases (AfD and the RfC), the reliability of The Debrief is in question. Interested editors should know. As far as the RSN discussion having no "impact here," that seems improbable given that AfD readers interested in the reliability of The Debrief may indeed look at the RfC (regardless of whether the discussion has run 30 days or not). I suppose there's the possibility of no immediate impact, if no one looks or no one references it (but the transparent nature of Wikipedia seems to render that improbable).

In any case, if the AfD discussion does not result in deletion, then the RfC will probably have an impact on the article later (especially if The Debrief citation remains). So, editors interested in this article should know. Ben.Gowar (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cakelot1's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hadn't intended to study this article, but all the vituperative, handwaving ad hominem shouting by Keep enthusiasts convinced me that I should. Having done so, I am satisfied that there are no serious reasons for keeping it, and that Chetsford is correct. Athel cb (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty much agree with what LWG, 5Q5, and Feoffer have said. The article's definitely gotten better since it was nominated (WP:HEY), and sources like Focus Magazine, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia look like they give us enough WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS for WP:NORG. Notability might be on the edge, but it seems good enough for now, and anything else that needs fixing looks WP:SURMOUNTABLE with some regular editing. Deleting it now feels a bit much with the sourcing we've got and the chance to improve it more. Omegamilky (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Of the sources that I find reliable and more coverage than one sentence (Hartford Courant, Aleteia, Focus), the first covers the founding; the second and third cover the organization's conferences in 2023 and 2024, and give a short mention of the organization. This feels WP:TOOSOON for an article, where the subject has not reached the threshold of notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sympathetic to this argument, we don't need to be covering every RECENT update about the UFO world. But where else could we put the "Roster" of notable people who collaborated together? That's the primary information I'd want readers to be able to reference: who is in which UFO "Supergroup". I know I certainly can't keep it straight without a reference. Feoffer (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Wikipedia's job to track membership in different UFO organizations? How does this work with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:NOTDATABASE)? For reference, I don't think Wikipedia tracks membership on boards of different corporations and nonprofits, even if that information could be interesting. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the members weren't notable and their association not covered in RSes, it'd be an easy delete. But it's a group of eight notable individuals who have biographical articles and RSes do report on the collaboration between them. Feoffer (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this seems to be a textbook WP:NOTINHERITED argument. Chetsford (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument, per above, is that SIGCOV exists, not that it's inherited. But for those not swayed about a dedicated article, the alternative would seem to be redundantly covering the association in the eight separate bios, which seems... suboptimal.Feoffer (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose there were eight siblings who were independently notable under WP:BIO. Suppose they share a similar Early Life section with the same parentage. Are their parents therefore also notable? I think not. Whether or not this article exists, editors can make a judgment on whether to include association with the Sol Foundation on the other bios.

Assuming that WP:SIGCOV does not exist (which is how we started this thread, with "where else could we put the "Roster" of notable people who collaborated together"), noting an association across multiple bios is not a problem. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I don't believe an article about an organization like this, who pushes fringe UFO theories, should exist without critical sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Unidentified_flying_object#United_States_2. Sourcing does not look particualrly strong. Newsweek probably most independent one. But overall, don't think that this is enough to esatablish notability - which seems borderline. I looked at this a few times and the best I could come up with, besides deleting, was a merge until more coverage by stronger sources for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep this is a matter of considerable public interest. The article is supported by valid references and can continue to be improved. The Sol Foundation exists. There is increasing suspicion that a group of editors on Wikipedia are conspiring to traduce or remove articles on the UFO topic. People are openly stating they suspect intelligence agencies are manipulating Wikipedia and have agents involved in this process to remove information on the subject from the public sphere. Recent edits of the article on Harald Malmgren have been discussed and suspected of CIA involvement. The legitimacy of Wikipedia as a neutral source of information is coming under serious question because, as Orwell once said, "omission is the most effective form of a lie". We must be better, we must allow a range of information which is of interest to the public, if it can be supported by third party sources. There are enormous articles on this site about wiping your bum (literally) and songs that failed to make the final in Eurovision ten years ago. There are thousands of frivolous pages pon this site which are not questioned and yet the UFO topic - which is a matter of Congressional investigation - is continuously brought down and questioned. It is a serious matter.Aetheling1125 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly being a "matter of considerable public interest" or the fact that WP also hosts articles on Eurovision Song Contest songs are not valid Keep reasons, nor is your claim [65] that "there is a clique within Wikipedia seeking to control information". The claim that the CIA is suspect of editing Wikipedia is also not a valid Keep reason. Chetsford (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aetheling1125, I've also argued above that the article should be kept. But there's absolutely no need to look at this as a "high-stakes" conversation, much less to invoke Orwell. The organization may be covered on its own page or it may be covered elsewhere (like the pages of its members or a page about UFO groups). No one is suggesting it be omitted entirely! Feoffer (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor ^{or a keyboard?} 13:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Garry Nolan. I agree with most of the source evaluation table (including Chetsford's follow-up comments). I find it rebuts a lot of the keep arguments made before it, and after it I'm not really seeing much of a (policy-based) argument to keep. I think the one point where I differ is that I don't think PopMatters would fall under WP:USERGENERATED. That and Focus seem like the stronger sources. LWG's and Feoffer's argument that The Debrief's reporting could be used to establish notability is...not realistic. The additional sources provided later by Very Polite Person plainly don't meet WP:SIRS, and bringing up a source already covered in the nomination is a pretty obvious example of bludgeoning this discussion. I don't envy the admin who ends up having to ~~control information and awareness using Wikipedia policies~~ wade through all this to figure out consensus. hinnk (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garry Nolan. I agree with Chetsford's source evaluation table and most of the sources appear to focus on Nolan. The stand-alone page of Nolan already includes references to the Sol Foundation. --Enos733 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I flagged the article with {{more citations needed}}. If the foundation is less than two years old and all it needs is one to three better refs, perhaps give it until the end of the year, then renominate if no change? Seems like the article is destined to be republished per WP:RADP if deleted. 5Q5|^✉ 11:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another option could be to draftify the article now and republish when/if more sources become available. -- LWG ^talk 12:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garry Nolan. There are plenty of passing mentions to show that it exists, but aside from copypastes of press releases and sensationalism e.g. The DeBrief, it's a WP:NOTJUSTYET situation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good faith nom, and for the record, the canvassing and aspersions here are an unhelpful sideshow. However, I think that the San Francisco Standard and Focus Magazine pieces are sufficient WP:SIGCOV. I encourage the closing admin to actually read the San Francisco Standard article (1), because to me, it is clearly more than just an "event listing". The reporter actually attended the Sol Foundation's symposium. The article discusses his experience as an attendee, includes interviews with people he met there, and generally describes how the event went. It isn't just an event listing, it's an in-depth piece about an event hosted by the Sol Foundation - that is WP:SIGCOV. Because Chetsford concedes the Focus Magazine piece is SIGCOV, that's two sources and we've now passed WP:GNG. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 02:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

for occasional archiving