Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Georgia (U.S. state)

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state). 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|Georgia (U.S. state)|~~~~}} 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 Georgia (U.S. state). 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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Georgia (U.S. state)/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Georgia (U.S. state) AfDs

Scan for Georgia (U.S. state) Prods
Scan for Georgia (U.S. state) template TfDs

Georgia

Kristen Broady

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

Economist at a bank. No WP:SIGCOV fails WP:GNG; WP:ANYBIO nothing thrown up by WP:BEFORE, no evidence of significant or enduring impact. An economist economisting. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't this making here quite notable: Dean of the College of Business and Barron Hilton Endowed Professor of Financial Economics at Dillard University. Here [1]. Mag2k (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if there are no further sources like scientific publications I would suggest delete Gawrawiki (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago is not just an average bank. Appointments at several significant academic institutions. She not a research economist, so many publications are policy papers rather than theory.

The references section could use some fleshing out. Diekhans (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kristen Broady has had many significant publications (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lymxGUAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao) including at the Brookings Institute, Hamilton Project, and The Review of Black Political Economy (see https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1007/s12114-017-9243-9) Longmermaidhair (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a significant publication record, as measured by citations, satisfies WP:NACADEMIC though. She might meet "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.", but that would need to be supported by something beyond just citation count. I think she's more likely to be notable under WP:GNG since there is some coverage of her outside of the academic literature. GenomeFan92 (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I checked again, and being the "Barron Hilton Endowed Professor of Financial Economics at Dillard University" [2] might qualify her under "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." How do we know if that particular named chair indicates a comparable level of achievement to being a distinguished professor at a major institution? Dillard University has history back to 1869. It's fairly small (so maybe it isn't itself "major"), but the school does say in [3] that its various Barron Hilton endowed positions are "one of the highest honors a faculty member can achieve". GenomeFan92 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's significant coverage of her published by the St. Louis Fed, who I think is independent and sufficiently reliable, in [4] where they decided she was interesting enough to interview about her work for half an hour. And similarly, the "Sustaining Capitalism" podcast has published a similar show about her and her work at [5], and even though the name suggests an obvious agenda in any debate over economic systems, I'd expect them to be reliable on the subject of this person, and I see no particular connection between them and her. Both of these are cited in the article. So Alexandermcnabb I think that meets the 2 independent, reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV of the subject bar that's needed for WP:GNG, right? Or is there a problem with one or both of those sources in your view? GenomeFan92 (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GenomeFan92, that's what I was thinking. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is a reputable source I would hope, and is not her employer, and they considered her notable enough to feature her work. Likewise the Conference Board is a real organization and not obviously connected to her as you said. And while the Fortune magazine article [6] gave a fairly brief summary of her work, they did consider her notable enough to include in their list. AngieTheMicro (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no significant independent news coverage beyond institutional profiles. Does not clearly meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. Shinadamina (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhora

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

Fails WP:NENTERTAINER, has so far been a participant in a single reality TV franchise, no WP:SIGCOV outside of that. WP:PSEUDO also applies. In the same way that we do not have articles for every participant on other reality shows (Big Brother for example), appearing on this show does not automatically assume notability. --wooden superman 12:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 12:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Entertainer. There's a longstanding standard that individuals who have competed on two TV series (even within the same franchise) meet notability criteria. There's no reason to move the goalposts here. Article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spin-off season of the same franchise, which clearly does not meet the criteria in WP:NENTERTAINER for "multiple notable television shows". --wooden superman 13:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated. Cornmazes (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated.Naraht (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Merely being on a reality show(s) does not indicate an automatic pass of WP:NENTERTAINER. The subject has to demonstrate that their contribution to the show was significant per that language in the SNG guideline. The sourcing here doesn't demonstrate that what Abhora did on these reality shows was in fact "significant". Further one of the sources used is unreliable because it is a live podcast which is a WP:PRIMARY source.4meter4 (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But did you search for sources not used in the article? Sources aren't difficult to find. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing looks good in that list. Seeing a bunch of trivial WP:FANCRUFT/WP:TABLOID type reporting. Trivial current event coverage of this type is not significant, and it is WP:PRIMARY because it's qualitative eyewitness/interview reporting. We need sources with analysis and context across time for the sources to become WP:SECONDARY in order to demonstrate significance.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to agree here, which is fine, but are you open to changing your vote from delete to redirect? There's no need to delete the page and its history altogether because at minimum the redirect serves a purpose to readers. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Sure a redirect to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula as an WP:ATD is fine. On a side note, if Abhora's work were significant on this show(s) you would expect articles with cross-episode and cross-season analysis (how they grew as an artist; themes in their work etc.) So much gets written on drag these days that type of coverage should exist if a particular contestant is significant. That's the type of coverage that would indicate an WP:NENTERTAINER pass. Churnalism, which is what we have here, isn't evidence of notability. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm sure there's more to add, I'll keep fleshing out the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you want me to take a second look. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but instead, I would ask you to please consider changing your other delete votes for similar bios to redirect for the same reason and for consistency. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, California, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see at least three reliable sources, although much of this BLP is sourced from blogs. It could use copy editing. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per @4meter4. There is no significant coverage from any reliable source. The subject does not satisfy either criteria of WP:NENTERTAINER. Jcgaylor (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evah Destruction

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NENTERTAINER, has so far been a participant in a single reality TV franchise, no WP:SIGCOV outside of that. WP:PSEUDO also applies. In the same way that we do not have articles for every participant on other reality shows (Big Brother for example), appearing on this show does not automatically assume notability. --wooden superman 12:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 12:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Entertainer. There's a longstanding standard that individuals who have competed on two TV series (even within the same franchise) meet notability criteria. There's no reason to move the goalposts here. Article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spin-off season of the same franchise, which clearly does not meet the criteria in WP:NENTERTAINER for "multiple notable television shows". --wooden superman 13:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated. Cornmazes (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Entertainer, for the same reasons Another Believer stated.Naraht (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Merely being on a reality show(s) does not indicate an automatic pass of WP:NENTERTAINER. The subject has to demonstrate that their contribution to the show was significant per that language in the SNG guideline. The sourcing here doesn't demonstrate that what Evah Destruction did on these reality shows was in fact "significant". Further many of the sources used are unreliable publications like interviews. A redirect to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula is a plausible WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, Georgia (U.S. state), and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not all are the best sourcing, but there's significant coverage. She is well known in the LGBTQ community, from Cherry Grove, New York to Atlanta. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Terrifying picture, but as user:Bearian said. Notable with WP:SIGCOV apparently. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Gupta (American Politician)

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

American politician, unelected to office. Standing in March 2026, this is WP:TOOSOON and the subject does not otherwise pass WP:GNG. Article is promotional, which can be fixed, but absent notability deletion is the solution. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, India, California, Connecticut, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:NOTRESUME - This is being used as a campaign announcement. Does not appear to have otherwise served in an elected office. — Maile (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not pass WP:GNG. RealStanger43286 (Let's talk!) 14:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very PROMO. Does not meet political notability, the career is routine otherwise. I don't see how this could be made notable, this is basically a CV in disguise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the promo stance, and per WP:NOTRESUME x2step (lets talk 💌) 18:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTRESUME and WP:PROMO. No reliable sourcing indicates this person meets GNG. MidnightMayhem (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:POLITICIAN and the GNG, going away. Ravenswing 21:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill attorney and political candidate. Absolutely fails my usual standards. The four policies are also typical of every other Republican; if he were, for example, in favor of releasing the Epstein files, or for a Federal sales tax, then that might be notable. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and is WP:MILL. Jcgaylor (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failing on WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the most inclusionist interpretation of whether a candidate should have an article, a candidate is best viewed as a participant as in a big event. It is too soon to know if he will be a notable participant in the event. For example, the petition deadline for ballot access for major parties is not until this upcoming Monday. What if he does not file? As of this comment he has not done so. I think even if he files, it would still be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL because of how many such candidates simply never meet any sort of notability criteria.--Mpen320 (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Does not meet WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, appears to be astroturfing ✝ barbieapologist (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are in WP:SNOWBALL territory and probably ready to close. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Allan Adventure

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

Little independent significant coverage in sources beyond those with other episodes of the season. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Georgia (U.S. state). Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not really sure what’s the issue with the article? It has a decent production section and a nice reception section, and all information is sourced, as well. There are many episode articles with way less information than this one, deleting makes no sense Crystal Drawers (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I know this article is not that well-sourced, but there is more than enough referencing to pass GNG. As User:Crystal Drawers said, the article is reasonably well-written and informative. @Go D. Usopp: could you please explain which deletion reason you are thinking of? If you can't find one, it might be time to think of withdrawing this nomination. Somepinkdude (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources (ComicBook.com and BleedingCool) provide independent sigcov for the episode, but the rest provide notability on the series or season 2 as a whole instead of the episode itself. The Bubberblabber review does not seem reliable. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The episode contains some facts on its production, more than the majority of Smiling Friends episodes do. I think the abnormally larger amount of production info (even if it’s only 2) is proof that it's worthy enough for its own article. There are countless other television episode articles with less information than this that are much less notable and they’ve been allowed to stay. Crystal Drawers (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a very WP:OTHERSTUFF arguement, however I do agree that an increase amount of production info helps establish notabilty. Reviews while important aren't the only thing that help meet WP:GNG Olliefant (she/her) 15:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Somepinkdude like I mentioned, there is a lack of significant coverage about the episode to demonstrate its independent notability from the rest of the season to deserve its own article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. It would be better off being redirected to Smiling Friends, while the reception about the episode can simply be added to the Reception section for its minimal importance. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Bleeding Cool and ComicBook.com have dedicated coverage, those two combined with the portions of the Paste, Collider and TheWrap articles/listicles are enough to satisfy GNG. I would prefer a third dedicated review but I think the three weaker sources are enough. Olliefant (she/her) 17:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed. Jcgaylor (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions