Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

Note: This is a high level category for deletion sorting. Whenever possible, it is recommended for deletion discussions to be added to more specific categories, such as a state and/or relevant subject area. Please review the list of available deletion categories, and see this page's guidelines below for more information.

Page guidelines: This United States of America deletion sorting page may be used for the following types of articles:

AfD discussions about people, organizations, companies and other entities that are known for activity or have a presence on a national level in the United States can be listed on this page.
Topics and subjects that are U.S.-based, whereby the article does not provide a specific state of origin or where activity occurs.
Media such as films, television shows and books that have national distribution in the United States.
Products that have national distribution and a significant presence in the United States.
Multinational companies that have a significant presence in the United States, whereby the article does not provide specific state(s) of location.

Dear reader/writer of this WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America. The present page was above the template_include_limit. As a result, the bottom of the page was not displayed correctly. For this reason, the transclusion of the deletions sorted by US states has been moved to WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/sorted by State.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to United States of America. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|United States of America|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to United States of America. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.

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

Purge page cache

watch

General

List of films in the public domain in the United States

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Most American films are entered in the public domain from 2019 or later, but other non-US films, including Indian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc. are also public domain. Absolutiva (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Absolutiva (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've done a great many filmography articles and lists. Some are stand-alone lists, and some are imbedded in an actor's article. This particular list is very helpful in checking and completing those lists. — Maile (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These films that are public domain in the United States are not otherwise tracked on Wikipedia (for example, by a Category or template); this article remains the only effective mechanism on Wikipedia to find such films and their associated articles. In addition, the research in this article is considerably more reliable and well-referenced than any other non-wikipedia reference I have found on the same topic. 72.81.222.194 (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important. Maybe split the silent films, b&w vs color films. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated films in the public domain in the United States

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in the public domain in the United States. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of great importance. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jacoby (political consultant)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:CRIMINAL. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources, just trivial one-sentence mention that he:

Worked as a canvasser on the 2020 Kanye West presidential campaign, collecting signatures.
Was arrested in 2008 and later pleaded guilty to charges of voter fraud. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment subject is mentioned in several reliable third-party publications and may meet WP:NBASIC if deeper search is performed. Mekomo (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Arul Carasala

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

This article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. The sources are very weak and do not prove that this killing is notable enough to have significant impact on the world. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Kansas. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This event is still under investigation, and new details might emerge. I wouldn't immediately jump to deletion. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LunaEclipse, WP:CRYSTAL. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Beans, ??? My intention was to draftify the article and wait for new info to come out, and not add speculation to articles. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 15:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Some parts read like you were expecting some more coverage to come in the future. I should have kept my opinion to myself. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for Philosophy and Literature

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

This article does not cite any sources. I have tried to personally search for any reliable, secondary, and independent sources about this subject, but have came to find none. Therefore, this makes me question the actual integrity and accuracy of this article, leading me to AfD this article. WormEater13 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Organizations, and United States of America. WormEater13 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its founder Hugh J. Silverman. There are plenty of mentions on Google Books and Google Scholar, but as far as I could tell all of them are either not SIGCOV of the organisation or were written by people who are themselves affiliated with the organisation (including this one). It has a fairly long history and has been affiliated with plenty of notable people so it's possible that I've missed something, but I couldn't find anything that would come close to a WP:GNG-qualifying source. MCE89 (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alison MacInnis

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

Redirected but restored. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, no references. Should be deleted as no obvious single redirect target has significant information beyond a mention about this person. Draftify most appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is pointless. She and her character became famous on their Power Rangers thing a long time ago, it should never be deleted. 31.22.146.236 (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Photography, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Power Rangers cast members#Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue (2000) (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In my searches for sources, I found only passing mentions like this and this as well as two sentences of coverage here. She is quoted in this article in ComicBook.com, which is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Inconclusive discussions. There is insufficient coverage for Alison MacInnis to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I think the Power Rangers cast members list is a good redirect target since all mentions of her on Wikipedia are related to the Power Rangers franchise. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree: redirect. -Mushy Yank. 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the decision is to restore the redirect, at least protect it so that only editors who can create new articles can override the redirect with an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I support protecting the page given the extensive history of editing warring on the page. Aside from a revert by Haplogroup X (talk · contribs) whose account is locked, all recent edits to revert the redirects were from IP addresses, so semi-protection—rather than extended confirmed protection or full protection—may be sufficient. Cunard (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Power Rangers cast members#Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue (2000). Despite what the IP (since temporally blocked for adding poorly sourced content to BLPs) says above, it doesn't matter famous we subjectively think their are, we need some evidence that she was covered in depth, in multiple WP:reliable sources, to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO; or else that she meets some part of WP:ENT. As with others, I'm failing to find such coverage. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23rd Field Artillery Regiment (United States)

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

Non-notable army regiment with only a single mention in a book from 1953. Fails WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 15:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable unit. I can find it mentioned in several books on the Baatan campaign, [1][2][3][4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean they are there, but that is really all they are, brief mentions and footnotes. Not really the WP:SIGCOV needed to pass WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than enough to create an an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bilton

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

Article was created by a sockpuppet account named "Novonium", since blocked indefinitely, in 2012. The article appears to have a pretty rich editing history by socks, also since blocked, in the years following its creation. There is a strong WP:DENY argument to be made alone for deleting this article.

Additionally, most of the sources mention Nick Bilton in passing or refer to works of his but are not about the man himself. Therefore, though articles about some of Bilton's work might be notable, the subject matter BLP, Bilton, is himself not notable and the article should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, England, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some reviews of his books [5], [6], an article in Variety [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source 10 is also a book review, this would likely pass AUTHOR with at least three book reviews in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the WP:DENY rationale for deletion? I think it is likely that this person paid to have their article created, or did it themselves with a sock account. Either way, it has a rich history of editing by blocked sock accounts. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:DIRECTOR/WP:CREATIVE as director/writer of a notable film, at least. -Mushy Yank. 18:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the criteria from those qualifies here? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...#3, most evidently. Bilton’s Fake Famous has received a lot of critical attention. Just check. WP: AUTHOR also applies. He is a very clearly notable writer and filmmaker. -Mushy Yank. 08:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transamerica Retirement Solutions

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

I couldn’t find any sources not relating to the subject, fails WP:NCORP. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

50 State quarter mintage figures

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

Pre-nomination research (WP:BEFORE): Before submitting this nomination, I carefully followed the steps outlined in Wikipedia:BEFORE to search for reliable sources that could demonstrate the notability of this topic. I began with a search on Google News （https://www.google.com/search?q=50+State+quarter+mintage+site ）to check for any substantial media coverage of the 50 State quarter mintage figures. Most of the results turned out to be either official press releases or brief mentions, and I could not find any in-depth or independent reporting focused specifically on the mintage data. I also consulted JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=50+State+quarter+mintage&so=rel) to see if there were any academic publications on this topic. However, the search yielded no relevant results. Finally, I reviewed the official United States Mint website, but this is considered a primary source and does not qualify as independent secondary coverage under Wikipedia’s standards. Reason for deletion: Based on my research, I believe this article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG). There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that would establish the subject’s notability. The article relies almost entirely on primary data from the U.S. Mint, with no substantial secondary analysis or commentary. Additionally, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s verifiability policy (WP:V), which requires that information be supported by reliable, independent, published sources. Given the lack of such sources, I believe this article should be considered for deletion. Although the 50 State Quarters program itself is notable, the specific mintage figures alone do not seem to attract independent attention significant enough to justify a standalone article under Wikipedia's guidelines. Cuicuizan (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 50 State quarters - I created this as a WP:SIZESPLIT fork of Washington quarter mintage figures (itself a fork of United States quarter mintage figures), but I think the information can easily be integrated into the main article for the 50 State quarters. Whatever happens, I recommend including America the Beautiful quarter mintage figures in this discussion since I created it for the exact same reason. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 50 State quarters per ZLEA. GenuineArt (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile government takeover

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

Article of dubious notability, having been rejected multiple times. It appears that the rationale is "not meet wp:NSONG. This article needs some input as to whether it should deleted or not, because there are sources that contribute to notability but it might not be just enough. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this source contains daily dot deadline billboard and indy100. all of these are credible sources. although some of them are not considered to be credible sources in the credible sources list by themselves. However all 4 of those sources contribute to notability. The msn source is actually Distractify which I did not realize is a very short article. the yahoo entertainment source is actually from a source called mandatory. Mandatory is a fairly unknown source but it does talk extensively on Hostile government takeover. There is also the official Last Week Tonight episode that was mentioned in the deadline article. This may be unnecessary because the deadline article talks about it extensively. The Resetera source may not be necessary which is why it's marked in bold. it has an embed of the original video around the time the TikTok was first made and is useful since TikTok doesn't give upload dates. I think hawk tuah only has 9 sources if you don't include the source that cites it's youtube video. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is an additional source that can be used which is moby's remix of Hostile Government takeover. however sources on it aren't credible so the original TikTok would have to be sourced. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is a mess (name not being properly capitalised, MSN/Yahoo cited instead of the original source, talk page content put on top of the article), but there's sufficient sourcing in "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it". Cortador (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. the original sources for the msn(Distractify) and yahoo entertainment(Mandatory). hopefully that doesn't change your mind. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Cactusisme: move the page to draft. Waiting for the page to be deleted and move it backed. Anyway Please don't draftify the page when it's on AFD. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, alright. Shouldn't this be miscellaneous for deletion? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 12:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you cause the problem then your solution to the problem you caused is a solution you proposed. obviously the outcome of the page depends on the articles for deletion discussion. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did the draft get published in mainspace? This doesn't seem appropriate. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We should note the existence of Draft:Hostile Government Takeover, which would be the correct proper-name song title if notable. Also, the deletion history of Hostile Government Takeover, Hostile government Takeover and the deletion log of this title might also be of interest. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - its a pretty sloppily written article, but a dedicated Billboard (magazine) article and getting coverage for being discussed on a major late night television show are pretty strong arguments towards notability. I'd lean closer to cleaning up or draftifying than I would deletion... Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable song entirely; without the LWT notice, it's just another viral thing that would struggle to get 30 seconds otherwise because most mainstream news shows and articles would not highlight this as a viral trend, and the sources for it (discounting how the creator doesn't understand content syndication by using web portals as sources) are fully unreliable of the 'explain it to me as if I was five and give me some terrible Taboola ads too' type. This isn't even considering the content of the article, which gives me a flashback to 2006 article standards in the worst way. Nathannah • 📮 21:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so youre essentially saying that Hostile government takeover remixed by Moby covered by John Oliver sold as a song on spotify with around 400,000 streams doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. the hostile government takeover song from Billboard currently has 796,000 views.(admittedly it's growth is slowing) But I appreciate your feedback on the article. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Discounting the social media and unreliable sources, we're not really left with much other than pages that are just summarizing what other people say on social media. Yes a dedicated Billboard article is impressive, but there really isn't much more than that of any other viral tiktok sound. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
do you mean your not counting indy100 deadline or the dailydot. admittedly you already mentioned billboard. those other sources were prima facie information and were used for self evident information like view counts. I marked the sources as primary sources in bold but admittedly there needs to be a better system. maybe someone might have an idea how to do that. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
indy100 deadline dailydot and billboard are considered sources that can be used for notability. there were other sources distractify and mandatory covered by msn and yahoo entertainment respectively but they don't contribute as much to notability. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Songs go viral all the time and I could find no evidence of long term notability. The article is in really rough shape, I tried my best to delete obvious nonsense for the sake of anyone coming across it, so WP:TNT probably applies as well. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSONG, but sympathetic to draftifying on WP:TNT grounds I'm really surprised it made it into the mainspace in this shape. In my view, there are four sources which pass WP:NSONG: the Billboard, Deadline, Mandatory, and indy100 articles. Cradleofcivilization, I say this only respectfully, but the article would be less likely to be deleted if you reformat to resemble comparable articles about viral songs - see for example United Breaks Guitars. Try to use the Infobox template. Flip^and Flopped ツ 06:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well I would but I don't have permission to post a photo of the album art for Hostile Government Takeover. Id appreciate it if someone added an infobox. I mean it's a good idea, but youre not allowed to post photos on wikipedia you don't have the rights to. At least I think that's the rule. It's definetly good advice. the page went through a lot of edits but you may have seen the most up to date version of the page. Anyway thank you for the good advice. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay well I added the infobox. unfortunately it doesn't contain the album art. I added Spotify as a source so I could reference it's metadata. I cleaned up the second paragraph slightly because it didn't flow well. The source is a bit confusing so there are I think 2 confusing sentences on the page. Essentially the song hostile government takeover is based on a edm remix of a viral tiktok of A gift from Todd singing hostile government takeover. the full song is then based on that edm remix. Those are only two sentences though. the rest of the page flows pretty well. Although im a little confused about notability as that's been the only notes I've received up and till this point. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case there's some confusion, AFAICT, it's only in main space because Cradleofcivilization decided to skip AfC and moved it themselves despite their inexperience. Technically as they were autoconfirmed and don't have a CoI AFAIK, they're allowed to do that, but I'd agree it was a major mistake and would be better if this is moved back to draftspace and allowed to go through AfC or at least is only moved back to main space by someone other than Cradeofcivilization. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is not true. this is what happened after a failed move review. I went against pt eilsworth and put the article in mainspace. then pt elsworth put the article back. Toadetteedit declined my article when I put submitted it in articles for creation april 4,2025. I asked her why she originally accepted the article. she simply said she made a mistake. I made a post on my talk channel setting the record straight which I did not think Toadetteedit would see. I resubmitted the draft because there was nothing that could be improved in the draft in regards to notability. it had more than enough sources which left me in a bad position. toadette sent the article that was in articles for creation to draftspace to see if it should stay on wikipedia or not. Keep in mind she may have originally approved the page. It was just a chance circumstance that after pt eilsworth sent the article back to draftspace. I happened to be up when Toadetteedit was up. cactus later renamed this article to draft then after it was vandalized nominated for miscellany for deletion. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note Cradleofcivilization has been indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superchess

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

No evidence of notability. Both sources are reviews and the second is very advertorial. Tagged for notability for several weeks without response. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and United States of America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Both sources are reviews" sounds like this would be an argument for deletion. @Velella: Why should that be the case?

Two reviews in my view usually fullfil the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. More specifically, they do fullfil WP:NBOOK, which I think is the most closely related specialized guideline to the topic of tabletop games: "A book is presumed notable if ... The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include ... reviews." Daranios (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per @Daranios. The problem is that the first source is a capsule review, i.e. presumably just a few sentences, so it has a shady relation to WP:SIGCOV, hence my weak keep. The second one is half a page long, so it's ok. Would be nice if we could find some more sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The review in White Wolf has 16 full sentences, or 6 paragraphs. BOZ (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's not capsule in my book then. Consider my vote amended to full keep :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. No objection to starting a merge discussion to one of the various Chess variant pages, especially if this is going to stay a stub indefinitely, but it hasn't been around long enough for us to assess that, has it? Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At 350+ words (after I expanded the game description), it is no longer stub-class. Guinness323 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above, sometimes it WP:SNOWs in April. BOZ (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added material from the extensive (360-word) review in Shadis #12 as well as coverage from a third-party website about chess variants. This should establish notability. Guinness323 (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-presidency of Joe Biden

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

WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV - Not notable enough to warrant an entirely separate article from Biden himself. Most content here is either already written in or could easily be added to Joe Biden#Post-presidency. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also for reference no other 21st century presidents (except Bill Clinton, but that's a technicality) have a post-presidency article. And seeing as Biden's post-presidency will in all likelihood be shorter, if not significantly shorter, than Bush '43's or Obama's, I can't see how he can warrant a separate article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Joe Biden#Post-presidency_(2025–present) I'd say "merge" except that what's in addition to the material already in the main article is passing with unimportant detail. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Biden#Post-presidency_(2025–present) per Mangoe. Maybe in time Biden will do enough as an ex-president to justify coverage, but he certainly has not yet, and it is equally conceivable that he never will. BD2412 T 00:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Please think about whether a split from the main article is really necessary before making a new page just because other similar articles exist. Reywas92^Talk 02:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Biden#Post-presidency_(2025–present), per the rationale of Mangoe, BD2412, and Reywas92. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with a selective merge in the wise judgment of the closing administrator. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Biden#Post-presidency_(2025–present). There's nothing in his post-presidency that isn't covered in that section of his article, and the page can be recreated if he does enough significant stuff to warrant a page about his post-presidency. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 21:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just Detention International

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator). Not a recreation (I don't know what the article said in 2019), just an article about the same topic. I think the sources cited in the article show that it passes WP:GNG, if not additional coverage can readily be found in Google Books, Wikipedia Library, etc.Prezbo (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was half-wrong yesterday--having looked through Google Books and Wikipedia Library more thoroughly I think the two sources currently cited in the article (Jenness and Singer) are the best ones available. Both of those cover the organization in some detail though. They clear the bar of "significant coverage." Prezbo (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaldoun Sweis

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

The subject does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC in spite of years of opportunity to do so. It seems kind of a strech for an associate professor to be notable. There are name-drops about who interviewed him, and a list of his publications, but that doesn't confer notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely needs cleanup to remove the promotional material for his self-developed coaching method and his self-published CreateSpace book. Not notable as an academic, but he passes WP:NAUTHOR as the co-editor of Debating Christian Theism, which has received multiple reviews in independent sources, including International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, The Journal of Theological Studies, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Philos, Theological Studies; and co-editor of Christian Apologetics, which has also received multiple independent reviews in the Heythrop Journal and the Southeastern Theological Review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (Lean Keep) -- Definitely in the scope of "Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable" based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, plus one additional high prestige article. This in itself is borderline for WP:PROF -- it seems on the face of it enough for WP:AUTHOR, but these publications are not what that guideline was primarily meant to evaluate. My hunch is what Dclemens1971 was able to find will turn into more and will be a keep, but based on what I quickly found and what's here, I'm neutral. But it's definitely not an easy del. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, not an easy delete. I may withdraw this nomination, seeing how it pans out. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Soto Chalhoub

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

Created by a single purpose account. I don't believe he meets WP:BIO. Could only find namesakes in google news and books searches. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – The SPA component of this discussion is troubling. The article's creator has zero edits in the encyclopedia other than this article, and the text that was contributed is laden with puffery, suggesting a close connection to the subject. Dawnseeker2000 08:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, and much of it is unsourced information in violation of WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Pat Buchanan

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

Politician who has only competed in one general election. All information can easily be merged to the main article.मल्ल (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, and Politics. मल्ल (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Back in 2009, it looks like this info was pulled out of the main article. Not quite sure why. I agree it's better placed back into the main one. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is Ok. His campaign – and the votes he received in Florida in 2000 - is arguably the butterfly effect of why we are here in this world today. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's Liberation Day speech

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

Speech itself is not notable—hence, not specifically mentioned by any of the sources—and no claim of significance is made here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the speech itself isn't notable, but much of the background/content/reactions relate specifically to today's batch of "reciprocal" tariffs, which may be notable on their own (as both long-anticipated and very significant even independent of the broader tariffs in the second Trump administration, so I wouldn't be opposed to restructuring this article into April 2025 worldwide United States tariffs or Donald Trump "Liberation Day" tariffs or something along those lines as a partial WP:ATD. DecafPotato (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this idea. I do think these “liberation day” tariffs are notable on their own that would be useful for its own article. Several economies including the EU are currently planning countermeasures and an eventual global trade war may result. Jmccfip (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best name is according to the other Category:Executive orders of Donald Trump. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. The convention for all EOs, including Trump EOs with common names like Executive Order 13769 (the "Muslim travel ban"), is by their EO name. The Federal Register just uploaded the EO today and confirmed it will be called Executive Order 14257. satkara❈talk 05:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just did a web search for news on some thing called a liberation day speech and found on the first page NPR, The New York Times, CTV, Mirror UK, and Bloomberg coverage. WP:GHITS is a lazy defense of an article, I admit – almost as lazy as the nomination which didn't even bother to offer a reasonable rationale. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This speech will be talked about for many years to come. The implications of it will be felt globally. GWA88 (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is a significant moment for the world and turning point 182.172.103.25 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:TOOSOON. None of the sources in the article treat the speech itself as notable; rather, they are discussing its implications for economic policy. Also, this topic is already covered at Tariffs in the second Trump administration. Arguments to keep should focus on why we need a separate article about the speech. Astaire (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tariffs in the second Trump administration/Delete. The speech itself is not notable whatsoever, the tariffs are, and we already have an article about the topic. A lot of this article is duplicative too. Reywas92^Talk 02:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NOTNEWS clearly applies here. As others have also pointed out, the speech itself is not notable, but rather the policy implications. This is reflected in reliable source coverage of the speech. The actual policy implications of the speech are already well-covered at Tariffs in the second Trump administration. WMSR (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tariffs in the second Trump administration per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. The policy idea is notable and should have a stand-alone page. The speech may not need a stand-alone page. --Enos733 (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tariffs in the second Trump administration. This article is not notable and WP:NOTNEWS applies to this article. Wikipedia isn't The New York Times, nor The Times, nor any newspaper or news agency that pops into your head. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tariffs in the second Trump administration. The speech isn't independently notable enough from the policies imo. If the speech individually in the future is recalled more then maybe it can have an article, but for now it doesn't seem notable enough. seefooddiet (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/Draftify This article would likely be useful as a standalone (maybe under a different name) involving these global “Liberation Day” tariffs as several economies (such as the EU) are preparing countermeasures. This would mean a global trade war outside of the trade war against China Jmccfip (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote to Merge and restructure to Liberation Day tariffs Jmccfip (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While the policies brought forward are indeed notable, the speech alone is not notable on its own. This would be better integrated into the existing tariff article. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 07:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: Note that all responses are regarding to the Executive Order and not to the speech itself. Move into the format of the other Category:Executive orders of Donald Trump and so Executive Order 14257. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Liberation Day tariffs or similar. The GNG-passing coverage is primarily about the tariffs rather than the speech. Rename is a bit of an odd !vote for AFD, but this article's content is good and useful and I think it just needs a better article title and a more appropriate scope. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Idea for closer: you don't have to pick a title in your close. You can close this as keep and then we can immediately WP:RM after. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Day tariffs wasn't created when I initially placed this AFD !vote. This complicates things. I guess I should change my !vote to Merge to Liberation Day tariffs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the confusion, today Liberation Day tariffs was moved to something else, then WP:BLARd. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Novem Linguae. My title suggestions would be: a. 2025 Trump Liberation Day Tarriff b. 2025 Trump Tariff -> quite proper if you also compare it with Mckinley Tariff SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Novem Linguae. I think we can workshop a better name more in line with the day and the tarrifs announced rather than focusing on the speech, as been noted, but I think the article is notable enough to be its own article. JParksT2023 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tariffs in the second Trump administration given that there is an already existing article which should be covering this topic. If this were renamed to 'liberation day tariffs' (a name that I have separate issue with) it would just be more of a WP:FORK of the umbrella article than it already is. Yeoutie (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. This topic is 100% notable, but perhaps a better title should be given. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Executive Order 14257 whenever it's formally listed by the Federal Register. This EO, which was signed at "liberation day", will be about declaring a national emergency which is notable. It can contain other details about "liberation day" too. satkara❈talk 17:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Executive Order 14257' is not a descriptive title, per WP:COMMONNAME. It doesn't necessarily explain what the order is. Ré union! 18:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reunion but it's consistent with how other Executive Orders are titled on Wikipedia, like Executive Order 14147. Even Executive Order 13769, often called the "Muslim travel ban", is titled by the EO # satkara❈talk 01:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notable topic includes the speech and the April 2nd "(Trump's) Liberation Day" framing used by the majority of reliable sources. Executive Order 14257 is insufficiently descriptive of these events, although it should definitely redirect here. Galagora (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename: Per Novem Linguae, "Liberation Day tariffs" should be the main focus of this certainly notable topic. BOTTO_(T•C) 18:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with this, it is still unclear the consequences of this, but it is important to keep the topic separate and focused on the what happened, even “Liberation Day” can be the title of the article, but “Liberation Day Tariffs” is appropriate 2800:860:720C:7FD6:E87A:C17D:DD30:B2A8 (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per above. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Novem Linguae - this article should not be named after the speech, rather the actions that were put into place because of it. If Liberation Day sticks as a name, then we could switch it to Liberation Day tariffs, or Liberation Day tariffs of 2025. Ré union! 18:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename: It is a historically important event/day and so should be separate from tariffs in the second Trump administration Vctrbarbieri (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename: I agree with Novem Linguae that the tariffs are what's notable here, not the speech. But those tariffs really are separately notable from tariffs in the second Trump administration more broadly. Loki (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Novem Linguae. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The article should be restructured to be about this tariff wave itself, which is a distinct event of historic importance that is a major escalation beyond everything covered so far in tariffs in the second Trump administration. The speech can just be covered as part of it. AbbotOfLeibowitz (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to tariffs in the second Trump administration per the points made by Astaire - 82.17.192.183 (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was having login issues. This is me. - Cheers, Burwellian (Talk) 20:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Soft Rename: This is definitely notable (and will most likely become more notable with time). I wouldn't be against changing the name to be something along the lines of "Donald Trump's Liberation Day Tariffs" and have it be a bit more all encompassingly about this round of tariffs and the speech.

Lord Beesus (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Merge with Liberation Day tariffs per rationale of Novem Linguae.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Revising my !vote upon learning of the newly created aforementioned article linked in my comment above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Novem Linguae. Evileeyore (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per what Novem Linguae and others have said. YaBoiWilhelm (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename per Novem Linguae, these tarrifs are a major event on their own, I also feel the content from the existing Liberation Day tariffs article should be merged with this article, as there is no reason to keep them seperate V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, restructure per Novem Linguae with the added effect of restructure to shift focus onto the tariffs, which is the major part of this article. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk 02:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edited from Keep, merge, restructure to Keep, rename, restructure because it was a mistake. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk 03:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename per Novem Linguae, the tariffs are notable but not the speech. --Pithon314 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and open an WP:RM discussion. This set of tariffs is sufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone article. I'm not seeing any consensus as to a particular rename from this discussion and I don't think one will develop in this discussion. Liberation Day tariffs, which is far less developed than this article, should be merged here, not the other way around. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Liberation Day tariffs per A. Randomdude0000 Cleebadee (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Liberation Day tariffs per A. Randomdude0000. Windfarmer — talk 04:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Liberation Day tariffs, but definitely keep more focus on the tariffs themselves in the article, possibly adding more in terms of responses from other countries and maybe some notable domestic criticisms. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 05:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Liberation Day tariffs. The speech is only notable in the context of the tariffs it presented.Sjö (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Liberation Day tariffs. I found no reason to keep this separate from the tariff page, as the speech is directly linked to the announcement and context of the tariffs. Sethi752 (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Liberation Day tariffs per arguments above. Many editors are !voting for a merge, but the porpose target is itself a redirect. St Anselm (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The target was a separate article until about an hour ago Windfarmer — talk 17:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Day tariffs was renamed Trump Reciprocal Tariff earlier today. Hence the confusion. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Liberation Day tariffs. These tariffs are obviously notable by themselves compared to the other ones. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an incredibly important historical event, that should get it's own article. Des Vallee (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or delete, this current title is clearly unacceptable for reasons already stated. --Dynamo128 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Soft Rename: The speech is notable as it was broadcast live by multiple outlets such as Forbes. RedDeadGuy (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS Bedivere (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Liberation Day tariffs as mentioned above was never an actual article. A new user just copied and pasted Tariffs in the second Trump administration#"Reciprocal tariff" policy to a WP:DUPLICATE page without following proper WP:SPLIT procedures. Per my !vote above, the article should be merged to that section to reduce redundancy; if split later, it should be done correctly. Reywas92^Talk 01:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tariffs in the second Trump administration. I am aware of WP:NTRUMP. However, I think that these may be important enough to warrant inclusion, especially given the multipage list of countries, but the precedent I see is that this is part of Trump's series of tariffs. There may be a collapsible list or simply the images if the list makes the article too long, but I think a condensed version merged with the general page on the tariffs may be easier to understand. Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 03:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the page ends up being merged (consensus does not suggest deletion) the images and table here should be added to the new article, or at least placed on another MediaWiki wiki. RedDeadGuy (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above WereWolf (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - per arguments above Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 08:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Never ceases to amaze me, the obviously notable articles/events that get nominated for deletion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tariffs in the second Trump administration; the speech is pertinent to that topic but not notable on its own. 2601:44:180:98B0:F962:863D:20D6:DE27 (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or MergeThe Orange Fart announced the wave of tarrifs that would probably cause the 2nd Great Depression. We need to either keep this article or merge it with Tarrifs in the secont Trump administration, at least for posterity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2f0f:910d:d100:bd5c:2a06:ef39:e524 (talk • contribs)
Your comment is not based in Wikipedia policy and will likely be ignored by the closer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep History should be recorded as it happened. The so called 'Liberation day' has turned into 'Disaster Day'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankargb (talk • contribs)
Your comment is not based in Wikipedia policy and will likely be ignored by the closer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tariffs in the second Trump administration for sure. Its notable but should be tied together with that article to be appropriate. Brenae wafato (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Liberation Day tariffs. I think this article should definitely not be merged into Tariffs in the second Trump administration because the April 2nd tariffs are a clear independently notable event. Since his inauguration Trump has threatened or imposed other tariffs and will likely do so in the future, but April 2nd will stand out as a notable day in history and Wikipedia should reflect that as the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do. Galagora (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Liberation Day tariffs. Important escalation of Trump's protectionist policies and will definitely be the subject of sustained coverage considering their global impact. -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let me make it clear, that overall, my point is that this article should be kept. I am fine with supporting name change to Liberation Day tariffs or 2025 US Liberation Day Tariffs. Shankargb (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. ~ HAL333 04:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepas its own article given this speech’s notability as the starting point of the 2025 stock market crash. Casspedia (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main Tariffs in the second Trump administration. The topic is not the performance, but the policy - this is politics not reality TV. "Liberation Day" title is non-neutral, creating WP:CFORK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widefox (talk • contribs)
- Note to closer: per User:Reywas92 above, apparently this is literally a SPLIT not following procedure, and when I checked it has no attribution at creation. Widefox; talk 14:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tariffs in the second Trump administration. The speech is detail to the clearly notable subject of the tariffs, but lacks independent notability. The term "liberation day" is unlikely to be any longer lasting than "American fools day" and is political spin and not neutral. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no, the announcement is what led to the current finical crisis, and if it were to me merged things such as the table and reactions would need to be heavily removed, or just completely removed to stop word overflow. The event is an important day in history, similar to say the Speech to the Troops at Tilbury. Des Vallee (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tariffs in the second Trump administration. See WP:TRUMPCRUFT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in the future it will become notable enough for an article, but that future is certainly not right now.Easternsahara (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. Thegreatrebellion (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, news networks in my country barely cover anything about Trump's tariff plans prior to “Donald Trump's Liberation Day speech”. So I think this warrants its own article, like how 2025 Bangkok skyscraper collapse didn't get merged into 2025 Myanmar Earthquake. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 07:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Timberwolves-Detroit Pistons brawl

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

Non-notable NBA fight, with no long-term significance. Yes, players were ejected, and there are upcoming suspensions, but the longest suspension handed down is 2 games ([8]).

Comparisons to the Malice at the Palace are hyperbole, and this will be forgotten in a month or so. Content from this article could be merged into the season articles for the Timberwolves and Pistons if desired. Natg 19 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Basketball, United States of America, Michigan, and Minnesota. Natg 19 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is as significant as most entries in Category:Brawls in team sports and I don't expect lasting coverage, so I favor deletion in the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS. However, this is a reasonable search term, so I'd like to redirect this somewhere. This could be to the season articles for the Timberwolves and Pistons, but why choose one over the other? Merging/redirecting to 2024–25 NBA season makes most sense, I believe. Once you flesh out the unnecessary content, there's a paragraph to add to 2024–25 NBA season. Pichpich (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with this option. Didn't consider that target initially. Natg 19 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, I think that a merger or redirect may be possible. However, I do feel like this event that caught national news should be considered as a maybe keep. I mean, there are 7 million articles on English Wikipedia don't you think that this isn't in the 7 million most significant event in modern history. CostalCal (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are reasons to keep. We explicitly have the guideline WP:NOTNEWS. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete if for no other reason that, after a single day, there's no way of knowing whether anyone will care about this even a month from now. Mangoe (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify per WP:NOTNEWS. It is possible that there can be WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this incedent down the road, though I do not find this likely (which is why I do not mind a move to draft space, the only "risk" to that is that it would be abandoned and eventually G13ed, which is not a big deal). Some content can be included in either of the team season articles. Frank Anchor 16:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a terribly remarkable brawl even in a sports context. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Leebaert

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

Non-notable, self published article. Nearly all references (which are poorly sourced anyways) are unused in the actual article. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leerbaert has written at least a half dozen books that have been reviewed in peer-reviewed academic journals. Unfortunately, most of what is in the article is unsourced, which violates BLP rules. I looked for more bio info based on what is in the article but have not found it. I will try to at least get the weightier reviews into the article, and will mark ^{[citation needed]} where I will be looking for sources. Lacking sources, though, the article will need to be greatly reduced. Lamona (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Example reviews:

Reviewed Work: Soviet Military Thinking. by Derek Leebaert

Review by: Jeffrey T. Richelson

Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 97, No. 3 (Autumn, 1982), pp. 554-556 (3 pages) https://doi.org/10.2307/2150041

Immerman, Richard. 2019. Grand Improvisations: America Confronts the British Superpower, 1945-1957. Derek Leebaert. Journal of American History. Vol. 134. p. 818 doi: 10.1093/jahist/jaz636
Hirschey, Mark. 1984. What Role for Government? Lessons from Policy Research. Richard J. Zeckhauser Derek Leebaert. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 22. pp. 1122-1123

Lamona (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made many changes to the article and have found some good reviews (good = reliable sources) for his books. I have yet to find anything independent for biographical information, so all of that may either need to be sourced to non-independent sources or be removed. I do not know what to do about the WP:COI, aka AUTOBIOGRAPHY. As the changes have all been done with an IP (and the same IP) I would suggest blocking that IP, even though it's easy to get around that. I'll add some COI notices. Lamona (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for information on COI. I will also remove unsourced BLP content. What's left will help me see if there is enough to keep. Lamona (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electroimpact

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

Does not have significant coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT or WP:CORPDEPTH. There is some local press from the Everett Herald but nothing that appears worthy of notice outside of the Seattle area with the exception of limited press about a civil rights settlement. I started a WP:HEY but don't want to continue based on notability. CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, United States of America, and Washington. CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems only of local interest. Really more of an article on the non-notable founder than on the company. Finding no non-local coverage at all on products or business of the company. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Electroimpact has received significant coverage in the Seattle times, a good portion of it before the racism from the CEO. They are a major supplier for Boeing, which has been noted in news sources. Not sure if there are specific guidelines on size of area to be considered notable, but the greater Seattle area is plenty large with about 4 million people in it. Even if it's just that area that's interest, >1% of the US population is still quite a few people. I do think the article could be improved with sources about more than the CEO being racist.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your !vote. Hoping to get some clarification on your reasoning for keep. I realize it can be difficult for experienced users to navigate WP:NCORP, let alone someone new to editing such pages. There is no guideline about size of area. It doesn't matter how many people there are in Seattle. A reliable source is a reliable source regardless on the size of the city. That being said, the sources are still mainly local. We can sometimes use regional sources but there aren't any here that come close to WP:ORGCRIT that are outside of the area. You also state that it can be improved by using other sources. If you can provide those sources I would be happy to take a look as the page would need extensive cleanup for NPOV should it be kept. Regarding the comment about the CEO, be careful about naming someone. There is a lot that can be deduced about the subject from the sources, but it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to label that person as such unless it is widely published in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as sources about what the company does, here are several. I don't have time to write much right now, but I'll try to update the article when I have the chance. These are still mainly Seattle Times articles, but I believe they meet the notability guidelines set out in WP:NCORP. The coverage of anti-Muslim discrimination is also, unfortunately, notable given its in-depth coverage in the Seattle times + its less detailed coverage nationally.

I do think that we should be leaning toward WP:PRESERVE for this article, hence my vote for keep, given the sources available about company culture and the company's importance in airplane manufacture in particular. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Basically an WP:NCORP fail. No indicia of truly encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 01:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March for Our Lives Seattle

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

This article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. The coverage of this protest are just local routine news. After the protest ended, all coverage stopped completely. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is exactly the place to document protests. We have news media documentation of 50,000 people marching through the streets demanding rights and with photos in Wikimedia Commons. There are statements by major public figures for this, and those are documented in media as well.

If guidance in WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT are not defining specific criteria for when to keep Wikipedia articles on protests, then we should develop special notability criteria for keeping them.

It is the nature of protests to have journalist coverage when they happen, then only be discussed thereafter as part of the aggregate of political protest around the fundamental issue. This was a March for Our Lives protest, so even if this was just in Seattle and just in 2018, all following media about March for our Lives is still reporting outcomes from this protest. We need as many local summaries of multi-site, multi-year protests as we can capture as Wikipedia articles. I see that we have no dedicated guidance at WP:PROTEST - perhaps we need some guidance. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with March for Our Lives and/or List of protests in Seattle. The specific Seattle protest does not meet the lasting coverage criteria of WP:NEVENT. I think that similar protests could be merged into a listicle based on the available coverage and frequency of these events. Sounder Bruce 21:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Most of the coverage may be "local", but the Seattle area has a population >1% of the US total. I agree with as well that Wikipedia is a place to document the local nature of wide-ranging protests especially since it is uncensored.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:OKFORK of March for Our Lives given that article's size. As for satisfying WP:NEVENT, sources on lasting effect: a poet's reflection after witnessing the Seattle march,^[1] an art educator's reflection of children's protest with reference to the Seattle march^[2], follow up protests in 2022 in Everett WA (north of Seattle),^[3] one year later, Reuters has photo story on the March for Our Lives, including Seattle.^[4] Finally, the 2018 Washington Initiative 1639 on raising the age to 21 for the purchase of assault weapons passed 59%/41% in November 2018 - this CNN piece directly links the March for Our Lives protests in Washington state to the initiative's citizen sponsor, Paul Kramer and the yes vote (see quote in footnote).^[5]

References

^ Cloud, Abigail; Faulkner, Sandra L. (2 December 2019). Poetic Inquiry as Social Justice and Political Response. Vernon Press. pp. 194–195. ISBN 978-1-62273-752-9.
^ Kraehe, Amelia M. (4 July 2018). "Outside In and Inside Out: Space, Place, and the Where of Art Education". Art Education. 71 (4): 4–7. doi:10.1080/00043125.2018.1467709.
^ Dowling, Jennifer (12 June 2022). "'March for Our Lives' protest led by students in Everett". FOX 13 Seattle.
^ "Flashback: Students lead fight for gun control". Reuters. 19 February 2019.
^ Andone, Dakin (11 February 2019). "Parkland students turned from victims to activists and inspired a wave of new gun safety laws". CNN. Kramer believes many voters were weary of gun violence, and the shooting in Parkland and the subsequent calls for change left an impression on them. He recalled how local teenagers in his hometown of Mukilteo followed the footsteps of Marjory Stoneman Douglas students and put on their own student-led rally against gun violence last spring. "People were still very much aware of that and that informed their decision when casting their vote on the ballot in November," he said. "The March For Our Lives movement made an impact in Washington state."

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note, this piece, already cited in the article, connects the protest to the history of student radicalism in Seattle. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG and OKFORK. There's clearly in-depth coverage in plenty of reliable sources and Goldsztajn's findings help demonstrate that coverage is not just routine. This article should be expanded and improved, not deleted. Oppose merge to parent article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Brooklyn Park TBM-700 crash

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

The article was WP:TOOSOON and the creator has a history of making articles too soon. I only made it cause there was a proposed deletion warning and as of now though, there is more information and no survivors, which might make it be able to stay. If the pilot is the only occupant though, we should delete the article. -Bloxzge 025 ツ — Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait and see with more information if this is going to be significant or not.Lucthedog2 (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, United States of America, and Minnesota. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – "This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 30." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, single fatality incident as confirmed by emergency responders on scene, see ASN database for updated narrative. A crash in a highly populated area does not make such crash notable as we shouldnt base articles of what coulda or woulda happened. ASN Database Lolzer3k 14:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is just like the Learjet fiasco that happened in Philadelphia, A plane crashed into a highly populated area mind you, just like the learjet in Philly. The page still needs to be updated with info, and needs to be currently updated, as an investigation into this crash is currently going on. I also agree with the people claiming that this article is "too soon" but just like the learjet crash, an investigation is going on. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just like the Philadelphia crash though as the plane was a medical jet with six occupants including a pediatric kid. It also crashed in a populated area but with a fatality and dozens of injuries. Also, with every plane crash there's an investigation, so that's not a reason to keep it. Plane crashes with a single fatality happen everyday, populated area or not, without articles. This one is no exception. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Note above arguement by user Shaniapickle seems to be a case of WP:OSE, invalidating their vote. Lolzer3k 14:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this was not an important crash in any sense after all. Lucthedog2 (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree since there were no survivors out of the plane that has a capacity of about 7. I only started this when the article was WP:TOOSOON and when a proposed deletion nomination was posted~~.

Delete. Aviation accidents and incidents keep happening (https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/monthly.aspx) and a fair proportion get reported on some news. The entries that do deserve articles are those which are landmark and follow in radical safety procedure or technology changes (e.g. UA232, or read https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/inadequacies-and-a-misunderstanding/ etc). Waiting with a non-notable article promotes speculations which I feel unhealthy same as explained eg at https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/april/pilot/safety-spotlight-lessons-from-tragedy BACbKA (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTTOOSOON. Coverage by independent news sources. The fact that aviation incidents keep happening and reported on does not negate its notability. — ERcheck (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
National level news coverage, including CNN and ABC News. — ERcheck (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was WP:TOOSOON as the creator made the article within an hour of the crash. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @ERcheck

Waleed (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: run-of-the-mill light aircraft crash, fails WP:EVENT and in particular WP:EVENTCRIT #4. Also WP:TOOSOON, though of course WP:USUAL caveats apply in the unlikely event that this turns out to have WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. only 1 death. 125.227.26.172 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only news coverage, no secondary analysis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news about this crash since the day of the crash, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROTM. Protoeus (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anoka County–Blaine Airport, the flight's ultimate destination, where short mention should be made as is usually done with aviation incidents. Nathannah • 📮 18:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little coverage has been made on it in the past few days and it has been dwindling. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikhani Group of Companies

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sources are not reliable and independent. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Pakistan, and United States of America. GrabUp - Talk 08:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed content from prior to semi-protection.

What do u mean they arent reliable there are so many reliabe sources in it. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:5DB4:CFC1:D03F:EE02 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article shouldn't be deleted because the company and owner both are notable. WP:N Zaidtessori (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is does not make any sense. There are sources listed above and the page had sources and add on's that it seems others are deleting. does being a buissnessman & constable in the us not make a person notable. wow 2600:4040:2012:DD00:5DB4:CFC1:D03F:EE02 (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article has many reliable sources in it. i have seen wikipedia articles with less than 4 unreliable sources and you guys didnt delete them. this article is about a company owned by a notable person named ali sheikhani. Ahmadalir (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is notable & falls under the criteria of notability WP:N Davidmathew11123 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources look notable to me. sources like news channels are notable like these https://katychristianmagazine.com/2023/12/06/meet-police-officer-and-self-made-businessman-ali-sheikhani-republican-candidate-for-fort-bend-county-constable-pct-3/ https://uspto.report/TM/98158126/FTK20230830173009/ there are a lot more sources that are reliable and notable so this article shouldn't be deleted. Mrbeast221 (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are reliable and independent. Janghirbutt (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draftspace: Brother instead can someone it to a draft so i will work on it and then submit it for afc draft. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:5DB4:CFC1:D03F:EE02 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article shouldn’t be deleted as it has some reliable sources instead it should get the tag of more citations needed. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:F953:498E:34F9:B100 (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has a few Reliable Sources. Article can rely on those sources. shouldn’t get deleted instead get a tag about needing more citations. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:9:9C:6201:76B0 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has reliable citations shouldn’t get deleted. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:441:F5D2:FB86:14FC (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources look independent and reliable. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:856C:CC4D:E3C6:CFB9 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article Falls under notability it shouldn’t be deleted. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:F4C7:2A79:AC6D:4C0A (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has independent and reliable sources . Falls under notability WP:NCORP 141.156.233.91 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying my best to improve it. i dont know what the decision would be but i will try my best thanks, 141.156.233.91 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 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}}.

Delete: Ridiculous amount of ref-bombing of nearly all useless references - scrapers, junk sites, passing mentions. The very few that have even moderately indepth coverage are churnalism or from regional sources only. Ravensfire (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are a few mentions and press releases (churnalism) but none of them cover this group in detail beyond routine coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Veldsenk (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although they are "hatted", it seems problematic to discount 13 editors arguing to Keep or Draftify in favor of 2 editors advocating Deletion. Is there any indications all of these IPs are socks?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Yes, all of these are sock accounts and have been blocked. See the SPI for details. GrabUp - Talk 06:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Perkins

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

Only independent sources I can find are ones that mention her in passing. Created over a declined AfC in 2015 by a single-purpose account editing about Perkins and her publishing company. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously non-notable subject, promotional BLP. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubify. Underneath the promotional tone is a lot of important work in publishing award-winning Lesbian writers. The Lambda Literary Awards are the Pulitzers of queer writing, and her imprints have for over a dozen years published many notable women's literature, including Cecilia Tan. I don't know the subject, but I met Tan once or twice at SF Cons. Can I take a crack at this? Thanks for your patience. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC) P.S. I've started to work on it. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC) P.P.S. I cut out what can't be sourced or is out of date, and added a source. I considered a merger but upon further reflection took it back. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as between the three book reviews, awards, and coverage about her agency and e-book house there seems to be enough for at least WP:NAUTHOR if not WP:BASIC. The article is a bit of a mess and would benefit from a re-write. Nnev66 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper (podcaster)

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)

This article was deleted after a discussion in September and there are no new sources. Old version. Previous discussion. New version includes false promotional language like "Cooper is a writer for The American Conservative and has contributed to Tablet Magazine" (1 article at AC, 0 at Tablet), unsourced sections, and no mention of past statements like "FDR chose the wrong side in WW2" and Hitler not being in hell. This is still a WP:BLP1E, the only difference is that the new version pretends otherwise and uses promotional framing for his views. Tagging from previous discussion: Isaidnoway Xegma Wcquidditch Chaimanmeow Liz ArmenianSniper Googleguy007 AusLondonder Gusbenz Cosmokiwi LizardJr8 Lostsandwich The_Four_Deuces Osomite Wyattroberts A._Randomdude0000 FeldBum Seefooddiet John_Z Kriddl Donald_Albury Andol HonestManBad Kimdime Hemiauchenia Sandstein. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagging @Hemiauchenia @Tsarstvovanie @Ekozie @Sweetstache @Kungigult from old page. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of order, the previous version was not deleted – The result was redirect‎ to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. I'll look at the newly created version and sources a little later and get back. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”[9] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[10] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Times of Israel is a good source, [11], this is an opinion piece [12], [13], [14]. The person certainly is opinionated, but we shold have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all about the same one event. Please see WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The current version of the article is much more detailed and has a number of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of which seem to be about his Tucker Carlson interview. Except for one source that mentioned a pro-Hitler tweet of his. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your opinion. There's also a number of other quotes and information now in the article, his Joe Rogan appearance, the many, many articles criticizing his point of view. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
certainly a noteworthy topic..keep 173.91.127.46 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I was pinged as a "participant" in the last nomination, I wanted to clarify that my only contribution to that was deletion sorting. Other than this comment, that is also the case for this nomination; I had no opinion on the old article and also offer no opinion for this version. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are already Darryl Cooper articles in German and French [15] Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.

TFD (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The three "events" are two podcast appearances and a bad tweet. We do retain articles on notable nazi podcasters like Christopher Cantwell this guy just isn't as significant as him. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad in any way that's relevant to this discussion. It's not a single tweet but a thread of 35 tweets - an article of sorts, you could say - not that it matters. The reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that happens on Twitter matters at all no many how many tweets were in a thread. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on Twitter is not relevant to this discussion. HonestManBad (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that a tweet, even a thread, does not constitute a distinct event for BLP1E purposes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Again, the reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BLP1E doeesn't apply because there are at least 4 events that have received coverage in secondary sources: 1) The 1/6 tweets, 2) the Hitler tweet, 3) The Tucker Carlson appearance, and 4) The Joe Rogan appearance. While it is true that none of these in themselves would make someone notable, the fact that these events have been covered in secondary source does. Additionally, Cooper has tens of thousands of paid subscribers on Substack, making him one of the highest earners on the site.[16] Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a podcaster interacting with other podcasters and making some noise for bigoted tweets is not proof of notoriety. The article also seems like a puff piece. A lot of sources are subpar, unreliable, and some were also pulled from ChatGPT. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources from a scan of the internet and available media shows that this should meet GNG. Per Mr. Squiqroot. This article should not be deleted, but more WP:BEFORE should have been done. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this page was kept kindly move this page to Darryl Cooper (which is redirect to itself). Current title includes an unnessesary disambiguation. Ping me or the closing admin themself can do it if possible. Thank You and No opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support this comment. It does not make sense to have a disambiguation unless needed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Kramer

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Comics and animation. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage for someone with a similar name [17], I don't know if it's this person though. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is the same person. IMDB (not RS, I know) has several Lance Kramers: [18][19] Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryan McInerney

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources to establish notability beyond routine coverage of his professional role. Most sources primarily focus on Visa Inc., rather than McInerney as a notable individual. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, United States of America, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Most sources are about getting the job at VISA. There's a small bit of information otherwise [20], but he gets quite a bit of coverage. He was with JP Morgan Chase [21], for quite some time before joining VISA. He was speaking with Forbes before even joining VISA [22], showing he was well-known even then. He's the CEO of one of the largest financial /credit card businesses in the world, he's not working for some small, local firm. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Male TV Star

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

Article has been tagged since 2011. Although numerous edits have been made, none have added citations. Recommend merging with larger article on Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards Variety312 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Variety312 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feels like you could just easily add the source for each ceremony from each year's KCA article rather than just adding it to a vortex of deletions. Nathannah • 📮 19:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems like a directory but the awards are sort of notable and the link [23] in the mian page shows multiple similar summary pages exist for other award categories. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Durusau

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

While certainly accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that he meets WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, United States of America, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to High places in cyberspace. I have found three reviews of his book High places in cyberspace: in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies [24], in Semeia : an Experimental Journal for Biblical Studies [25] (p 166), and in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion [26]. So it looks as though the book is notable, per WP:NBOOK. We could either write an article about the book, or keep the article about him, adding references including the book reviews. There are certainly newspaper articles which verify that he worked as a defence lawyer, which don't contribute to notability but would probably be better sources than a law report. I haven't yet found secondary sources about his work with OASIS or ISO standards. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could move the current article to the book title, to maintain history, and make the article about the book, which per your sourcing looks notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Onel5969:: I would have no objection to moving the current title to the book title, but I personally do not have either the time or interest to write an article about the book. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or move as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR / WP:NBOOK based on the book reviews found by RebeccaGreen, and no objection to a move to the book title following the AfD. A redirect would also be fine if someone does decide to create a separate article about the book prior to this AfD's closure. MCE89 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Pantheist Society

AfDs for this article:

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

I thought that this could be cleaned up, and I thought that I had found an actual source on the subject, an encyclopaedia article on this very thing — only for my hopes to be dashed when I checked the article author Harold Wood Jr in the author listing of ISBN 9781441122780 and found that xe is the founder of this organization.

The one real claim to sourcing in the prior AFD discussion was that Special:Permalink/153980923#External links means that the article "is referenced". It was not. It is not. The article itself pointed and points solely to the organization's own WWW site and what used to be the personal WWW site of one of its directors. On the organization's own WWW site is an outright copy of the same encyclopaedia article by Wood Jr. This is the only documentation of this organization to be found anywhere, and it all comes back to autobiography. There is no independent sourcing at all.

The nominator and several of the participants in the prior AFD discussion were quite right, but were outvoted by "assuming there's a real source", comments on the nominator, and bizarre comments that seem to be saying that we should keep the pantheism article.

Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a lot of mentions of this, but it's hard to sort out them from any sigcov that may exist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You also have to see whether it's written by Harold Wood Jr, which all of the ones that I turned up turned out to be. One turns up a 1999 Encyclopaedia of Associations entry, for example, and it turns out that it points to the organization's old AOL site by Harold W. Wood Jr. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I found [27], which is by J. Gordon Melton, which is fine. There's also this [28] which has a few pages of something. If I keep looking I could probably find enough to cobble together an article but there may be a merge / redirect target that is superior. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you actually, though? That Melton article spends most of its time explaining pantheism and doesn't get to the subject of the society until the penultimate paragraph, most of which is in quotation marks, with an annotation at the foot of the page that www.pantheist.net is the source; the Society's more recent WWW site. Uncle G (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If citing primary sources for what a group believes for our secondary/tertiary sources made them unreliable then would we have any sources for any religion? We can't cite them directly but of course someone who is analyzing their beliefs is going to cite their primary source materials (an analysis of Christian beliefs as expressed in the Bible would not be of much worth if it came from someone who had not read the Bible). I would question it more if they did not. And as to the length yeah it could be longer but it's not worthless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If I fail to find more sources/a better target, I would support a merge to Pantheism, since Melton explicitly connects the group to wider ideas about Pantheism PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Merge to pantheism given admin comment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's ironic, given the nominator, but we need more participation here from editors who are willing to cast "votes" otherwise it's up the closer's interpretation which is often labeled a "supervote" which the community has criticized in the past.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Want to keep, but have to vote move to draft due to the state of the thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been around for 2 decades, so draftification isn't really on the table here. Any other takers for the merge to Pantheism?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t understand - why is drafting off the table? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Sinai South Nassau

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

There is nothing indicating this hospital is notable. This article has not been improved since it was created nearly a decade ago. The corporation fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. An alternative would be to have it redirected to its parent corporation, Mount Sinai Health System. Aneirinn (talk)

Oppose. Firstly, NCORP is the wrong criteria for physical structures like hospitals. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE, because a quick search shows clearly that the hospital has significant third party news coverage [29][30] (and that's just the first two results). WP:ATD demands at least a suggestion to merge to the parent health system, but the hospital itself is notable. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals in the United States are corporations, this is a well known fact. This one particularly is a nonprofit corporation, so WP:NCORP, which applies to corporations and organizations, does apply. The WP:DOGBITESMAN routine coverage and press release that is mentioned above from your "quick search" does not do anything to contribute to its notability. Per WP:NOTADVERTISING, " Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." The nomination has been changed to reflect the possible alternative to deletion. Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article about the company the runs it, or is it about the facility? Northern of those are "dog bites man" unless you think every news story that's not a national headline is such (and they're not, by longstanding consensus that local news contributes to notability). oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, it is commonplace for hospitals to operate as their own entities, for tax purposes. Aneirinn (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address my question. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you did not read WP:NCORP before publishing the above statements. If you read WP:NCORP, you would discover that WP:NCORP explicitly mentions hospitals in the guideline. Aneirinn (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Medicine, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge >>>Mount Sinai Health System (location, history, size). Djflem (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States. Aneirinn (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree NCORP is not the correct guideline here - the sources presented above are more about the building itself than a specific business, and the corporation/business would be Mount Sinai, not the specific hospital. Operating as its own entity for "tax" reasons isn't really why we have NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hospital itself is its own corporate entity. That is how it is structured in large companies that own hospitals in the United States that are variously known as "health systems" or hospital networks. Thus WP:NCORP is applicable. It is also without a doubt an organization, which WP:NCORP concerns. Aneirinn (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article even refers to what the hospital complex was before Mount Sinai took over. The article is clearly about the complex. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP even explicitly states "This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc." Aneirinn (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well we also have WP:NBUILDING, which simply requires WP:GNG. Considering this is clearly an article on the building and not on the business, since it covers the building throughout its organisational history including as a former independent hospital, we don't need to apply the higher standard. I can't access historical American newspapers at the moment, but I bet it should be easy to find coverage from 1928. SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is severely lacking in significant coverage, one of the integral requirements for WP:GNG. It is a list of its name changes. Hospitals are not inherently notable for being located in New York, this one is certainly not. Aneirinn (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been there since 2016. Poorly sourced, does not look particularly notable and seems like a directory or random trivia on a building. Ramos1990 (talk)
Delete: This isn't the Mayo Clinic or the Hopitaux de Paris, it's just a run of the mill US hospital. The building might be notable, but doesn't appear to be. I can only find things about it being bought by the Mount Sinai group. I don't see notability and the sourcing used doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the more recent comments favoring a Delete !vote appear to be on the money. This article is from over 9 years ago and there does not appear to be any sigcov to further cement notability here. That isn't likely to change any time soon. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you look at local news from in and around Long Island there are several articles discussing the expansion that has occurred and will continue into the near future at this hospital. I added the section regarding the new ER and soon to be added pavilion. I'm sure there will be added services into this new space and more to add to this article. At the very least the deletion could be delayed to see where the hospital goes. Cactusyield (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe0nHead

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

Fails GNG. She has received some brief mentions due to her roles in promoting conspiracy theories about Balenciaga[31] and tweeting about online influencer dramas, but has not been relevant enough to get multiple sources providing her WP:SIGCOV. Maybe this page could be merged to Balenciaga#Child advertising controversy.

[32][33][34] Very brief mentions of the subject, little to no original commentary about Lapine herself.
[35] Only one paragraph worth of original commentary about Lapine.
[36] No original commentary about Lapine, the article only describes her opinions about someone else
[37] Unreliable, apparent content-mill source. It presents no meaningful original commentary on Lapine, beyond a single sentence introduction of who she is.
[38] An WP:INTERVIEW where Lapine talks about herself and Trump supporters, this source is not WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject when it comes to the statements made about her. Badbluebus (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Singapore source (which is unrelated to The Independent), besides paraphrasing her opinions, does also paraphrases the opinion of another youtuber about her. Technically, that is some form of third party commentary, but it is not reliable (WP:NOTRS directly talks about sources that heavily rely on unreliable opinions). Badbluebus (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article can be moved to the draft namespace and get cleaned up? I'm not incredibly familiar with that process but given that the article is about a public figure who some may consider significant, it may make more sense than completely deleting it. In my opinion, it makes the most sense to convert the article into a stub and remove the unreliable sources. Azeelea (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should remove Vaush, Kyle Kulinski, and others’ pages too, then. 205.178.91.134 (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Badbluebus (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to have notability even if the sourcing of the article is terrible. Agree with Azeelea that the unreliable sources should be removed. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 19:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any sources, or any WP:N policy or guideline, to establish that this subject is notable? In my BEFORE, the sources not in the article also lacked WP:SIGCOV [39][40]. A WP:SIRS source eval would be helpful here. Badbluebus (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with Lollipoplollipoplollipop, the sourcing ain't good but the solution should be to fix the article, preferably without moving to draft. Flimbone08 ; talk 21:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Editors arguing to Keep haven't provided any additional reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reviewing available sources (or lack thereof) I believe this should be deleted. The best independent source about the subject seems to be this brief interview on the hill, and it's really just stating that she interviewed some people which doesn't really make her notable. A few articles on the Libertarian Republic by June are not independent sources. Numerous unreliable sources about the "shoeonhead" leaks, but numerous postings about influencer leaks aren't notable on their own/tend to be churnalistic rather than journalistic. I agree with the nominator: there are not sources establishing notability and there are few reliable, non-opinion sources about her and this article should be deleted.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of independent sources demonstrating significant coverage. Most of the sources used in the article are primary sources or passing mentions. Madeleine (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not against Merge (ATD) supported by Nom. The sources on the article and a before does not satisfy the notability criteria as a columnist, analyst, or even notable pundit. Being an "influencer" with a fanbase does not equate to notability unless it has reached the threshold of garnering significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. Primary sources, "her posts", likes, dislikes, or political ideology, does not advance notability, nor does brief passing mention. The solution to "She seems to have notability even if the sourcing of the article is terrible" and "sourcing ain't good", is called a HEY, needed to at least reach bare notability, that still may, or may not, save an article.

Sorted by State

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

[1] Cloud, Abigail; Faulkner, Sandra L. (2 December 2019). Poetic Inquiry as Social Justice and Political Response. Vernon Press. pp. 194–195. ISBN 978-1-62273-752-9.

[2] Kraehe, Amelia M. (4 July 2018). "Outside In and Inside Out: Space, Place, and the Where of Art Education". Art Education. 71 (4): 4–7. doi:10.1080/00043125.2018.1467709.

[3] Dowling, Jennifer (12 June 2022). "'March for Our Lives' protest led by students in Everett". FOX 13 Seattle.

[4] "Flashback: Students lead fight for gun control". Reuters. 19 February 2019.

[5] Andone, Dakin (11 February 2019). "Parkland students turned from victims to activists and inspired a wave of new gun safety laws". CNN. Kramer believes many voters were weary of gun violence, and the shooting in Parkland and the subsequent calls for change left an impression on them. He recalled how local teenagers in his hometown of Mukilteo followed the footsteps of Marjory Stoneman Douglas students and put on their own student-led rally against gun violence last spring. "People were still very much aware of that and that informed their decision when casting their vote on the ballot in November," he said. "The March For Our Lives movement made an impact in Washington state."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]