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

Na Jong-ho

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

Pretty much entirely primary sources given. Can't find much on quick search. No major awards received. WP:NACADEMIC doesn't appear to meet grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, Psychology, Korea, and United States of America. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Craig J. Williams

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

Author created this article twice (see: Craig J Williams) which demonstrates a possible WP:COI, and they also created AJ Williams. Subject appears to be non-notable, and there's clearly a lack of reliable sourcing. Fails WP:NPRODUCER. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Williams

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

No claims of notability and page is entirely unsourced. Fails WP:NPRODUCER. Possible WP:COI as well. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbound (video game)

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

The main reasons for deletion outlined: The large majority of this article stems from the user thorwitch, who can very reasonably be assumed to be the creator of the game itself. Other names match with those of moderators of the creators livestreams. Additional evidence is the fact, that this article was initially created even months before an early-access release and just very shortly after the project was added to steam, the page of which hat gathered no attention what so ever at that time. Just one single player for months after this article was created. This leads me to the conviction that this article should be deleted for the further following reasons: The sources are nearly entirely self provided (refer to the games home- or steam-page) or news articles are simply interviews with the creator. Secondly this game has hardly any relevance and shouldn’t clutter Wikipedia. It hasn’t gotten a full release despite supposedly being in development for 10 years, has an average playtime of 2,6 hours but most importantly: It has an average of at most 5 ! daily active players, with a one day peak of 116 players right after early access launch, dropping to 15 the following month. There are tens of thousands of games like that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDigamma (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to see an actual source analysis here or proof that the coverage the game has received is truly insufficient. A game's player count doesn't mean anything towards Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and interviews - assuming they also provide standard coverage of the game and aren't 100% an interview - can help out with notability on a case by case basis. λ NegativeMP1 01:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the nomination has sections that are not based on Wikipedia policy (being vaporware doesn't matter if it's still notable) the actual reliable sources of the article are slim. I could only find this and this, which doesn't pass the GNG threshold, while the rest are interviews. Thus, the page seems to fail WP:GNG regardless of its more irrelevant issues. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There appears to be enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. There is coverage from both the sources mentioned above, Rock Paper Shotgun and IGN, which are two of the largest gaming news outlets. Additionally there is coverage from GeekWire, the title of "Why the developers behind PAX 10 game 'Heartbound' live stream their production process" may imply superficial coverage, but 10-13 paragraphs, a majority of the article, are specifically about the game. I don't believe that COI, vaporware, relevance, player count, etc. are valid reasons for deletion in this case. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anjani Sinha

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

Being an ambassador does not inherit the notability of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. LKBT (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, India, and United States of America. LKBT (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, masses of coverage and an Ambassador is clearly notable. The nomination was too quick; if he withdraws then notability via WP:BLP1E might pertain, but not now. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and waiting a month to see what happens.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'll appeal to the spirit of WP:NPOL, even if he isn't exactly a politician. All previous US ambassadors to Singapore have articles. Currently the coverage on this one is limited to the circumstances of his confirmation hearing, but presumably he'll take office soon and more sources will follow. Like Ldm1954 says, we can revisit this if he doesn't end up becoming ambassador. For now I think there's a case for assuming notability based on his title. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify might actually also be an option here... -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Singapore, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It is reasonable to assume that the ambassadors of this category so far have articles. There would be no loss in keeping this too. GenuineArt (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InfoVision

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

Promotional piece of content of a non notable company. Fails for WP:NCORP. LKBT (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, United States of America, and Texas. LKBT (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From the article I found 3 sources meriting investigation 1, 2, and 3.
Source 1 appears to very closely match/directly copy a press release and an interview (where the link is blocked by an edit filter) which leads me to discard it as not independent. Source 2 is also similar (although slightly less), but as per WP:SIRS I will ignore it for determining notability because its independence is doubtful.
Source 3 does seem to meet WP:SIRS but on its own can’t convey notability.
Finally through google news I found what appeared to be an independent article but when looking more closely large chunks seem to be poorly attributed quotations and claims from someone involved with InfoVision.
Because of this I do not believe there are enough sources that meet WP:SIRS to establish notability under WP:NCORP. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 16:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above examination of sources. The article is borderline promotional. GenuineArt (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP. My own WP:BEFORE brought only press releases and promotional pieces. Patre23 (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zilliz

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

This still reads like a promo write-up. Most of the sources are either primary, not all that reliable, or just routine funding news nothing that actually shows the company is notable in an encyclopedic sense. The page was draftified before by Protobowladdict for these same issues and not much has improved. Still reads more like a pitch than something fit for Wikipedia. I'd say deletion makes sense at this point. Junbeesh (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, United States of America, and California. Junbeesh (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not seem to meet WP:GNG, precisely one source [6] that might establish notability is cited (and even it might not do so). As it is only one source it alone doesn’t establish notability as generally multiple independent sources providing significant coverage (and which don’t just cover “regular” business events) are required.
This source is also the only source that seems to do so, with all sources I found using google news where either not independent or where not reliable sources.
Additionally it, as suggested by the nominator, does read at least somewhat like an advertisement. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 08:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 13:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - more like a commercial rather than a Wikipedia article ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind Ross (writer)

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

Half of the sources referenced in the article are tabloid-style sources listing supposed "facts" about Mel Gibson's girlfriend. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. She has received no coverage demonstrating her own notability in WP:RS. Aŭstriano (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, and United States of America. Aŭstriano (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:FILMMAKER since she is the screenwriter and director of Father Stu. The Film Creator (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kane

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

This article was created as part of an undisclosed paid promotional effort, around the same time as the article from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-P Conte, and was originally basically just a resume. After I cleaned it up a bit, we're not left with even a single good source by my assessment. All that can really be said about the subject of this article is that he exists, ran as a Republican (and lost), and is involved with The Heritage Foundation. MediaKyle (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Economics, and United States of America. MediaKyle (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ran as a political candidate as verified by the sourcing, but lost. Serving in the military isn't notable, not sure the other career items listed add up to notability. I can really only find stories about a political run. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018 Ohio's 12th congressional district special election as an ATD. Fails WP:NPOL. मल्ल (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, California, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the AfD proposal may understate the relevance of the subject to what Wikipedia would look for in considering if a subject should have a biography. He fails WP:NPOL. Are there thoughts on WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC? He is a professor at University of Austin. A combination of his Google Scholar profile and an (admittedly not independent of the subject) biography via his employer lead me to believe this could be an edge case. --Mpen320 (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware the subject had written a book until now, but looking into it I was unable to find a single review of it or even a mention, so I'd say notability as an author is off the table. As for academic guidelines, the subject hasn't held any particular position that would make them automatically notable, and that H-index is relatively uninspiring compared to the Google Scholar profiles I've seen in keep results. Granted, I've been wrong about academics a number of times, so maybe I'm missing something. MediaKyle (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On EBSCOHost, I found a few reviews via EBSCO Host, but the filter only shows one review was in peer-reviewed publication and I found another review in Foreign Affairs. A similiar situation for Immigrant Superpower EBSCO Host. I have no real context for H-indexes or anything. This was a real, leave no stone unturned situation to balance it with my personal deletionism. --Mpen320 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018 Ohio's 12th congressional district special election. --Mpen320 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Davis

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

Fails WP:BIO. Reading this article I can't fathom what he might just possibly be notable for. WP:ADMASQ for a WP:ROTM businessperson. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Business, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also the "Power Agent®" with the copyright symbol reads a lot like an advertisement Laura240406 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero evidence of notability of any flavour, just pure vanispamcruftisement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:BASIC, no evidence of notability. Baqi:) (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this was the activist guy for a minute and wondering why he was here. This article looks WP:PROMO. Metallurgist (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Comaford

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

PROD declined by IP. Fails WP:GNG. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Technology. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also talk page for some discussion on sourcing. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg A. Mukhanov

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

Appears to be entirely promotional. Amigao (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, invalid nomination. The article appears to be purely factual; stating facts that happen to be positive is not promotional, and being promotional is not itself a valid deletion rationale. More, the nomination statement does not address any notability criteria at all, and Mukhanov's IEEE Fellow status passes notability through WP:PROF#C3 and is explicitly cited by WP:PROF as an example of the sort of society fellowship that passes that criterion. He also has strong citation counts on Google Scholar [1], enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

UTC)

Speedy Keep Absolutely an invalid nomination. Clearly meets WP:NPROF and the rationale presented has no basis in fact. Qflib (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as invalid nomination. Zero promotional content in the article. A bit CV-like, but that's nothing that can't be fixed through editing. See WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy keep WP:PROF#C3 for IEEE Fellow -- nominator is asked to familiarize themselves with relevant notability guidelines before making further nominations. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:PROF#C3. Sal2100 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman, Texas bus accident

AfDs for this article:

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Coverage following the event is only further breaking news. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present), U.S. Route 75 in Texas, or Sherman, Texas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, United States of America, and Texas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saints–Vikings rivalry

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable rivalry. Mostly centred around playoffs. Either Redirect to List of NFL rivalries #New Orleans Saints vs. Minnesota Vikings where this is mentioned at target, or just Delete both the article and the content on the List of NFL rivalries article if it isn't notable enough for either. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, United States of America, Louisiana, and Minnesota. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable just like every other NFL rivalry. NotJamestack (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was nominated for deletion in October 2021 under a different title. That AFD was withdrawn. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saints-Vikings Rivalry. Frank Anchor 14:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seen it Thanks Frank Anchor. Actually, I think I forgot about that NFC Championship meeting. I am not taking any side myself, but if anyone wants to be kept and the discussion closed quickly, than vote Speedy Keep so we can get this over and done with. (Disclaimer: This is not any attempt to endorse any side). I know there have been previous withdrawals over rivalries in other sports, but I should give others a chance to see it first. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not intend to withdraw this and want to give other editors a chance. My speedy keep should not count as a vote. Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't understand the statement in the deletion nomination of "Mostly centred around playoffs." Some very notable rivalries have been mostly centered on rivalries. In this particular case, my own perception is that this isn't very notable - certainly the 2009 and 2017 playoff games contribute, and maybe the overtime 2019 wild card game, but otherwise not much in more than half a century. On the other hand, the previous nomination found a few reliable sources that refer to this as a rivalry, so my inclination is weak keep. Rlendog (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rlendog I'm not going to vote myself, but if you don't understand the statement, I honestly feel like this is a keep argument. I personally feel like withdrawing, but I am not going to. I do feel like unless someone else argues to delete, it should not be re-listed and should be closed as a poorly judged nomination. I personally feel a bit embarrassed. But the truth is, we all make mistakes. And the best thing about mistakes is that we can learn from our mistakes. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carl azuz

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

Recreation of Draft:Carl Azuz, which was rejected several times due to a lack of proper sourcing. Although this new version appears to include text from a LLM, and has more sources than the draft. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I tried moving this to Carl Azuz (with correct capitalization) but the title has been salted since 2016. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it strongly appears LLM-assisted at least, but I spot-checked some sources and they checked out. Editor denies using AI on their Talk page. It is strongly promotional and unencyclopedic in tone and style. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They definitely use AI to create their articles, see [2] and [3] for examples. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, there's even ChatGPT-standard **bold formatting**. Luka Maglc, please stop using LLMs to write Wikipedia articles. Even a very short article handwritten and researched by a human is much better than something AI-generated. AI-generated (or assisted) articles lead to a lot of cleanup work for other editors and are likely to be deleted. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to address some of the concerns here and explain why I believe this article should be kept.

There's clear notability, Carl Azuz has received significant independent coverage from reputable national sources like Newswire, Petoskey News-Review, AdWeek, Old News Club, Buzzfeed news(still acceptable as a secondary source), and other separate national news articles(not from CNN), and various academic journals. He’s a recognized figure in education journalism, with documented impact supported by peer-reviewed research and widespread mainstream coverage. This meets both WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

It's balanced and sourced. The article includes both positive and critical viewpoints, it mentions districts that have removed CNN 10 from curricula and analyzes scholarly critiques of the show’s ideological framing. It doesn’t just rely on primary sources; it’s backed by multiple independent, secondary, and reliable publications.

And to the AI claims there’s no policy against using AI tools to help with drafting, as long as the final content is neutral, properly sourced, and verifiable, which this is. The bold formatting issue seems to be a misunderstanding there’s no leftover “**” markdown in any version.

And im happily open to any improvements. Ill keep refining any wording that feels off-tone or promotional (which I don't know how it was seen as strongly promotional). Any constructive edits are welcome. The sources are solid, so polishing style or phrasing is straightforward and keeps the article aligned with Wikipedia's notability and rules.

I hope we can focus on making this article better instead of removing it entirely. Luka Maglc (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the subject is notable. The question is who is going to repair it. It would be helpful if you could fix the promotional tone in the article, for example: His signature puns, accessible explanations, and non-partisan approach made the program a classroom staple; ...distinguished itself through its fresh approach to educational current events; ...widely recognized for his role in reshaping current events education, and so on. Evaluations like ...described by educators as ‘inspiring a generation' need to be precisely attributed in-text if they are to be included, which is probably not necessary. There are also grammar issues, such as Having Non-partisanship language, actively representing multiple perspectives...; A pedagogical design where materials aligned with Common Core literacy standards; and there are other issues with colloquial, unencyclopedic style, as in He did not come without controversies....

I think in the meantime, the article should be draftified and resubmitted when ready via the AfC process. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The overall concerns previously raised have now been addressed. The article has been revised. The issues that once affected the article’s quality have been resolved, resulting in a balanced and well-supported article.

Given these improvements, it is appropriate for the article to remain for ongoing collaborative editing and refinement. Recognizing the progress made, I think the article should not be draftified but kept live to allow for more contributions.

Further suggestions are welcome, but the fundamental problems have been effectively resolved and deserve acknowledgement in the assessment of the article’s current status. Luka Maglc (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This response reads like it is written by AI (see WP:AITALK), as it follows the ChatGPT pattern of saying the same thing lots of times but in different words. Stockhausenfan (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Out of all the dozens of sources that have been found so far, we have yet to figure out how many of them would actually help the article meet the general notability guideline. If the article is kept, it would have to be moved to the correct capitalization and the existing draft may have to be merged into it. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boyce Thompson

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

Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find any significant coverage about this guy, only very small mentions. This article is full of original research and failed verifications. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Maine. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to be that guy, but he publishes his books through Schiffer Publishing. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The independent sources here don't really cover Thompson other than quoting and paraphrasing him. I am assuming that the sources currently in the article are the best ones available. His magazine did help create/sponsor concept homes that received press coverage, but this article inappropriately gives the credit to Thompson. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Ashton

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

Only one source was on this article before I edited it, and it linked to a personal website (non-independent). Cannot find other sources online. Roast (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Disability, and United States of America. Roast (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I can find when searching for her, the only websites that mainly appear are her page here, her IMDb profile, other social media profiles (such as Instagram and mentions on TikTok), and various movie database pages that simply list the roles she's had. Going off of WP:NACTOR, she could be considered notable in her field if [she] has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or if [she] has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Neither of these appear to be the case here, as almost all the roles she appears to have had up to this point have been very minor or recurring roles, some of which were only an appearance in a single episode (in terms of her television roles). Given this and the lack of significant coverage, I don’t think she meets the notability guidelines. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 07:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose the role of Didi in Earl could be notable, but there is little to no sourcing about this person. Social media doesn't count towards notability, so I don't thing we have enough sourcing to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found one passing mention in USA Today that quotes a different actor with an amputation.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (on application of stay)

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

An unnecessary fork of D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security that fails to describe any impact. Emergency applications typically do not warrant separate articles and can go into main articles. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge:I am reviewing on how to merge it with D.V.D v. Department of Homeland Security. Starlighsky (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This referenced article has been moved to a related article. Should I archive this discussion? Starlighsky (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saima Akhter

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

No indication of notability. Sources only mention the subject in passing, and there isn't much coverage from reliable sources either. Fails WP:SIGCOV. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Palestine, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. If I accept the premise the subject has any claim to notability, the subject's notability comes entirely from her firing at Meta. There is no significant coverage or sustained coverage of the subject. -Mpen320 (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reminder to participants: An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah I agree with Mpen320. Baqi:) (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephenson Disaster Management Institute

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

No independent RS on the page for a long time. It's also poorly written and without even an effort at proper referencing. Institutes, departments and faculty groups are not normally kept for universities unless they have very strong indications of notability outwith of the university. JMWt (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United States of America, and Louisiana. JMWt (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Patel

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

A promotional biographical page of a film producer fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. LKBT (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, India, and United States of America. LKBT (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references on wiki articleRupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE not notable. There are a number of RS in the sources but the articles themselves are do not support the notability of the subject Dualpendel (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Trouble Lives On protest

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

The article has only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Per the WP:ROUTINE section, "Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." The article only lists cities that the protest in planned to happen. Possible WP:PROMO violations. There is nothing here that cannot be summarized in an article on Protests against the second presidency of Donald Trump. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just like that other one. Aneirinn (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I !voted to leave the aforementioned other one be for procedural reasons as it was sent to AfD just hours before the protests started, so it was a clear case of WP:RAPID/WP:TOOSOONDEL to me. This one, on the other hand, is still a couple of weeks away, so it's simply WP:TOOSOON. I say incubate it so the author(s) can keep updating it and submit it for review at a later date when it's more possible to assess its notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this completely. Historyday01 (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing eith wrong with this page or the info on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5D10:DB00:3539:C6C5:9865:4425 (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Vanilla Wizard. -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we should be purging Wikipedia of an article with 30+ sources about a major demonstration being held this week. If tens of thousands of people are expected to participate in hundreds of locations, then this is clearly about a notable topic. I also don't think draftifying for a few days is necessary, but sure if that's the route editors prefer. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bool

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

This article has been in a sorry state since it was first created in 2006, having spent almost two decades as a perma-stub without any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the subject's notability. It seems his main claim to fame was when Ithaca newspapers called for his business to be boycotted, after he had defended anarchists in the wake of the assassination of William McKinley. A cursory Google Scholar search turned up very little, mostly passing references to him. As I can't verify the subject's notability, as I can't find significant coverage of him in the source material, and as I can't think of any reasonable alternatives to deletion, I'm proposing this article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Philosophy, Politics, United States of America, and New York. Grnrchst (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added newspaper articles from 1922 (obituary) and 1976 which discuss Bool. His legacy is obviously long-lasting in his field. More research, perhaps using newspapers, will likely produce more coverage.--User:Namiba 16:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: I suppose the sources from 1901 and 1974 in the current sources are helpful, I don't really see much of anything about this person. I tired a New York State newspapers search [4] or the Lib. of Congress [5]... There are hits on the name in Ithica newspapers, but more about routine events (Bool is leaving town, Bool's business)... Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor Miller

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Only fewer sources cited. Absolutiva 05:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, United States of America, and California. Absolutiva 05:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG and WP:YOUNGATH right now. Let'srun (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is a pro soccer player JoeeBruin (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC) (moved from talk by ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Being a professional doesn't grant inherent notability. Let'srun (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Coyote Ugly Search

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Nothing to support notability in a BEFORE was found. All citations seem to be about the people appearing, and not the show itself. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Articles about the contestants on the show can be used to show notability about the show indirectly, those would be enough to at least get a basic article written. Sourcing in the article isn't extensive, but we have confirmation of the show. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Filucci, Sierra (2022-02-28). "Parents' Guide to The Ultimate Coyote Ugly Search". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2025-07-07. Retrieved 2025-07-07.
  The review notes: "While Lil and the Coyotes often mention how empowered the chain's bartenders are, one viewing will probably be enough to convince most people that they're simply glorified exotic dancers. ... Because of the show's emphasis on alcohol and provocative behavior, as well as its confusing messages about gender and sexuality, chances are most parents will want their kids to avoid it. Mature teens might be attracted to the sexed-up American Idol-like concept, but since the series doesn't offer any examples of -- or discussion about -- drinking responsibly, parents will want to offer some of their own advice."
2. Walker, Dave (2006-04-09). "Call of the wild - Women of all walks of life belly up to the bar for a shot at Coyote Ugly fame". The Times-Picayune. Archived from the original on 2025-07-07. Retrieved 2025-07-07.
  The article notes: "The premise of "The Ultimate Coyote Ugly Search," debuting Monday at 9:30 p.m. on the cable TV network CMT, was to conduct a rolling audition for a job working behind and atop the bar at one of the Coyote Ugly outlets. The search was conducted on the road, starting at the flagship New York City Coyote Ugly -- the one celebrated in the 2000 feature film "Coyote Ugly" -- before moving on to Nashville, Tenn.; Austin, Texas; Denver; San Antonio; and finally here, where the contestants presided over a grand post-Katrina, pre-Mardi Gras reopening of the New Orleans bar. ... In the final episode, Coyote Ugly boss lady and notorious tough cookie Liliana "Lil" Lovell will pick a winner and award a $25,000 prize."
3. Huff, Richard (2007-03-19). "Wanna-bes make tracks for 'Coyote' competition". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2025-07-07. Retrieved 2025-07-07.
  The article notes: "This season, rather than just have rookies compete for the title, and the $50,000 prize, the newcomers culled from auditions around the country were paired by owner Liliana (Lil) Lovell with veteran Coyotes in a team competition. ... The show starts with a 90-minute episode, followed by one-hour episodes each Friday, with the winners crowned on the eighth episode. Local contestants Flynn and Hurdle will be at Coyote Ugly at 153 First Ave. (near 10th St.) for every Friday telecast."
4. Belcher, Walt (2008-03-07). "Television: Partygoers Can Toast Tamp Woman, 22, Slinging Shots On 'Coyote Ugly Search' Debut". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2025-07-07. Retrieved 2025-07-07 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: ""The Ultimate Coyote Ugly Search" is based on the popular chain of Coyote Ugly nightclubs founded by Liliana "Lil" Lovell. At the end of each episode, Lovell will eliminate one of the hopefuls. The three finalists will then compete against one another for a $50,000 grand prize and the opportunity to become the sixth and final member of the Coyote Ugly group that tours the country singing and dancing on bar tops."
5. Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle (2007) [1979]. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946–Present (9 ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. p. 1450. ISBN 978-0-345-49773-4. Retrieved 2025-07-07 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The original country-themed Coyote Ugly Saloon opened in New York City in 1993 and gained notoriety for its formula of all-night revelry and cowgirls-in-hot-pants dancing on the bar. It later became the setting for the 2000 movie Coyote Ugly, and Coyote Ugly bars opened in other cities as well. The year 2006 brought this competition in which founder Lil Lovell, assisted by mentors Cyndi and Chantel, toured the country in a large bus holding auditions for the next "coyote." They were tough taskmasters, especially Lil who stood with her arms folded barking lines like "You don't have inner confidence!" The girls had to bartend, sing, and dance on the bar. Ten finalists made it to New Orleans, site of the next opening, and the winner was 23-year-old Kassie Miller from Decatur, Georgia, who danced to the Charlie Daniels hit "The Devil Went Down to Georgia." She won $25,000 and a job at the Nashville saloon."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. The Encyclopedia of Reality Television: The Ultimate Guide to Over 20 Years of Reality TV from The Real World to Dancing with the Stars. New York: Pocket Books. 2008 [2005]. p. 779. ISBN 978-1-4165-7055-4. Retrieved 2025-07-07 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "Coyote Ugly founder Liliana Lovell heads a nationwide search for the ultimate coyote—a woman who can sing, dance, flair, and bartend better than any other in this job competition. In the first season, women from five cities joined a road trip to New Orleans, the home of Lovell and the spot where the Coyote Ugly bar was having a grand reopening. On the way, the contestants learned Coyote skills, as Lovell eliminated five women. The other final five competed to win $25,000 on grand reopening night at New Orleans's Coyote Ugly."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Ultimate Coyote Ugly Search to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by above are enough to confirm the notability. Gepeas (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Library of Congress Classification:Class A -- General Works

AfDs for this article:

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

Also nominated:

Per Talk:Library of Congress Classification:Class A -- General Works, these articles are inherently against WP:NOTCATALOG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Smooth application of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Οἶδα (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Graham11 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries. Graham11 (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: extended listcruft without commentary - utterly bereft of encylcopeadic value. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per User:Pppery, User:Οἶδα, and User:DandelionAndBurdock Logoshimpo (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While I find the Wikipedia version of the scheme easier to navigate than LOC's officially issued one, a line-by-line rehash of material published elsewhere is not encyclopedia in nature. Hthundercroft (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per WP:NOTCATALOG pointed out by Nom, to better streamline Wikipedia Entries as it is.Lorraine Crane (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Portalspace. While these pages are unsuitable for mainspace articles, they work well as a way of navigating the encyclopedia. Keep in mind that these articles have a serious history, dating back to 2002. To straight-up delete this navigational aid with no replacement would not improve the encyclopedia. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
do we think that anyone is using them like that? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They are listed at Wikipedia:Contents#Third-party classification systems as a way of navigating Wikipedia's subjects. -insert valid name here- (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

360 Communities

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 15:40, 6 July 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! 15:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched about the company using different search engines but couldn’t find much substantial information. Even among the existing articles, the first one is merely an interview, which is not considered reliable, and the second source is completely dead. Baqi:) (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to find SIGCOV for the organization so far.Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was kept at AfD just over a year ago, so it would be good to have some explanation of why the previously identified sources aren't adequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines v. Crowdstrike

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

We already have an article on the 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption. I don't think that this lawsuit is independently notable. Avgeekamfot (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Aviation, Computing, and United States of America. Avgeekamfot (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is there a sufficient amount of coverage on this topic to merit an independent article? The article looks reasonably well written but we could do with less fragmentation so I would lean merge to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption absent strong evidence that the present article will continue to grow beyond what the other article can accommodate. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's unclear per nom which notability criteria it fails to meet – if there's sufficient GNG, it should be kept and in this case it seems that the lawsuit independently has been covered in reliable sources in-depth. WeWake (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would also like to suggest keeping the article. I'm the creator of it. I appreciate everyone's input here. I think there's enough coverage to support the topic being a standalone. However, I can also understand the position of merging it with the Delta Air Lines disruption page. I'll continue to improve the topic on whichever page it ends up living. Thanks again for everyone's time on this. Hannahthom7 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption. I agree with @Caleb Stanford this article seems OK but it's got a lot of overlap and also deals with three different lawsuits - Delta v CS, CS v Delta, and passengers vs CS. The case is still in early proceedings, perhaps if this ends up making some legal precedent it will be worth having a separate page. Oblivy (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption per WP:NOPAGE. The lawsuits form part of a notable event but do not need an article of their own; there is already a lot of overlap with the disruption page. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more discussion regarding WP:NOPAGE; the overlap seems to be the main argument from those advocating for a merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free America Weekend

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

(completely rewrote) This page has a source have were deprecated AND cannot be trusted by the wiki on UFO topics, it is also written like a advertisement, with wording like "*city name* has planned a protest, it feels sort of like a advertisement you would see online in a forum.Shaneapickle (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait per WP:RAPID. We shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion for a lack of notability when the protests haven't even happened yet. See also my own essay WP:TSTD. After a few days, if the coverage is not sustained enough, we should merge into protests against Donald Trump. Additionally, the criteria for ITN are different from the criteria for an article outright. -insert valid name here- (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reverse is actually true- people should not be creating articles assuming they will become notable in future, they should wait until an event is notable and then and only then should they create an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we were discussing whether this article should be created, I would agree with you (and with Vanilla Wizard that incubating in draftspace would be more appropriate). However, we are discussing whether this article should be deleted. -insert valid name here- (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The correct thing is "it shouldn't have been created in the first place", therefore correct outcome is draftspace. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 5 July 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) 15:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID and WP:NOTTOOSOON. — ^EF⁵ 18:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page was made June 26th, 2025, this isnt a rapid or a not too soon violation. Shaneapickle (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shaneapickle, and the protests are today. The date of creation matters less than the current time in relation to the event date, which is ongoing. — ^EF⁵ 18:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump. Seems like just another protest, nothing special really. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and support a procedural early close as the nom did not provide any reasons for deletion, with their argument instead being that there was no consensus on posting the No Kings protests to In the News, which the nom erroneously interpreted as "a consensus that protests against trump shouldn't be on wikipedia." I think the nom is a well-meaning but inexperienced user who did not know that the bar for something being on ITN is not the same as the bar for being on Wikipedia (if failing to be on ITN is grounds for deletion, the page about the no kings protests would have been deleted by now). Personally, I think this one probably should have been in draftspace until the event actually happened. The large number of references is an indicator that the event is plausibly going to be notable enough for a standalone page after it's actually occurred, but there's no point in moving it right now while the protests are just now starting. A merge discussion can happen after the event ends and some time passes, and I'd prefer if such a discussion took place on the article talk page as I'm not a fan of nominating pages for deletion when deletion is not a plausible outcome. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit i didnt put any reasoning for deletion, but this page according to people on ITN has a source that was deprecated and could not be trusted (News Nation or whatever it was) I also agree this should have been draftified. Shaneapickle (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In an RFC, NewsNation was considered "generally unreliable" strictly in the topic area of UFOs/UAPs, and is otherwise considered generally reliable; it has not been deprecated. I encourage you to read other people's comments carefully. -insert valid name here- (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re "but this page according to people on ITN has a source that was deprecated and could not be trusted (News Nation or whatever it was)" - I believe that person's comment at ITN was talking about how the ITN nomination only mentioned one source in the ITN nomination template, and it was an outlet they hadn't heard of before, so they were not convinced that this news story is major enough to warrant posting to ITN (though I will say as a longtime ITN editor that the number of sources in the template / whether or not you heard of them is a bad rationale for opposing an ITN listing). That editor did also mention in their comment how strange and amusing it was that there's an asterisk in their WP:RS/P listing talking about their unreliable UFO-related content, but that's not really relevant to this discussion. The editor's comments at ITN were not talking about article content; they never said NewsNation was being cited in the article body (as of writing this, it's not in the sources list). But even if it were, as others have mentioned, that's okay: NewsNation is considered a generally reliable source with only one exception. But even then, even if it were a generally unreliable or deprecated source, and it were being cited in the article body, that's still not grounds for deleting the page, that'd just be grounds for removing the unreliable source through editing the page. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and revisit months later if it is having any lasting impact. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Protests in which thousands of people participate in hundreds of cities are notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump without prejudice to recreation if notability is more clearly established in the coming weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge or~~ delete just another in a string of protests against the President. It won't have any lasting notability. It didn't accomplish anything. All of the sources are just that something occured in the cities. This can be summarized in one sentence.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is barebones and lacks significance. Aneirinn (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Now there is a page for Good Trouble Lives On protest. At what point is this just going to be WP:ROUTINE? Having an article for every minor Trump protest is not helping Wikipedia's credibility against those who claim WP has a liberal bias. (And I am a Democrat).-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That one's definitely WP:TOOSOON to be an article and I agree with moving it out of mainspace. But I wouldn't worry too much about the latter half of that !vote; those who claim WP has this bias or that bias are likely not going to be swayed by the mere existence of a low-traffic page like that. If you were to speak to someone who felt Wikipedia is too biased to try to understand how they arrived at that conclusion, you probably wouldn't get a well-reasoned answer based on a careful analysis of which topics are being covered. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope we've not reached a point in society where national or international protests with thousands of participants in hundreds of locations are considered routine. Also, I'm not sure what this has to do with liberal bias; we have articles for pro-Trump protests, too: March 4 Trump, Mother of All Rallies, Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump, etc. I'm not disputing that Wikipedia can have a liberal bias but in my opinion we should be creating articles for major demonstrations regardless of ideology, party, etc. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep if this article is merged or deleted, but I don't see how eliminating the documentation of major political protests is a benefit to Wikipedia and its readers. We have good examples of what articles like this one can look like, so I would prefer to work towards that here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt that conservatives protest too. However, these protests are forming at the rate of one every two weeks with different names. Whereas most types of protests are ongoing. These articles are just saying that people are protesting. I figure at this point that is WP:UNDUE for them to be given articles at this rate when all that is said is that there was a protest in this city and that city. I remember seeing KONY 2012 protests in my city, that wasn't included in that article, and it shouldn't it be. Note: I haven't even suggested anything against the plethora of other protests so far as those articles seem to have meat on their bones. If this article can have something more substantial than well a bunch of people held their signs in Scissortail Park on July ##, maybe I would be inclined to agree. Now for the argument that "hundreds of thousands of people participated." Hundreds of thousands of people went to the Thunder's championship parade. Do I think it should have it's own article? No.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, no cities as far as I could tell were listed. With that being said, it almost makes articles like these for upcoming protests seem like adverts.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Another Believer. This already has shown some significant coverage, and is still under construction. Each section or article need not include every single viewpoint equally, as long as overall our content is consistent and neutral, as I've written in my user space. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was not anything compared to the No Kings protests. While it received coverage, it is thin when compared to the major protests and actions of the last six months. It would be far better for it to appear on a list of similar protests. Thriley (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to compare this demonstration to No Kings, which was one of the largest protests in US history. We only need to assess if there's enough coverage to justify an article. Multiple editors here have proposed a merge to Protests against Donald Trump, which suggests the content at least has merit, but the parent article is quite lengthy and only going to continue to grow. Deleting this entry essentially scrubs mention of the protest from Wikipedia, which doesn't seem right. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be summarized in that article as "On July 5, 2025 there were the Free America Weekend protests across the country." This is WP:NOTDIRECTORY at this point. The article says nothing about why they were protesting, what their goals were, and the results (if any).- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've made your position quite clear, and I disagree that this content should be reduced to a single sentence in one article. I'm not sure how any of the six points at NOTDIRECTORY apply to an event that was held in hundreds of locations, if you could clarify. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1 a simple list. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This article is not analogous to a list of phone numbers. If there's not enough context, then we should be working to fix that. There's plenty of content to add about background, activities, organizers, locations, etc. There are Wikipedia articles for many similar protests and there's no reason why this one couldn't also be expanded similar to quality entries like Not My Presidents Day, Impeachment March, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well this has been AfD for a while and it is still a list of people protesting in some areas. Frankly, none of the other articles this year have a list of every protest. I will conclude with why haven't you upgraded it as you say? This and the more recent protest based on timing reads like an advert.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whatever, I get YOUDONTLIKEIT, but I'm moving on to other things. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does this topic meet WP:NEVENT notability criteria on its own merits?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify It's been a week and I don't see this having any lasting impact based on what's currently in the article. I don't want to !vote delete just because it's still recent enough that it could change at any time, and would give people the chance to further develop it, but it should absolutely not be in mainspace as-is, because it's not clear this wasn't just a connected series of events in one news cycle. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Family (food company)

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

I came across this article after seeing Draft:HealthyBaby at AfC. I don't see anything here except primary sources, passing mentions, and routine coverage. In my WP:BEFORE I was unable to find any independent, secondary coverage upon which to build an article. The article history suggests that this was created for promotional purposes, and its primary author is blocked for "inappropriate emails". MediaKyle (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much growth or coverage since 2012. Author was also found to be a sockpuppet of Morning277. Looks purely promo so should be on the chopping block imo Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can find independent sources on this company: [6], [7], [8]. The third is probably RS, but I don't know about the other two. Based on the other articles they publish, they look rather uncritical and fluffy. If these sources could be shown to be RS, I would suggest keep. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first is not as it is written by a contributor. The second looks like some kind of blog of commercial website so would not see it as reliable. The third, byline from an editor, from Inc. would be in-depth and reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Shazi Visram. The majority of the sources focus on her and the founding of the company, such as this and even the Inc. reference mentioned previously. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Perley

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

Not really seeing much which shows that the subject meets the notability standards for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being. I contribute to the topic area and can say there are reliable sources that exist on the subject to meet notability standards. If need be, I can expand the article soon with the available sources. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some sources please share them here so we can assess them against the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See bullet list below:
Encyclopedia entry for subject from Syriac studies website [9]

Entry on subject from Assyrian website, linked in article [10]

Memorial fund dedicated to subject from Harvard University [11]

Article dedicated to subject, also sourced in article though not sure if the current link works [12]

Book dedicated to the subject featuring his writings [13] and articles about its publishing [14] [15]

Written article from an Assyrian Cultural Foundation, dedicated to the subject [16]

Four academic papers that mention the subject [17] [18] [19] [20]

Please see other articles that mention the subject [21] [22]
Given the above list, there are enough sources that will suit the notability requirements necessary for the subject's article. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided by Surayeproject3 are more than sufficient. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this, this and this. Baqi:) (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Widow Games

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

Fails WP:NCORP, with very little in the way of significant coverage besides a Planet Half-Life profile. I am nominating this for AfD due to a previous discussion that resulted in a merge here, so it can't be said not to be "controversial". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm a bit on the fence with this one. While there isn't much coverage specifically about the company itself, they appear to be a significant developer in gaming history. Their games have received substantial coverage, which, in my view, supports a keep.Darkm777 (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NARTIST can sometimes allow for that, but companies do not fall under that and are required to pass WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. This is not a case where notability is inherited. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen64 has details on their last game "They Hunger: Lost Souls", I would consider a merge/redirect to List of Source mods. IgelRM (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a company and reviews of their games do not grant WP:INHERENT notability. I cannot find coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT but willing to review again if anyone can point out the WP:THREE. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 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)} 02:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Black Widow Games is one of the oldest modding groups in the history of modern gaming history. Their works have both recieved press coverage and to my knowledge, have even been cited in a book dedicated to culture and videogame innovation. I think with all this combined, it warrants a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayhemStoppingBy (talk • contribs) 04:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the !vote. As requested previously with others, can you name the WP:THREE. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Chapter 6 of Dr. Dennis Redmond’s *Satellite Uplink*, and his dissertation

An extensive analytical essay that profiles Black Widow Games in-depth. Satellite Uplink, Chapter 6 (https://web.archive.org/web/20150926231928/http://members.efn.org/~dredmond/PP6.html). Later cited twice in Dr. Redmond’s PhD dissertation, Videogame Culture as Transnational Media: One Neoliberalism, Many Resistances (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, pp. 69 & 322) (https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/42310).

2. Planet Half-Life’s Five Days of Fear

A five-part, multi-page deep dive by GameSpy’s Planet Half-Life writer John “Chief” Philips. Covers the company’s 1997 origins, accomplishments, interviews with Einar Saukas & Neil Manke, and the future of “They Hunger: Lost Souls.” (Note: Page 2 of both “Day 3” & “Day 5” are missing from archive.) (https://web.archive.org/web/20121107001442/http://planethalflife.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Previews.Detail&id=1).

3. TheGamer — “Sony Once Commissioned A Half-Life Mod To Promote The First Underworld Movie — And It Was Amazing”

A retrospective by Eric Switzer about how Sony Pictures commissioned Black Widow Games to create an official tie-in mod for the Underworld movie. (https://www.thegamer.com/half-life-mod-underworld-bloodline-history-vampire-the-masquerade-bloodhunt/).

4. Honorary 4th — Extensive PC Gamer Coverage.

- USS Darkstar & They Hunger episodes 1–3 featured on demo discs packaged (Issues #63, #69, #75, #85; 1999–2001).

- They Hunger included in PC Gamer’s *“10 Scariest PC Games Ever”* (Issue #103; Nov 2002, p. 102).

- They Hunger: Lost Souls featured in behind-the-scenes articles and a two-page spread (Issues #157 & #162; 2007–2008).

For an early Half-Life modding studio — though niche — I feel the amount and quality of sourcing here exceeds what is often seen for similar topics or even more niche topics that survive AfD scrutiny. The combination of academic, industry, and mainstream retrospective coverage clearly demonstrates that Black Widow Games has received significant, independent, reliable coverage and therefore merits a standalone article under WP:GNG. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a decent argument here that Neil Manke is notable per WP:NARTIST as the studio's creator and game designer. Especially since he is largely referred to by name in that first source. Not sure I'm convinced the studio is though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While yes, Manke is integral to the Black Widow Games story (as it dissolved when he disappeared); Einar Saukas, Magnus Jansén, Jack Cooper, Paul Taylor, and Dave Waters are also mentioned further down in the first link’s text as they worked with Manke in the “They Hunger” and a number of other projects.

They are also mentioned in the Planet Half-Life’s interviews along with their new talent. These folks would’ve been involved in Link #3’s project as that was the last published project Black Widow Games made (and were later involved with “They Hunger: Lost Souls”). MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOURCESEXIST. Simply believing they exist will not magically will them into existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Cherepanova

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Not supported by reliable and significant sources. More than half of the current sources ([23][24][25][26][27][28]) are primary. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and ~~United Arab Emirates~~. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I draftified the page but the author moved it back to mainspace without improvement. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about any connection to the UAE? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I meant the United States. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oho! Makes more sense. In any case, I don't think she passes WP:GNG, so Delete Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have a google alert for my name and Mrs. Cherepanova's name - we authored a case together in 2020. The case study received a few awards, including Outstanding New Case Writer - https://www.thecasecentre.org/AwardsComps/winners/year/2020

I know that Vera has a number of other awards and honours but they are industry-specific, e.g. she was named best compliance officer by IBLF / E&Y in 2011 - http://iblfrussia.org/news/detail.php?ID=566

I don't think the article needs to be deleted, but in current form it definitely doesn't reflect Mrs. Cherepanova's achievements and overall impact the made in the EU & US compliance industry.

Needs more work. Normalnot (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Normalnot. How did you get a Google alert? Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 10:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator I have google alerts https://www.google.com/alerts set up for a number of keywords. The one that fired was for this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red - through which I found this discussion. All that said, given my connection to Mrs. Cherepanova I'm probably in violation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COIE and shouldn't be part of this discussion. Normalnot (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please follow WP:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI to make a conflict of interest disclosure. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 11:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [29], [30] and [31] are enough to establish notability. Thus, it has GNG 102.91.77.177 (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are primary sources. They should not be used to establish notability. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs only contribution to WP... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Harrison

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

Content is very sparse and does not suggest significant coverage. I have worked extensively on articles related to the White House Office and Harrison has vexed me because he does not appear to have much coverage; even searching his name on Google News largely returns articles about his wife. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is a stub but presents accurate information about a White House official with proper sourcing.
User01938 (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed the underlying issue. Harrison's job does not entitle him to an article, notability does. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are mentions of him (as in the sources in the article) but only the Korea Herald article is mostly about him (although not entirely). There is a mention in WaPo article; and another here. I can find his testimony relating to January 6, and even that gives the impression of him being a minor official. Perhaps in the 2nd Trump term he will become notable. But not yet. Lamona (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Intuition

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

Nothing to show how the subject company is notable. Plenty of WP:CORPTRIV and a few bits of PR fluff, but nothing WP:SUBSTANTIAL as far as I can see - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United States of America. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Applied Intuition has received significant independent coverage in reliable sources such as Reuters, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch. Easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Move for speedy keep. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 01:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redstar0005: It's all WP:CORPTRIV doing a Google for 'Applied Intuition {Reuters,Bloomberg,TechCrunch}'. If you have anything that's not trivial reporting, please provide it... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rich Smith, here are some! [32][33] (Reuters), [34][35] (Bloomberg), [36][37][38][39](TechCrunch). All of these articles are not just trivial mentions of Applied Intuition but are completely centered around them and their business activities. I could continue naming more satisfactory sources if you wish. I'm not sure if you were searching for the right things when you did, because all of these articles were easy to find. Again, I suggest that the article is kept. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redstar0005: All of those are WP:CORPTRIV... 'standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of changes in share or bond prices ... of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital'. So again, if you have anything that's not trivial reporting, please provide it... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rich Smith. The articles from Reuters, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch provide non-trivial coverage by focusing specifically on Applied Intuition’s funding, valuation, business model, and industry role, not just standard notices or brief announcements. They include independent analysis and sustained attention, meeting WP:GNG and exceeding WP:CORPTRIV. Again, I suggest the article is kept. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 19:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The routine coverage standard is usually used to dismiss articles from PR firms that have close financial ties to the companies they report about. Reuters is not a PR firm, and they don't report about every fundraising event from every startup. The nominator has the implication backwards: routine coverage can come in the form of fundraising news, but not all fundraising news is routine coverage.

And independent of all this, This case study that already appears in the article can clearly be used to establish notability. I would need to see something more than a bare assertion that the sources in the article constitute "trivial reporting" in order to change my !vote. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every source is valuations and funding rounds - where is the ORGCRIT? qcne (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I can't agree with assertions that every source is valuations and funding rounds; in fact most are not. After looking over the list of references it seems to me that about two-thirds of sources cover substantial business activities rather than financial reporting. For example: Harvard Business School case study on the company's business model, Bloomberg's analysis of autonomous vehicle simulation technology and industry challenges, coverage of strategic partnerships with major automakers like Isuzu, Axios coverage of military AI products, Breaking Defense analysis of acquisitions, and a recent CNBC piece discussing the company's AI technology and dual-use applications. These sources provide exactly the type of in-depth critical analysis and commentary from major newspapers, trusted academic institutions, and high-quality mainstream websites that establish notability. I think this article definitely should be kept. Soxfanruthian (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM text collapsed

Strong Keep - Disclosure: I am an employee of Applied Intuition and have consistently disclosed this affiliation in all my edits to this article and on my user page.

The nominator's WP:CORPTRIV argument fundamentally mischaracterizes the available sources and fails to recognize substantial coverage that clearly establishes notability under WP:CORP. The claim that all coverage consists of "routine business reporting" ignores multiple sources providing detailed analysis of the company's technology, strategic significance, and industry impact.

Academic recognition establishes clear notability: Harvard Business School published a comprehensive case study on Applied Intuition (ref #5). Academic institutions do not create detailed business case studies for companies lacking significant industry impact or innovative business models. This represents exactly the type of substantial, analytical coverage that WP:CORP requires and directly contradicts claims of trivial coverage.

Technology-focused coverage beyond financial reporting: Multiple sources provide substantial analysis of business operations and technological significance:

Bloomberg's 2018 detailed analysis of autonomous vehicle simulation challenges and the company's role in addressing industry-wide testing limitations (ref #12)
VentureBeat's comprehensive coverage of off-road autonomy technology launch with technical specifications and market analysis (ref #2)
Specialized trade publication coverage in ADAS & Autonomous Vehicle International focusing on machine learning data operations and technical capabilities (ref #26)
Recent substantial coverage of the June 2025 OpenAI strategic partnership, including detailed analysis from Bloomberg examining the technological implications and industry significance of integrating large language models into vehicle intelligence platforms (ref #9)

Strategic industry partnerships demonstrate operational significance: Coverage of partnerships with major automakers provides substantial analysis of business activities that clearly exceed routine reporting:

Nikkei Asia's detailed coverage of Isuzu partnership for Level 4 self-driving trucks (ref #23)
Automotive News Europe's analysis of TRATON partnership for software-defined trucks (ref #24)
Specialized German automotive publication coverage of Audi partnership following Porsche collaboration (ref #22)

Defense sector recognition for national security applications: Recent coverage demonstrates expansion into critical national security applications:

Axios provides substantial analysis of military AI products and strategic significance (ref #19)
Bloomberg recognizes the company among "10 Defense Tech Startups to Watch in 2025" based on technological capabilities (ref #17)
Breaking Defense covers EpiSci acquisition with detailed analysis of AI dogfighting capabilities and military applications (ref #29)

Sustained coverage across multiple years and topics: The reference list spans 2018-2025 with coverage from major publications focusing on technology developments, strategic partnerships, acquisitions, and industry recognition—not just funding announcements. This sustained attention across multiple business cycles and topics demonstrates the type of ongoing coverage that WP:CORP requires.

Financial coverage as evidence of significance: While the nominator dismisses funding announcements as routine, the sustained financial coverage from major publications like Bloomberg, Forbes, and Wall Street Journal spanning multiple funding rounds over seven years actually demonstrates the type of ongoing attention that indicates notability. WP:CORPTRIV does not prohibit all financial coverage—it prohibits trivial financial coverage. When major business publications consistently cover a company's growth trajectory across multiple years, this represents substantial coverage of significant business developments, not routine announcements.

The nominator's assertion that partnerships with 18 of the top 20 global automakers and expansion into defense applications constitute mere "routine business reporting" misapplies WP:CORPTRIV. These represent exactly the "significant business activities" and "major corporate developments" that the policy explicitly recognizes as notable. The Harvard Business School case study alone provides the substantial, analytical coverage that clearly exceeds any reasonable interpretation of the WP:CORPTRIV threshold.

This article meets WP:CORP through multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage of technology, industry impact, and business significance that extends well beyond routine financial reporting.

Request for nomination withdrawal: Given the substantial evidence demonstrating clear notability under WP:CORP, I respectfully request that the nominator consider withdrawing this nomination. The article is supported by multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage that extends well beyond routine business reporting, including academic recognition, detailed technology analysis, and sustained industry coverage across multiple years and topics. Cal-batman (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are plenty of articles that establish notability such as TechCrunch, WSJ and more.Darkm777 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a source assessment table would address the disagreement here about the quality of the sources provided in the article and discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Liz.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Here's an analysis of sources (omitting primary sources or GHITS type references) with emphasis on those articles that others above claim to meet GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references based on funding and valuation are junk. Here's why. The $250m funding round with a $6b valuation are based on this Press Release dated March 12, 2024. Similarly, the series d media churn is all based on this PR from 2021. The latest series f is based on this. Notice that those references have the same date as the announcement (or later). Lets not be naive here - this is how marketing works. There is no original content in any of those articles. If some of the Keep !voters above disagree, lets discuss - post a link to one of the articles and point out the paragraphs containing original content.

-

Created with templates {{NCORPcheck table}} and {{NCORPcheck}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent Content?	In-depth?
"Applied Intuition, whose software tests self-driving cars, grabs $40 million". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs as part of the PR around their series B round (same date, quotes, etc)	no in-depth information contained in remaining independent content
"Inside one of Silicon Valley's most celebrated rituals: raising cash". Washington Post. 2016-08-29. Retrieved 2025-07-11.		There no in-depth information about the company
"Qasar Younis and Peter Ludwig of Applied Intuition: A startup with design in mind". Greatness by Floodgate (Podcast). Retrieved 2025-07-11.	It is an interview and relies entirely on information from the founders
"2025 Tech Defense Startups to Watch". Bloomberg Features. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	A company profile based on summarising existing company information	Four sentences is insufficient for CORPDEPTH
"Transportation: Most Innovative Companies 2025". Fast Company. Retrieved 2025-07-11.		A mention-in-passing, single sentence
"Applied Intuition and military AI partnership". Axios. 2025-05-20. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	The article merely summarises a company announcement	Insufficient in-depth information about the company
Applied Intuition co-founder Qasar Younis on bringing AI to military vehicles. CNBC. 2025-05-30. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Relies entirely on an interview with the founder
"Driscoll suggests Army can take page from Silicon Valley business model". Inside Defense. Retrieved 2025-07-11.		A mention in passing that contains no in-depth information about the company
"How self-driving cars can get past the learning permit stage without any risk". Bloomberg. 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Relies entirely on a visit to the company's office and information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition neue Partnerschaft mit Audi". Automobilwoche. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Relies entirely on a joint company announcement - this is PR
"Isuzu to develop self-driving trucks with U.S. startup". Nikkei Asia. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	This also relies entirely on a joint company announcement - this is PR
"Volkswagen, TRATON, Applied Intuition software collaboration". Automotive News. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Based on this announcement and relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Software tools provider Applied Intuition buys company behind CarSim". Automotive News. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Based on this announcement and relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition acquires SceneBox platform to strengthen machine learning data operations". Autonomous Vehicle International. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Based on this announcement and relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition to buy autonomous trucking SPAC Embark for $71M". TechCrunch. 2023-05-25. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Based on this announcement and therefore relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition takes flight, sets sail in acquiring EpiSci". Breaking Defense. February 2025. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Based on this announcement and therefore relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs	no in-depth information contained in remaining independent content
"Pilot in a real aircraft just fought an AI-driven virtual enemy jet for the first time". TWZ. Retrieved 2025-07-11.		There is no in-depth information about the company

It is difficult to find articles on this very valuable company that meet NCORP right now. I've omitted the case study because I cannot locate a copy to read, but from experience, not all case studies hosted by HBS meet the criteria but if someone wants to link to a non-paywalled version I'll give it a read. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations

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

Since this article was created in 2011, it has been based almost entirely on citations to sources either from the ICOR itself or from its affiliate members. Attempts to find coverage in reliable secondary source turned up very little. Neither of the cited secondary sources in this article provide significant coverage, only giving the ICOR a passing reference in the wider context of another subject. A cursory Google Scholar search brought up a few self-published Marxist word documents, and one book about German political parties that only mentions the ICOR in passing.

As I have been unable to find significant coverage of this international organisation in reliable sources, and as notability is not inherited from any of its affiliated organisations, I do not think this meets the notability criteria for organisations and am nominating it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Iran, India, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe there may be a language / coverage issue, as this is English Wikipedia, and there are two or three English-speaking organizations within ICOR. I will look into it this week. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most online sources I found were either non-independent or were not in-depth. The one book cited in the article was written by Stefan Engel, former chairman of the MLPD, a member organization of ICOR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited by Castroonthemoon are not in-depth (and the last one doesn't seem reliable), and I don't see why we should make an exception here; they have brought up the possibility of a merge with the MLPD, but firstly I don't think they're really related that much, and secondly half of the ICOR article is based on primary sources and the other half is based on passing mentions, so it would be WP:UNDUE. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not looking good for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have looked into international reports on the organization. There's a surprising amount of information surrounding the group's involvement in Syria, and the hospital that the group built. Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards Keep Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Castroonthemoon can cite specific sources with significant coverage, I'm leaning delete. The only mention in Swiss media is [40]. Toadspike [Talk] 08:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources used in the article, I believe [41][42][43][44][45] satisfy requirements. Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a single-sentence passing mention: "Finally, anarchist volunteers organized another unit at the end of March 2017, the International Revolutionary People's Guerrilla Forces (IRPGF), declared as an "informal anarchist armed organization" whose purpose of armed struggle was placed beyond Kurdish issues, in a global perspective." (via Google Translate). The second link is exactly the same page as the first. The third is another single-sentence passing mention ("Hinter dem Projekt steht das linke Bündnis "Internationale Koordinierung revolutionärer Parteien und Organisationen" (ICOR), das um die marxistisch-leninistische Partei Deutschlands (MLPD) gebildet wurde.") The fourth consists entirely of quotes from someone who has been "supported" by ICOR, which is not independent coverage. The fifth isn't independent either – it has no byline and is basically a call for donations by the head of ICOR, ending with their bank info.

None of these sources satisfy the requirements of the GNG or NCORP. Toadspike [Talk] 05:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I believe that the fact that they receive coverage satisfies notability requirements. It's a niche, political topic that isn't going to receive much coverage, especially by Western press, thus I believe that WP:IAR applies in this scenario. I don't think we will find a point of agreement on this, but I think that merging this article into the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany article is worth considering, per my POC below. Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Consideration. I believe the article should be kept, but to those in-favor of deletion, I think there's a solid case to be made that the page should be merged with the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany article, given that they seem to be the driving force behind most of the organizations actions and statements, as well as the fact that Stefan Engel (or his wife), the former chairman of MLPD, comes up almost everywhere ICOR does Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge, since these two organizations seem to be unrelated aside from Engel. Toadspike [Talk] 08:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The organization is fundamentally led by the MLPD, in the same way that the Comintern was led by the CPSU Castroonthemoon (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Per above. Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck this vote, as you can only cast one bolded vote, and you have already done so above. Please be mindful not to BLUDGEON the discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 19:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. After reviewing the points, I'm going for deletion, as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm not usually in favor of lateral or downward merges. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's literally no reason not to. That personal preference does not meet the goal of improving Wikipedia. Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Material Sciences Corporation

AfDs for this article:

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

N/C in 2017, and I think it's time for another look as corp depth still does not appear to be there in WP:SIRS Star Mississippi 03:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, United States of America, and Michigan. Star Mississippi 03:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the sources are very normal corporate business sources, not ones that establish notability by Wikipedia standards. PickleG13 (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Profile: Material Sciences Corporation". Noise & Vibration Worldwide. 38 (7). Sage Publishing: 21–22. July 2007. doi:10.1260/0957-4565.38.7.21. EBSCOhost 26045472.
  According to this page, Noise & Vibration Worldwide is a peer-reviewed journal. The article notes: "Material Sciences Corporation provides material-based solutions for acoustical and coating applications that address noise, temperature problems in the automotive, HVAC, electronics, power equipment, and construction industries. Founded in 1971 the company now has 600 employees in the US, Europe, and Asia and a network of partners on four continents. In fiscal 2006, MSC had net sales of $287 million and net income of $5.2 million. MSC has one of the largest independent sound engineering laboratories in North America, an application research centre located in Canton, MI."
2. Nelson, Brett (2003-01-24). "Shhh! Struggling Material Sciences is betting its future on a dated feat of metallurgy called "quiet" steel. Your Ford pickup may have it". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "In April, 17 years in upper management at Quaker Oats, Whirl-pool and FMC Corp., the jovial, 64-year-old Michael Callahan gave up retirement and the occasional consulting gig to run a sleepy manufacturer that last year netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales. Material Sciences Corp. of Elk Grove Village, Ill. was formed in 1971 to buy companies inventing new materials. Most never took off, but it managed to go public in 1984 on the back of a unit that had found a fast way to paint the raw steel and aluminum used to make car bodies, roofing and garage doors. Coil coating–which involves priming metal rolls weighing up to 50,000 pounds with absorbent chemicals, then painting them at up to 700 feet per minute on a mill–accounts for two-thirds of the company’s revenues. ... Mat Sci’s big break didn’t come until 1998 when it began supplying the steel firewall between the dashboard and the engine for the 1999 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pickup truck. That win helped land a contract for the same part, and another one for a quiet-steel oil pan, on Ford’s new F-150 pickup. Today the company has contracts at each of the Big Three and is pursuing more than 150 new auto deals. ... As for competition, Material Sciences is far and away the dominant supplier of damped steel for autos–perhaps a $600 million market."
3. Nelson, Brett (2000-10-30). "So What's Your Story?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "Directions aren’t always necessary. Chicago-based Material Sciences Corp., a $500 million (sales) maker of laminated metal and films, had eight analysts following it in 1995. Only two remain. A nasty confluence of missed earnings, brokerage attrition and shrinking market cap (now $170 million) took its toll. Publicly traded since 1984, Material Sciences has spent $1 million on promotional help over the past five years, to no effect. Perhaps shedding the money losing steel-galvanizing line–and focusing solely on profitable products such as anti-vibrational-steel car components and window films that reject solar heat–will spark Wall Street’s interest."
4. Englander, David (2013-04-03). "Primed for "Material" Gains". Barron's. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "With a market cap of $104 million, and only two sell-side analysts covering its stock, Material Sciences floats under the radar of most investors. Material Sciences (ticker: MASC) makes specialty materials, primarily for the automotive industry. Its metal coatings are used on car bodies and parts. The company is perhaps best known for its Quiet Steel product, which reduces noise and vibrations in cars and appliances. In the last year, Material Sciences hit a rough patch. Sales have declined, due to lower shipments of metal fuel tanks, as Ford has converted some of its vehicles to plastic tanks. ... Based in Elk Grove Village, Ill., Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like Quiet Steel and Quiet Aluminum, and its coated metal products, which include electrogalvanized materials, as well as ElectroBrite, an alternative to stainless steel in appliances. Major customers include U.S. Steel, Chrysler and Ford."
5. Dinger, Ed (2004). "Material Sciences Corporation". In Grant, Tina (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 64. Detroit, Michigan: St. James Press. ISBN 1558625666. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21 – via Encyclopedia.com.
  From Cengage.com:
  When students, job candidates, business executives, historians and investors need accurate and detailed information on the development of any of the world's largest and most influential companies, direct them to International Directory of Company Histories. This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic location.
  The book notes:
  Public Company
  Incorporated: 1971
  Employees: 740
  Sales: $266.8 million (2003)
  Stock Exchanges: New York
  Ticker Symbol: MSC
  NAIC: 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (Except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers
  
  Material Sciences Corporation (MSC) is a publicly traded company based in Elk Grove, Illinois. It designs, manufactures, and markets materials-based solutions for electronic, acoustical/thermal, and coated metal applications. MSC's metal laminate product, NRGDamp, is used in the electronics industry to reduce noise and vibrations in hard disk drives. The company also produces Quiet Steel, used by the auto industry to reduce noise and vibration. The material has been applied primarily in dash panels but is also being used in an increasing number of other applications such as wheel wells and floor pans. In addition, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces painted and electrogalvanized sheet metal for use in building and construction products, automobile exterior panels, and appliances such as refrigerators and freezers. MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets.
  
  Founding the Company in 1971
  
  MSC was founded in 1971 as a holding company to acquire businesses involved in advanced materials technologies. The most important of these companies, and the only one in the fold when the company went public in 1984, was Pre Finish Metals. It was originally known as All Weather Steel Products, founded in Chicago in 1951 by Roy Crabtree. The company started out applying protective aluminum paint to sheets of metal, used to make air ducts for heating and air conditioning systems. The demand for the product grew so rapidly that All Weather soon dropped sheet processing in favor of continuous coil coating. In 1954 the operation was transferred to a converted mushroom barn in Des Plaines, Illinois, where new coil processing equipment was installed to meet ever increasing demand. Then, in May 1958, sawdust insulation in the roof ignited spontaneously and the subsequent explosion and fire completely destroyed the building. All Weather's management took immediate steps to establish a new production facility and preserve the company's customer base. Three competitors agreed to fill outstanding orders, with All Weather's personnel dispatched to oversee production. ...
  The book provides extensive discussion of the subject.
6. International Directory of Company Histories also provides a "Further Reading" section that provides more sources about Material Sciences Corporation:
  Arndorfer, James B., "Gabelli Groups Turn Up Heat on Metal Firms," Crain's Chicago Business, June 2, 2003, p. 3.
  Keefe, Lisa M., "Metal Firm Is Up for Sale," Crain's Chicago Business, July 2, 1990, p. 70.
  Murphy, H. Lee, "Bad Timing Snarls Material Sci. Deal," Crain Chicago Business, July 19, 1999, p. 36.
  Nelson, Brett, "Shhh!," Forbes, November 24, 2003, p. 84.
  Savitz, Eric J., "A Fresh Shine," Barron's, November 4, 1991, p. 14.
  Setton, Dolly, "Steel Deal," Forbes, October 18, 1999, p. 190.
  Troxell, Thomas N., Jr., "Tripod for Growth," Barron's, July 1, 1985, p. 33.
7. Hoover's had an industry report about Material Sciences Corporation under a paywall at http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-report.material_sciences_corporation.f622bdcf9e26730a.html. The summary notes: "Material Sciences Corporation, known as MSC, makes engineered materials, as well as coated steel and electro-galvanized steel products. MSC has two primary product segments: acoustical (anti-noise and vibration products, including the trademarked Quiet Steel reduced vibration metal) and coated (decorative and protective metal coatings). The company's products are used by the appliance, automotive, building systems, computer, construction, furniture, HVAC, lighting, and telecommunications industries. Automobile manufacturers are among the company's largest clients. MSC gets most of its sales in the US."
  Hoover's lists a sample report about Exxon at http://www.hoovers.com/content/dam/english/dnb-solutions/general-company-research/69-exxon-hooversreport.pdf that discusses Exxon's "Company Description" and "Company History" in detail. Similar coverage Material Sciences Corporation in Hoover's industry report about it would provide significant coverage of the Material Sciences Corporation.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Material Sciences Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite torn on this one, but are you volunteering to fix the article and add something beyond numbers and timelines of announcements? Your rebuttal to the proposal to delete this is at least one order of magnitude longer than the article. FalconK (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You already found several of these on the last AFD and I am unconvinced of WP:CORPDEPTH. I suppose it depends if the Nelson Forbes pieces are significant. IgelRM (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of potentially useful sources linked to help but would love a bit more discussion before closing this out. Relisting in hopes of getting a bit more attention, will see if I can ping some noticeboards to take a look as well..
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James of UR (talk) 18:11, 30 June 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)} 02:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Willard

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

WP:BLP of a local historian, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for historians. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have or had jobs, and have to be shown to pass certain defined notability criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about their work in media and/or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by non-media organizations she was directly affiliated with, and shows absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy sourcing at all. (For example, people do not become notable enough for Wikipedia articles by having staff profiles on the websites of their own employers, or contributor directories on the websites of publications that they wrote for — media unaffiliated with her work have to write about and analyze the significance of her work as news to make her notable on that basis.)
As her potential claim of notability is primarily local in nature rather than national, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to the necessary resources than I've got can actually find sufficient RS coverage to get her over the bar, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She did win awards, including a state-wide award for her work. WP:Author doesn't require national accomplishments. One might make the case that winning an award from the state's primary historical society might be "significant critical attention"? --
Jaireeodell (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say people always have to have nationalized accomplishments to be eligible for an article — I said that because her notability claim is local rather than national in nature, I lack access to the kind of resources necessary to determine whether the article is salvageable with better referencing or not on my own, without bringing it to wider attention. People can get into Wikipedia on primarily local significance — but regardless of whether their notability claim is local or national in scope, people aren't exempted from having to have WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing.
Also, every award that exists does not constitute an automatic notability freebie — a person is not automatically notable just because the article has the word "award" in it, if the article doesn't have GNG-worthy reliable sourcing in it. "Significant critical attention", for the purposes of GNG, is a question of whether she's had news reportage and/or books written about her and her work, not just the fact of having been singled out for just any old award that exists — an award might help if it could be referenced to a newspaper article treating "Shirley Willard wins award" as news, but it doesn't help if you have to depend on content self-published by the organization that gave her the award to source the statement because media coverage about the award doesn't exist. We're not just looking for "has done stuff", we're looking for "has had media coverage and/or books written and published about the stuff she did". Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 21:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonderful woman, no doubt, but I simply cannot find any of her writings that aren't "self-published" - i.e. by the historical society she was working with in some capacity. She did get two awards from the Indiana Historical Society, but I don't think that is going to confirm notability. She is given credit for unearthing the story of this "Trail of Death" but I only find a very few mentions of it by folks not directly associated with the historical society. Lamona (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking for clarification on what you are asking for here- are you asking for the historical veracity of the Potawatomi Trail of Death? If so, there is already a Wikipedia article discussing its history. I am not writing that she was responsible for discovering it, she is just a historian who has taken important steps to preserve its memory in local history. Willard is responsible for the Trail of Courage festival and commemorative caravan, if that's what you meant. Here are some mentions of the Trail of Living Courage Festival and caravan from sources not associated with Willard or the Fulton County Historical Society:

https://www.dar.org/national-society/american-spirit-magazine/beacon-history-shirley-willard (Page dedicated to her on the Daughters of the American Revolution website, already in article)

https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/news/local/2018/09/13/caravan-to-trace-potawatomi-trail-of-death-from-rochester/45724091/ (News article about about Trail of Death commemorative caravan Willard organized)

https://www.in.gov/ibc/legacyprojects/3261.htm (entry on Indiana government website about the festival, already in article)

If these sources are satisfactory, I can start reworking the article around these and replace the Fulton Co. Historical Society ones. DeishaJ (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at these sources, but, no, I'm not asking about the trail of death. This article is about HER so we need sources about HER. Lamona (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional sources I've found:

https://www.carrollcountycomet.com/articles/historian-recognized-with-statewide-award/ (News article referencing her Lifetime Achievement award. I have contacted the Indiana Historical Society to see if they have any writings or press releases on her that would work as citations).

https://www.rochsent.com/willard-featured-on-publishers-blog/article_1ec925d0-4190-541b-9020-c01655ba74d8.html (Lists her history and achievements with the Fulton Co. Historical Society. Also mentions her Lifetime Achievement award and Golden Hoosier award, mentions her being a torch bearer in the Indiana Bicentennial Torch Relay. I have confirmed her participation, she is listed here under Fulton County. Link to the page of the Indiana government website I found the PDF on.

Additional sources for consideration:

https://www.potawatomi.org/blog/2016/09/28/chairman-barrett-honored-at-2016-trail-of-courage-festival/

https://www.potawatomi.org/blog/2017/06/27/indiana-declares-indian-day/

I will let others decide if these sources are good enough to work in this article, as they are technically blog posts. I will argue, though, that they are from the official Potawatomi tribe website. These sources mention Willard playing a key role in securing proclamations from Mike Pence and Eric Holcomb in recognition of the Trail of Death and establishing remembrance/heritage days. These might be notable additions to her article, but I am unsure if they would meet proper reference criteria. Is there any way to find good sources for these proclamations:

Mike Pence declaring Sept. 20, 2014 Potawatomi Trail of Death Remembrance Day

Eric Holcomb declaring April 22, 2017 Indiana Indian Day

Thanks!
DeishaJ (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, blog posts are not considered reliable because they are informal and lack a true editorial oversight. The DAR one is pretty good but may not be considered independent because she was a member of DAR and this is a "member profile." Press releases are never considered reliable sources because they are by definition promotional, and thus have a non-neutral point of view. I hope that others will weigh in on the awards. (I advise looking at the documents about those awards - unless you are already familiar with them.) Lamona (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, deletion looks likely, but at least a little more participation is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since I have majorly overhauled the article from when it was originally nominated for deletion, I thought a rundown of my edits would be helpful to the discussion. Notable edits include:

-Major source overhaul: Added several Indiana newspaper articles, two book sources naming her, and replaced all blog sources. All sources that could be considered primary have been replaced except one, the Potawatomi Trail of Death Assn. webpage that states the year of its founding. I am currently looking for alternatives.

-Expansion of her career section: I have both expanded her career section and added a "notable contributions" section. The career section now lists more of her contributions to Indiana history and includes her official appointment as the Fulton County historian by the Indiana Historical Society and Indiana State Historical Bureau. The "notable contributions" section goes into her contributions to specific historical subjects. A major contribution includes establishing 80+ historical markers along the Potawatomi Trail of Death. I hope that these sections better outline her significance in Indiana history.

-Awards: I did end up adding her participation in the Indiana Bicentennial, I thought it was relevant since the torchbearers were selected by a state committee and represented individuals who demonstrated "exceptional public service" as a criteria.

Hopefully these edits do a good job of addressing the original issues with the article. I am still actively editing and will continue doing so unless the article is officially deleted. For more information, please see the article and its improved references section.

Many thanks,
DeishaJ (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Mostly per WP:PROF#C3 on the lifetime achievement award from the Indiana Historical Society, which as a 190+ year-old society passes the "significant society" test to me for possessing judgment about notability of scholars in their field. It is quite rare to have an article on someone whose work is mostly on local history without also having national-etc. level peer-reviewed publications, but she appears to be one of the few who do that. (Note also that the distinction between national and provincial/state level can be tricky with large countries -- Indiana has about the same population as Bulgaria, and we would probably accept a lifetime achievement award from the Bulgarian Historical Society as counting.) -- I came here planning to make the closing easier by casting for delete, but the sources in the article and keep arguments here persuaded me. (forgot to sign) - -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC) (originally 6 July 2025)[reply]
Weak keep With significant improvements to the article I'm inclined to !vote weak keep. In addition to NPROF#3 there are sources that support GNG including [46], [47], [48], [49]. Nnev66 (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

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