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

Roots of Reform Judaism

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

Tagged for notability for more than 10 years and fails WP:NORG. Non-notable constituency within the Union for Reform Judaism, which is a suitable redirect target as an WP:ATD. Per a before, unable to find independent, significant coverage of the group that would establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Tyler

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Literature, and United States of America. Aŭstriano (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

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

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT. No WP:SIGCOV and article is just a plot summary. मल्ल (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Politics, and United States of America. मल्ल (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I couldn't find sufficient coverage of this book to justify the article. The single source it has is the NYT bestseller list, which is meaningless, since every book ever is a NYT bestseller. Cortador (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has now been established. Cortador (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:NBOOK, appearing on the New York Times bestseller list counts as one of the two non-trivial independent published works about the book that we need. The book also gets a paragraph in this article in The Economist, and is briefly discussed in this profile of Savage in the New Yorker. There are also passing mentions in the New York Times [1] [2] and in at least a dozen or so academic books about the American right. This is the kind of book where we're never going to see traditional "reviews" in reliable publications, but it does seem to have been discussed. I don't think what I've found is quite enough yet to satisfy NBOOK, but it's close. MCE89 (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Rubin, Jeff (2005-05-30). "Enjoy Conservative Books at the Beach". Human Events. Vol. 61, no. 19. pp. 400–401. EBSCOhost 17296644.
  The review notes: "In his new book, Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder, he lays it on the line: "You will not have a nation," he says, "unless you awaken to the reality that America has become pacified; America has become feminized; and America is being compromised from without and within. You cannot let them get away with this. Can America be saved? Is it too late? I believe that with God's will and with your determination to confront the mental disorder of liberalism whenever and wherever it is found, America can both survive and thrive." In this book, he shows how. In this third installment of his bold, biting and bestselling trilogy, Savage offers provocative and practical ways to reclaim our social, political and cultural integrity. Through a compelling narrative of current trends and events, Savage chronicles the continued assault on the sacred pillars of American life (the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Ten Commandments, the Sanctity of Marriage) by the High Priests of Ultra-Liberalism. In each chapter, the Savage Spotlight of Truth casts its brilliant light on the tactics used by liberals to spread their leftist agenda. Savage follows his analysis with specific actions, arguments and recommendations for action that the reader can ingest to counter the radical left."
2. Sanders, Ken (2005). "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage". Z Magazine. pp. 56–57. Retrieved 2025-05-24 – via Google Books.
  The review notes: "Want support with that accusation? You're reading the wrong book. Savage's ludicrous hyperbole is offensive not only to those who consider themselves liberal (a term which, by the way, Savage never defines), it is likely offensive to anyone who survived or lost loved ones in Hitler's holocaust. ... In Chapter One , "More Patton , Less Patent Leather," Savage blames liberals and their " trickle-down PC stupidity" for Bush's debacle in Iraq. Savage quotes "one lieutenant colonel who shall remain nameless," as advising his troops on the eve of battle to "tread lightly" in Iraq because of its historical and cultural significance. For Savage, this nameless lieutenant colonel typifies how "liberalism has so warped the sensibilities of Mr. and Mrs. America," that Bush got "trapped trying to fight a politically correct war." There is (at least) one problem with Savage's example of liberalism's weakening U.S. military resolve: the "lieutenant colonel who shall remain nameless" was none other than Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins, commanding officer of the First Battalion of the Royal Irish ..."
3. "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder". AudioFile. April–May 2006. Archived from the original on 2025-05-24. Retrieved 2025-05-24.
  The review notes: "Reader Mark Warner clearly understands Savage's style and seeks to represent it as closely as possible. Warner comes close to capturing Savage's outrage, irony, and humor, but he doesn't capture it completely. Nevertheless, Warner's reading is clear and even-paced."
4. "Fools' gold: As America becomes more polarised, its political writing is getting worse". The Economist. 2005-10-06. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2025-05-24.
  The article notes: "An altogether less agreeable polemicist is Michael Savage, whose latest book is called “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. He calls homosexual activists “brown shorts” and thinks Mr Bush has messed up by not killing nearly enough people in Iraq. He believes that the United Nations and other shadowy international groups are planning to “over-ride our democracy” and replace the Bill of Rights with “a new, watered-down bill of wrongs from the new, ruling bureaucrats”. He wonders why Republican leaders have not warned people about this. He uses the term “village idiots” to describe a body—the Democratic Leadership Council—whose name he cannot spell."
5. Graff, Amy (2020-02-14). "The most commonly stolen book at the San Francisco Public Library may surprise you". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2024-07-23. Retrieved 2025-05-24.
  The article notes: ""The one author our head of collections has to check regularly and purchase new copies of our books by Michael Savage," library spokesperson Kate Patterson wrote in an email. "We check once a year to see if all the copies are gone and reorder. We have moved to e-book for most of them, so we can ensure copies are around. The main title that disappears quickly is 'Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder.'" ... Released in April 2005, 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder' was on the New York Times best-seller list for three weeks and "attacks the insanities and inanities of extreme leftist thought.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hrach Kaprielian

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

Non-notable businessman. Lacking any WP:RS. Cabrils (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Football, Armenia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - @Wcquidditch please consider withdrawing this nomination. I have added over a dozen new citations. He is a well known Armenian businessman and philanthropist. Mainly take a look at these: ankakh.com and westernarmeniatv.com (English documentary of the same is here). There are many more citations if you search his name in Armenian. I stopped looking as I have found enough. I have also greatly expanded the article and his bio.Mysecretgarden (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any withdrawal of this nomination will not be coming from me. I only performed deletion sorting here and am not the nominator — Cabrils (talk · contribs) is. I have no opinion on the nominated article or the new sources. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. @Cabrils seems to be the nominator. I will also message him. Mysecretgarden (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C. Constantin Poindexter

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

Fails WP:BIO. While the creating editor had every right to move this WP:ADMASQ to mainspace, Pointdexter is a WP:ROTM businessperson. WP:NOTINHERITED seems to apply, too. I chose not to return to draft since I view it as unlikely for notability to be discovered, and no amount of editing can conjure it from nowhere 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Dominican Republic, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Brock Jr.

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

It seems to me that this person has only been in the news twice: Once when he was indicted, then again when he was pardoned (both in 2005). This does not seem like significant coverage to me. Aŭstriano (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, United States of America, and Kentucky. Aŭstriano (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in depth coverage found and fails WP:GNG Pasados (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable political party official. SportingFlyer T·C 13:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certinal

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

Sources are press releases and primary sources. Fails WP:NCORP. All available sources from before search are not WP:RS Mekomo (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Did a WP:BEFORE and can't find anything, nor for parent Zycus. Fails WP:NCORP. Creator has a long history of poor articles being challenged, with multiple speedy deletes and abandoned drafts. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Sells

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

WP:BLP of a person not properly sourced as passing any Wikipedia inclusion criterion. The attempted notability claim here is that he was a production assistant on television talk shows, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for it, but the sole footnote is a directory entry rather than anything that would build GNG.
This was also very likely a self-promotional autobiography, as it was created by a single-purpose account named "PhillyGuy23", while the subject apparently attended Temple University in Philadelphia and would have been exactly 23 years old at the time this got created.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without much, much better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. A WP:BEFORE targeted search using Jimmy Kimmel and John Carpenter keywords doesn't turn up anything. Amazing that this survived 16 years, with nothing new being added. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it violates WP:GNG and WP:BIO, there are no RS covering the subject. --hroest 17:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump tax bill

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

Not a proper disambiguation page: descriptive titles are a big no no. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Law, Politics, Disambiguations, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This info is appropriately listed at both First presidency of Donald Trump and Second presidency of Donald Trump navboxes at the bottom of each of those. — Maile (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary - both articles in this page are thoroughly discussed in articles detailing both of Trump's presidencies. Haruka Amaranth 01:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures

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

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of 35.139.154.158 (talk) who requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AFD request - Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures that this article be nominated for deletion. The supplied rationale is:

WP:CFORK of Tactics of terrorism. Collection of this as a distinct topic seems to be due to a single author, C. Flaherty, which not so coincidentally is rather similar to the username of this article's creator and primary contributor.

I am not offering an opinion at this time beyond noting the creator was user:CFlaherty, who has not edited since 2021. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This reminds me of a similar phenomenon for the Airport city and Aerotropolis and John D. Kasarda articles (see comments on the Talk pages of those articles). See also WP:NEOLOGISM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closing admin, if you delete this article, please remember to delete Tactics, techniques, and procedures and Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, both of which redirect here. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tactics of terrorism. I don't think this article supports that this is an "essential concept" in counterterrorism but it does establish that this is a sometimes used synonym/subtopic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In perusing the sources a few do use this term but they seem to be published by the law enforcement agency where the author works, or are ebooks by think tanks that don't have Wikipedia articles. Googling though, the term is used fairly heavilly in law enforcement circles and better soruces pop right out. "Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures" seems to be a specific term used in reliable sources in this field. Addressing the nominator's rationale, the authorship of the Wikipedia article in and of itself is not a reason for deletion. Self-promotion is a red flag for notability issues, but doesn't prove them by itself. I'd be okay with a merge/redirect to Tactics of terrorism if the sourcing for this longer term isn't deemed sufficient. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TTPs are a well-established concept and the writeup is very decent. Judging by the title one might be concerned there would be overlap with the above mentioned article, yet judging by the content this isn't the case. gidonb (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. gidonb (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HaptX

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

Company not shown to meet notability requirements. Nearly all sources are WP:CORPTRIV about startup funding rounds in places like WP:CNET. The Perret & Vander Poorten (2018) article comes the closest to establishing notability; however, it's about the product and does not cover the company in any depth. Originally declined as an AfC draft for failing to meet WP:NCORP, but editor added two more sources since then (Soper (2021), a funding round notice in GeekWire, and Kelly (2022), which covers the company's new product and is in reliable source VentureBeat, but relies too heavily on company press releases and doesn't pass WP:SIRS) and moved to mainspace. Original author has since been blocked for disruptive editing, but this article is not CSD-G5 eligible. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 12:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Technology. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 12:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage of the company (or the product, frankly) in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of mentions and announcements but nothing that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Fails WP:NCORP. Article created by new user who's now blocked for disruptive editing. Article did not pass WP:AFC yet creator still tried to bypass the process by moving the page.- Imcdc Contact 00:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Foundation

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV. No sourcing is available, including the now-dead primary sources. 30Four (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sexuality and gender. 30Four (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:PROMO. Straightforward delete. Charlie (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Bocklandt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black Agenda Report

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

I think this talk page post convinced me Talk:Black_Agenda_Report#Far-left_and_radical. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 05:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, and United States of America. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 05:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the talk page doesn't seem to be about notability? How much do the sources here cover it? They're all reliable and if they are significant it should be fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The initiator of the talk page discussion begins in part by saying: "I haven't found any evidence that BAR meets GNG," but there are reliable sources cited throughout the article. Neither the initiator of that discussion nor the nominator of this deletion discussion have challenged those sources, which makes it difficult for other editors to vote. Obviously any editor can check for themselves, but the initial responsibility falls on the nominator. Yue🌙 17:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dummycrats

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

The only source in the article is a dubiously reliable blog and I was unable to find any actual coverage of the film. Fails WP:NFILM. मल्ल (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Conservatism, and Politics. मल्ल (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Nichols, Alex (2018-11-27). "Diamond and Silk run the most obvious con on the right: The Fox News duo stars in 'Dummycrats,' a new and terrible documentary". The Outline. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
  The article notes: "And so we get the documentary Dummycrats, which was released in theaters for one day on October 16 and is now available for rent ($9.99) or purchase ($19.99) on Vimeo. (Many of the comments on Vimeo are from senior citizens who thought they were getting a DVD and are bewildered by the concept of watching a movie on the computer, but hey — they already bought it.) ... There’s really no reason not to produce one of these amateurish documentaries if you have the ability to; the peculiarities of conservative audiences make it all but impossible to disappoint them. The film’s producer, director, and writer, Kyle Olson, runs the third-string fake news website The American Mirror and is even lazier than Dinesh D’Souza when it comes to filming original content. Given that this was Olson’s first time working on a movie, I would normally be inclined to cut him some slack, but he truly pushes the limits of directorial incompetence. Dummycrats, which is 77 minutes long, opens with an astounding 27 minutes of archival footage. This lengthy segment begins with past Diamond and Silk TV spots and Trump rally appearances and then segues into a clip show of every Democratic gaffe since 1990, set to wacky circus music. You can watch all these on YouTube in higher resolutions than the deep-fried versions used in Dummycrats, but that sort of thing only matters to audiences with an average age younger than 85."
2. Penrice, Ronda Racha (2018-10-23). "From Diamond and Silk to Kanye West: Why Republican efforts to convert black voters are failing". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
  The article notes: "How else to explain the new Diamond and Silk movie “Dummycrats,” which had its one-day theatrical release last week? Far from Oscar fodder, or even the MTV awards, the film is part of a broader, recent trend in which mostly white conservatives have sought out and elevated a series of black surrogates, hoping that these surrogates' often unintelligible, anti-liberal rantings will siphon black voters away from the Democratic Party. ... That support undoubtedly is also why Diamond and Silk now have their own movie, “Dummycrats.” The full-length film was theatrically released for one night only on October 15, but can now be screened on Vimeo. Waters and fellow Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi are the film’s biggest targets. While mostly unnoticed by the mainstream press, “Dummycrats” did get a few positive reviews in more conservative corners of the web. Writing for the conservative site Newsmax, Michael Clark claimed the film would “wake-up undecided voters.” Clark applauds the film’s lighter tone and lists what he sees as its best moments — moments that of course “expose” prominent Democrats."
3. Levine, Jon (2018-09-28). "Diamond and Silk Release Trailer for 'Dummycrats' Movie: 'Two Unlikely Heroes' (Video)". TheWrap. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
  The article notes: "Diamond and Silk have released a teaser trailer for their new film “Dummycrats,” offering a few more clues as to what people can expect when it is released next month. ... The minute-long trailer is a mix of b-roll of Democratic politicians looking silly and the duo shouting at someone off camera. An earlier teaser released by the pair suggested that the film will take the form of a Michael Moore documentary. ... The latest trailer says the film will premiere on Oct. 15, a month later than an original September release date floated three months ago. The film was slated to debut in Palm Beach, Florida — home of Trump’s Mar-A-Lago estate."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Wolcott, James (2019-02-06). "James Wolcott on the Shelf Life of a Deplorable". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
    The article notes: "Some acts, like femme duo Diamond and Silk—whose 2018 documentary Dummycrats is clotted with YouTube clips of the two appearing at Trump events before launching into a prolonged, futile campaign to confront Maxine Waters on camera—seem to be perpetually auditioning for reality TV."
  2. Egan, Paul (2022-08-03). "Who is Tudor Dixon? 4 things to know about Michigan's GOP nominee for governor". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
    The article notes: "A company co-owned by Dixon was a producer of the 2018 film "Dummycrats." The "documentary" attack on former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and longtime California congresswoman Maxine Waters, also a Democrat, featured Black conservative political activist sisters "Diamond and Silk." The film was written and directed by Kyle Olson ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dummycrats to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As has been my practice, I won't big along with a keep unless the sources found are added to the article in context. Bearian (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIY DonaldD23 talk to me 01:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per sources listed above by Cunard DonaldD23 talk to me 01:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 visit by Narendra Modi to the United States

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

The visit mainly got coverage from the Indian media, however, it failed to create any WP:LASTING impact. It also fails WP:NOTNEWS. Wareon (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Events, India, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are a lot of non-Indian reliable sources as well covering the visit (BBC, AP, NBC, Al Jazeera, France 24, see the refs section for article links). This article covers specific agreements and deals made by both leaders, so I believe this is does not violate not-news (as opposed to something just like Modi came to the US). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven’t fully understood WP:NOTNEWS. Routine political visits, even if widely reported, do not meet the notability to create article on it. Chronos.Zx (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote per further information I understood. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting impact is documented about this visit. Modi has visited the US around 10 times, there is nothing significant about this visit any more than the previous ones (see WP:RUNOFTHEMILL), alternately this can be redirected to List of international prime ministerial trips made by Narendra Modi. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given Modi and Trump's February meeting happened just a few weeks before the US tariff announcements - I'd argue there is greater significance to this visit than previous ones. The scale and extent of 'agreements' reached during this meeting was quite large and noteworthy, especially since Trump had only been in office for one month at the time - this fact has been covered significantly in prominent non-indian media. To your point of 'no lasting impact is documented about this visit", here are a few non-Indian sources that covered this meeting and it's significance: CSIS BBC NYT I will note though that the original article needed significant work and if read in it's original form could be perceived as just another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL visit. I've started to revise accordingly. Schwinnspeed (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ratnahastin stated that there is no lasting coverage for this event, in response you have provided sources that were only reporting this event back when it was happening, this only proves Ratnahastin's point. This is a textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles report on the visit itself, but also include why the visit has enduring significance. My point is given the global geo-political events that closely followed, the coverage of this visit was anything but WP:ROUTINE. Schwinnspeed (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Heads of state visiting other countries are routine events which are covered when they happen and very rarely have lasting significance; and if they do, it's generally because of some specific event that takes place that is long remembered. It's been three months, and does anyone much remember Modi even being here, much less what was said or done? Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep-This visit of modi was covered by many reliable non-Indian outlets, including the BBC, AP, NBC, Al Jazeera, France 24 and many more. Also, it Passes WP:GNG, like @Bunnypranav said this article covers some specific agreements and deals made by both leaders. I think it shouldn't be deleted instead it should just be expanded like all other articles about leaders visiting other countries are (like 2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East, 2023 visit by Fumio Kishida to Ukraine, 2023 visit by Xi Jinping to Russia). Also your saying that ^{Heads of state visiting other countries are routine events which are covered when they happen and very rarely have lasting significance It's been three months, and does anyone much remember Modi even being here, much less what was said or done?} then it the article 2023 visit by Xi Jinping to Russia still getting international coverage ?, most of references provided in that article are only Russian and Chinese sources not worldwide. If you think this article should get deleted, then delete that article before since That visit mainly got coverage from the russian and chinese media.
BangashTalib (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Foreign visits should only warrant articles when necessary, e.g. 2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East, an instance of a subject that has a sufficient impact and content that goes broader than agreements between world leaders. WP:NOTNEWS is rightfully applicable given that much of the content here can be read in one of the articles cited. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but article needs significant work - I disagree that this did not receive coverage outside of Indian media, a simple search would uncover its prominent coverage in western media. Regarding its significance, given the meeting covered a substantial trade agreement between the two countries and enhanced military cooperation, and was followed shortly thereafter by Trump's reciprocal tariff announcement as well as his 'involvement' in the India-Pak ceasefire, there is a case to be made for the enduring notability of this event. The article needs to be rewritten and expanded, I have started to do so and suggest we apply a template and give other editors the chance to enhance further before deleting. Schwinnspeed (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of international prime ministerial trips made by Narendra Modi#2025/India–United States relations per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The sources are almost entirely news coverage of a current event, and as Ratnahastin points out, this is a pretty routine visit. Only one of the Reuters articles from the "Significance" section has coverage of the visit after it happened, and that's a passing one-sentence mention. The sources from Schwinnspeed are all news coverage from the time of the visit and don't help address that issue. hinnk (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Not a particularly significant international trip, routine news that doesn't need a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 23:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not every diplomatic visit warrants a standalone article. I don't see sufficient in-depth or lasting significance to justify inclusion per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Chronos.Zx (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1959 Dwight D. Eisenhower visit to Spain

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

The entire article was created in a single edit by User:Hectordej7544 ... and it is a fishy article. No in-line citations; only two sources. And both sources are very broad, generic sources (not specific to the 1959 visit). Another editor tagged the article as "AI-generated".

The WP:Verifiability is paramount, and articles need footnotes and citations to provide confidence. In addition, the editor that creates the articles should have READ the sources before creating the article.

I cannot verify if any of the information is valid, and I am challenging the content and the Notability. Noleander (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Spain, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This visit was apparently a big deal in Eisenhower's presidency. I added a couple of external links that might help. The Remarks Upon Arrival at Torrejon Air Force Base, Madrid is provided via The American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara. — Maile (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC) — Maile (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify Not adequately sourced to establish notability; his brief remarks are just a primary source. Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower#Europe seems to be a better place for a few sentences here rather than a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 04:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. No NEVENT. No evidence of WP:LASTING effect. FOARP (talk)|
Redirect to Foreign policy of the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration#International trips. Fails WP:NEVENT. There are many other short state visits listed here and it isn't clear why this specific visit would be more noteworthy. MidnightMayhem 14:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one was the first to Francoist Spain, and was a significant diplomatic win for Franco. There's plenty of coverage today about the significance of this particular visit. MarioGom (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as a recent creation without inline citations, this should have been draftified. MarioGom (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, if this boils down to notability: this topic does pass GNG and NEVENT, easily and by any metric. Just an example: [3]. MarioGom (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does it pass WP:LASTING? How does it pass WP:NOTNEWS? FOARP (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources to back my claims:

"El día que Eisenhower, el «artífice de la paz», visitó a Franco". ABC (in Spanish). 9 February 2010.

Martín Alarcón, Julio (8 July 2016). "Bienvenido, Mister Eisenhower: el protocolo de las banalidades". El Mundo (in Spanish).

Palacios, Jesús (5 October 2021). "Eisenhower, el mayor éxito internacional de Franco". La Razón (in Spanish).

"Eisenhower, o el triunfo internacional del régimen franquista". La Razón (in Spanish). 21 December 2021.

"La visita de Eisenhower a Franco: así legitimó EEUU a la dictadura como aliado contra el comunismo". La Sexta (in Spanish). 20 May 2022.

These are all between 51 and 63 years after the event. So definitely not breaking news, passes the 10 years test, and WP:SUSTAINED. This is all enough to pass WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS just does not apply to something that had retrospective coverage 50 years after the fact. WP:LASTING is not even required for an event to be notable (it's a proxy to assess recent events), but anyway, sources deem this visit to be a pivotal moment in Francoist Spain international image, since the Government was pretty much isolated until that era. MarioGom (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus exists in this discussion yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, this is a notable topic but this article was clearly generated using LLMs and Artificial intelligence tools. Sources are potentially just AI making it up, at best there would be a passing mention of the event in those books. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma

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

Filming has not yet begun, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 08:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Kpg jhp jm 08:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Draft:Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma: This title was previously a redirect to Jane Schoenbrun until the redirect was overwritten with the move from Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma (film). The article should have been merged with the draft instead of being moved to overwrite the redirect. This article's content should be merged with the draft, along with a WP:HISTMERGE of the two, and then the redirect from this title to Schoenbrun's biography should be restored. Protect this title and any of its variants (which should likewise redirect to Schoenbrun) to prevent any further creation in mainspace until the draft is ready. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a sidenote, the film has actually in fact begun filming per Schoenbrun's Twitter account. However, as reliable secondary sources have not reported on the production at this time, the nominator is correct that the film should not currently have its own article. I would advocate an early WP:IAR close of this AfD to restore the appropriate status quo of redirection and implement the merge to the draft. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have boldly merged this article's content to the draft. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Visual arts, Popular culture, and Sexuality and gender. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG and seems to be a semi-big budget film produced by Brad Pitt and starring Hannah Einbinder and Gillian Anderson. Not your typical run-of-the-mill slasher film. Maybe merge the best parts of the draft to this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't really that much in the draft to speak of. However if the article is kept I believe the draft history should be merged into the history of the mainspace article. Given the significant media attention afforded to Schoenbrun's previous success with I Saw the TV Glow, this film will definitely be worthy of an article, the question at hand in this AfD is whether or not it's WP:TOOSOON. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SilviaASH. Since TOOSOON is an opinion essay, and this page is already GNG well-sourced as a film which is now actually filming and not in the idea stage, I felt a keep the better option. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Filming had begun ^[1] --ProudWatermelon (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://x.com/sapphicspielbrg/status/1921957642097889287

Comment: I'm a little leery about keeping this based on the current sourcing. While filming has started, that's just the starting line - the moment at which we can start considering if a film's production is notable. There's really no coverage that I can find of the filming. There are some announcements about the cast and so on, but not really anything about the filming. My point here is this: let's assume that either everything stops here or the movie were to get indefinitely shelved and we have zero further coverage of any of this. Or it releases and, despite the involved people, it gets no fanfare or reviews. Would the current sourcing be enough to pass NFILM/NFF? My concern is that we're banking on future coverage to more firmly push this into NFF or NFILM territory. It's just that I've seen films get kept at stages like this, only to end up getting deleted at an AfD further on down the line so there's a risk of kicking the can further down the road and there being additional work to search for sourcing later. I mean, odds are high that this will release and gain coverage, but like I said, there were a lot of other films where this was also assumed and it never released - and not every unreleased film gets Batgirl type coverage. Not saying I'm going to argue against this, just that this should be considered. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I basically agree with you on all this. It's almost certainly going to be finished and will definitely be notable when it does, but it's best to be safe rather than sorry with these kinds of things. Given the borderline nature of this case I can understand some preferring to keep it, but given that there's not that much to cover about the film at this juncture besides the plot synopsis and the director and cast, I don't see much of a reason to not hold the article in draftspace. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"there's not that much to cover about the film at this juncture besides the plot synopsis and the director and cast" so you mean everything meaningful about a film ? And there's more than that 2A01:CB0C:8827:E100:51DD:6B0D:C17:2B9 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The director, cast and plot synopsis is obviously not everything meaningful about a film. That may be meaningful enough for an iMDB entry, but articles that amount to database entries on Wikipedia are undesirable. Ideally there should be more to say, like about the production and the reception and its cultural impact. Schoenbrun's previous film, I Saw the TV Glow, has a reasonably fleshed out article with these details. The article on the first John Wick film, a featured article, has many, many more meaningful details. The article for Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma is basically a WP:STUB, and if it is retained, will likely remain so until further substantive coverage of it comes out. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously, we can't predict the future, that's a weird complaint, do you want to right its reception and cultural impact before it's released ? it's like that for every movie page, hell half of them are emptier. 2A01:CB0C:8827:E100:51DD:6B0D:C17:2B9 (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"it's like that for every movie page, hell half of them are emptier" Yeah, well, they shouldn't be. And, no, I don't want to write about the reception before it's released. I'm arguing that because there is nothing much to write yet, there shouldn't be an article until there is.

On Wikipedia, we like to be reasonably certain that a future event is going to take place before writing about it, per WP:CRYSTAL. The general idea is to not waste editor time and effort on creating and maintaining an article on something that is expected to be notable, but then gets cancelled or abandoned and then no longer has any chance of having a worthwhile article written about it. Some future topics meet notability far in advance, like the 2028 United States presidential election, which is obviously notable despite not having yet happened. It's almost certain that it will happen, and it is not subject to regular WP:CRYSTAL concerns because it not happening would be obvious major news with significant historical implications.

But other topics, like future films, need a bit more lead up before they're sure things. Films get cancelled all the time, and with rare exception, they're usually forgotten not long after with very little coverage of their failure, so unfinished films are rarely notable. As I said, it's a borderline case, because this film just started filming but hasn't got much coverage yet, so I think it might be a little too soon. Others disagree with my opinion, however, and that is the thrust of this deletion discussion. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yenne, Indiana

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

A crossroads with one farmstead which judging by the aerials has hardly changed in seventy years. So given that it's named after a postmaster, almost certainly just a 4th class post office. Searching produced lots of people named "Yenne" but nothing of substance. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Location did exist, as the article explains. Article is supported by valid sources. If someone ever searches for this location, it's reasonable to locate this article. There's no harm in keeping it, and no specific violation of Wikipedia policy or guidelines to delete it. Truthanado (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see I will have to spell it out. As a rule, per WP:GEOLAND, only settlements get a pass on having to satisfy WP:GNG, which this place certainly does not: it's barely attested to, and by two sources which have problems. Of you will take a look at WP:GNIS, you can see the kind of problems with it that have caused us to disregard its "populated place" categorization as implying a settlement. In this case it's clear that the place was a 4th class post office, back before RFD, when people had to go and pick up their mail rather than having it delivered. We've found these in all sorts of places, and having it someone's house is quite common. That leaves us with Baker's place names origin book. After all this time in Indiana, it has become clear that when he says a place is a village, he's not very reliable about that.

As far as the "harm" is concerned, first off, the WP euphemism of "community" to describe these places is largely unsourceable. It is quite clear after years of dealing with hundreds of these that "populated place" cannot be taken to imply a town or a "community" because there are too many flat-out mistakes, never minding the whole post office thing. We've consistently held that these 4th class post offices aren't notable. "Community" doesn't mean anything concrete anyway. In a lot of cases we can find turn-of-the-century county histories which are generally pretty clear about places where there was an actual town or at least an attempt to have one. The problem in the large is that these articles were mass-created from GNIS without appreciation of its problems, and in some states (though not Indiana so much) the other sources such as place name books were misrepresented. "Community" seems to have been seized upon in an attempt to have people read these places as towns which satisfy GEOLAND without actually claiming that they were towns. So the issue is really about telling the truth about these places, because if truth were told, that many of these were just places to pick up mail, or places with passing sidings and perhaps a station stop on the railroad, or summer camps and resorts, they would be deleted because they don't satisfy GNG. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per GNG, not more than a post office. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe's detailed argument on the available sourcing failing GEOLAND and GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a onetime post office, fails WP:GEOLAND without high-quality sources (a listing of post offices is no such thing), plus all the reasons nom listed. As for "no harm in keeping it", our articles are constantly being scraped for geolocations and to train AI, and keeping nonsense stubs like this is polluting these data with noise. I just typed "yenne indiana auto detailing" into Google and at the top of the list were two Yelp listings for auto detailing "near" Yenne, and only after consulting a map could you determine they were all 50+ miles away. We don't need to be enabling monetized garbage like this by keeping useless articles on nonexistent subjects. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Gannet

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources lack independent depth, and the article reads like WP:PROMO. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See this deletion log also. & the provided sources [ SonicScoop, SongChecks, Mixonline] are primarily interviews/industry publications that not provide independent coverage per WP:GNG. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SonicScoop and MixOnline are fully independent publications. Would alternate or additional sources help correct the issue? The article is not intended as promo and appears to read similarly to other Wikipedia pages regarding other notable recording/mixing engineers. 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed what I am guessing may have been the offending sections. Please advise if any additional changes are necessary 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

additional sources included and tonal revisions made 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly some WP:COI editing going on with @Konakaimusic and 148.74.79.119. The Music Connection and Songchecks sources don't name any authors, and do little more than reprint his press releases. I don't see any actual in-depth journalism there. Rift (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
148.74.79.119 and Konakaimusic are both me… edits were made from 2 different devices and one wasn’t signed in to Wikipedia. Is that not permitted? Additionally, subject is interviewed about his work in several podcasts, however they are predominantly audio/video. Are those site-able references? Konakaimusic (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:LOUTSOCK, WP:DBLOCK. If you are disrupting Wikipedia, adding support to your arguments by using multiple accounts/IPs in any discussion and not being open about it, it is not allowed per above and others.

It is an advice to avoid using IP when you have an ID. IPs are also tracked/trackable but your ID grants you certain rights and covers for that. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. This was in no way done with any disruptive, devious or malicious intent, just a function of working on multiple devices and being a novice on wikipedia. I appreciate the information and will not make that mistake in the future. Konakaimusic (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not checked that on the page itself. You have cleared the doubts and told about two - IP and ID. Furthermore, avoid using them both again in any discussion, it will look like asserting your opinion by two spaces and may or may not give wrong idea to others. Just as a precautionary measure, don't use IP here. < s> you can use these to strike out IP comments without any space after < or /. </ s > I gave spaces just to show it to you. It will look like this ~~AtrofeliciousGrazzostauras~~.

I am assuming good faith, I believe you. Also, WP:TEAHOUSE is the way to go for when you have a question or doubts! Happy editing! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding more in depth journalistic resources, are podcasts/tv shows/music videos citable sources? The subject has been interviewed on several podcasts, appeared in many music videos with notable artists and has been referenced/appeared on multiple television programs relative to his career and artists he has worked with. I'd like to add additional resources but would like to avoid making any additional mistakes or adding any unacceptable citations. Konakaimusic (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Share sources here. Other editors will evaluate them. Just go through WP:NMUSICIAN and read the points there to understand the best about sources needed.

Official verified YouTube channels of known RS news magazines or papers or media houses will also work to verify some particular statements and facts for example, their personal life or career or views. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy that. Thank you for your help. Will add references here for review. Konakaimusic (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TruVista Communications

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 02:02, 16 May 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! 02:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are sources showing it exists, but nothing that comes close to WP:ORGCRIT. I found it strange that a company claiming to be more than 100 years old has no online presence. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Chester Telephone Company was started in 1897 as privately-owned independent telephone company to serve the small rural town of Chester, South Carolina. In the 1980s, it was one of the investors in a successful regional fiber network, PalmettoNet,^[4] that sold broadband capacity and dark fiber to large long distance telecoms and big corporate users. It also began acquiring small cable TV systems and now says it serves about 60,000 customers.^[5] Over the years, Chester Telephone, then TruVista got industry coverage for deploying new (at the time) technologies.^[6] TruVista was purchased by a big private equity firm, iCON Infrastructure, in 2019 and operates autonomously. ^[7] I personally think we should have an article about this company since it's part of the history of rural telecommunications. I know it would meet WP:GNG. However, companies have to meet Wikipedia's much more restrictive WP:NCORP guideline which effectively disqualifies most otherwise reliable press coverage (including major events such as "the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business") from notability consideration. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT (regardless of what name it was at the time), then it would meet NCORP. Makes sense that it had numerous name changes since there really isn't anything out there under the current name. I would be happy to change my vote if you can provide the links. I do not have access to ProQuest unfortunately though. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Brestin

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

Fails WP:BIO. Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prohibits unilateral return top Draft. WP:ROTM author. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Christianity, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet WP:RS standards and at least half are just profiles on non-independent sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a couple independent sources covering Brestin's work, namely, a 2010 review of her book in the journal Death Studies; a 2019 Publishers Weekly book review; and a bit of analysis of her 2002 book by Kathaleen Amende in Desire and the Divine: Feminine Identity in White Southern Women's Writing (Louisiana State University Press). There's also an interview with Today's Christian Woman magazine she did alongside a co-author, though I'm not sure how much that factors into WP:NAUTHOR. These sources have been added to the article. Best, Bridget (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources provided above and below by Nnev66 for WP:NAUTHOR. Bridget (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found newspaper articles about the subject, two of which were about her book "The Friendships of Women" and I've added them to the article. With the sources Bridget found, meets WP:NAUTHOR #3 and possibly WP:GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the additional reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I just want to say that this is incredibly poorly written. I fixed a few of the worst mistakes. It's almost impossible to get past the typos for me to judge the notability of the subject. Bearian (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third Republic of Vietnam

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

Delete or merge to the article of its leader, Dao Minh Quan. Article topic fails WP:ORG, as all the reliable secondary sources provided only mention the government-in-exile in passing as an affiliation of opposition figures who were arrested. None of the content about the group itself is cited (i.e. its institutions, activities, organisation, etc.), and I was unable to find reliable coverage for it online or in local print. Yue🌙 19:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Vietnam, and United States of America. Yue🌙 19:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to have engagement in the discussion with consensus reaching per participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really not sure what to do with this. The page as it is shouldn't exist for notability and fringe reasons, but the sources suggest the political group behind it is notable and that doesn't have an article. Redirecting to Dao Minh Quan is perhaps a stopgap, but it is not ideal. CMD (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yue I can see that I'm not the only editor who didn't found sources about its institutions , activities , organisations etc...

Researches were made in English and in French (My native tongue) but unhappily not in Vietnamese.

I don't know Vietnamese. Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart of Edna Leslie

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

I did my WP:BEFORE and found that it does not meet both WP:RS and WP:N. It is a silent film with almost no reliable sources, not worthy of Wikipedia DankPedia (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given that the film was released in 1910, sourcing is understandably sparse. I added a link to this title on Turner Classic Movies. The old silent films are difficult to source. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC) - Well, I just found a link to the The Meridian Morning Record of October 24, 1910 that reviewed the film. Hope this helps. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found some additional ones in Newspapers.com - they're short and some of them are of course posted in multiple places, but they're there. ([8], [9]) I'd like some more in-depth content though, if possible. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Halocene

AfDs for this article:

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

While this isn't a G4, the substance of the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halocene do not appear to have been addressed by this new draft and merger. Since the decision is two years old, a new consensus may be helpful. Bringing it here for discussion. Star Mississippi 01:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Television, United States of America, and Arizona. Star Mississippi 01:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Saw this earlier but was going to let the dust settle a day prior to bringing to AfD. Page created despite draft being declined multiple times. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to The Masked Singer (Australian TV series)#Controversy (effectively endorsing the closure of the first AfD). Now that I've the energy to sit and do WP:BEFORE search, I've found mostly press releases or routine announcements, some of which are cited in the article itself. Many of the in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources are about the plagiarism accusations. I had done the merge because a patroller (?) found Halocene (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and requested a pageswap with the base page name. I thought it better to keep the extensive page history at plain old Halocene, especially since (band) only has my merge, the patroller's addition of a short description and hatnote, and the recreator's writing. (For transparency, nominator notified me about this AfD on my user talk.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with aggregating the history together in the event Halocene becomes notable and have no issue with any of your actions here @Rotideypoc41352. I also notified the creator of the new article so that you were both aware since the script "saw" the creator as the the one who created the article deleted in 2023. I'm guessing the history was somewhere as this is a remarkable first edit even assuming Rledder had been active as an IP before registering for easy creation. Star Mississippi 12:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just didn't want the potential contradiction between my initial actions (removing the redirect) and my comment here [to restore it] to confuse the closer or anyone else looking into this AfD, so I thought I would clarify that the merge was more about attribution and page history than about notability. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect with history in tact to The Masked Singer (Australian TV series)#Controversy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. I created this in good-faith but for some reason a promotional version was restored - I've removed unsourced and promotional content. Halocene has received coverage beyond The Masked Singer controversy, coverage dates back to 2011 when Phoenix New Times covered it ([10]). Two state-level publications have covered it including Phoenix New Times and Arizona Republic and meets WP:SIGCOV thresold. Phoenix New Times covered it in-depth in 2011, 2017, and 2020. Rock Sound covered it in 2023. None of these sources were provided by editors in the previous draft or deletion discussion. There are more references in music magazines as well and should be kept. Rledder (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for cleaning up the article and for leaving a detailed comment here. I see what I consider to be an acceptable variability in judgment on which sources show the band meets GNG (or WP:NBAND). The first two [external] links are to the same source (explaining for closer's convenience)—and it is an interview, which is not independent of the subject and doesn't help determine if they meet GNG. I have no firm opinion on the 2017 PNT article; the 2020 one does meet the WP:SIRS criteria. I read the 2023 Rock Sound piece as a routine announcement (of a new release) and thus not significant coverage of the band (and maybe not even for the single itself, tangentially). Returning to the topic at hand, I do not know if we have had consensus that two sources shows that this subject meets GNG. As nominator said, this discussion will hopefully clarify that and the evaluation for notability purposes of the sources we can find. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying for closer that WP:SIRS in my reply above simply refers to the bullet points under WP:GNG: secondary sources independent of the subject, reliable, and contain significant coverage of the subject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the band passes WP:GNG/WP:NBAND. As it currently stands, with two articles that meet WP:SIRS criteria, it passes that test. While I see merit in the redirect option, a read into the band's article and the sources linked suggests that while the controversy surrounding The Masked Singer did play a major factor, their notability is not solely derived from that incident.

(also a minor declaration that I was the one who happened to patrol the article as Rotideypoc mentioned) Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share the sources which you feel show it passes GNG/NBAND? Also, how does SIRS apply as that is a company guideline? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SIRS does apply to the source materials, which shows a likely level of notability associated with the subject. In this case, having at least one quoted article in 2019 coming from The Arizona Republic - the most widely circulated newspaper in Arizona - infers a presumable notability that goes statewide.

In addition to The Masked Singer controversy article(s), one of which was the aforementioned quoted article, the 2020 Phoenix New Times article @Rledder mentioned earlier in the discussion states that the band has taken what was back in 2020 considered a lesser-adopted approach to Twitch as a platform, and are recognized by the streaming platform for it. That in itself merits independent notability from The Masked Singer, and a degree of notability that is non-trivial. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but SIRS has NO application for this page. It is a subject specific notability guideline dealing with companies, not musicians and/or bands. You have also failed to cite the requested sources that show notability under GNG or NBAND. Do you have those available for the discussion? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede on the SIRS part as this may have been my misunderstanding on how it's applied in sources. As to the requested sources: The Arizona Republic article (reference 9), as well as the PNT article in question (reference 4). Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for conceding. The AP article is paywalled but I am assuming it was prior to 2023? I should have specified that I am looking for sources showing notability since the last deletion discussion where it was found they were not notable. We are not here to relitigate the previous AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here and, in some parts of the discussion, not even agreement on acceptable standards for sources. I think a bit more discussion will help and maybe a bit more editor participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per DemocracyDeprivationDisorder. Close enough to meet WP:GNG. 38.74.35.75 (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seven (record producer)

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

No appearance of notability (only other sources I could find were primary source interviews) + NOTDB vio. PROD rejected due to number of incoming links, but I don't see why that answers the concerns I mentioned. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - impressive work, assuming it's all true, but under WP:BLP, everything must be sourced - and almost nothing is. Producers are not automatically notable. We need significant coverage. Ping me if you can rescue this. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To generate a thorough consensus. The focus should be on whether this article deserves to be kept or not and why.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HilssaMansen19 Unclear what the latter comment is referring to here. Both mine and Bearian's comments are entirely regarding the validity of the article on notability grounds. Is this trying to imply otherwise, or just generally reminding users of this for no other reason? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi QuietHere,

Yes, in general to remember the focus is on policy based arguments of either side for new participants. Also, to get thorough/clearer consensus based engagement as mentioned. As there is only one comment that is of Bearians beside yours. Both are well-written points. Happy editing! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brute Band and Show

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

No evidence of notability. A WP:BEFORE search shows absolutely nothing of value, and subject does not appear to be notable enough for a standalone article. Fails WP:NBAND. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Coast Conference women's basketball Rookie of the Year

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

Seemingly no non-routine coverage in secondary sources. Bulk nom and I have done some WP:BEFORE on all of these Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Basketball, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to have a lot more feedback for a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pac-12 Conference Men's Basketball Most Improved Player of The Year. Meets WP:LISTN with coverage of the grouping: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been More sources added here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs) 08:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pac-12 Conference Men's Basketball Sixth Man of the Year. Meets WP:LISTN with additional coverage of the grouping added here.—Bagumba (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. For Big East Conference Women's Basketball Defensive Player of the Year, I was easily able to find reliable secondary sources referencing each of the first 20 recipients of this award from 1997 through 2016 and added the references to the table here. There was a plethora of choices from which I was able to select. You will note that many of the references are not simply published lists from press releases but stories that went beyond routine coverage. Also, coverage in newspapers outside the locality of the award winners was present. This is beyond the standard set by WP:NLIST, since each individual entry does not need to be notable. While I suspect the article in this bulk nomination lack in referencing to demonstrate their notability, it is the referencing that is lacking, not the notability. They deserve tags stating such, but they should not be deleted. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atul (company)

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG, no significant independent coverage in reliable sources & most important article is promotional in tone. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, China, United Arab Emirates, India, Gujarat, Brazil, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -Atul is a noted company of India founded in 1947 , listed both on National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange [11] with Stock Price of Rs 6773/-, Please do WP:BEFORE before nominating and read WP:DEL before nominating articles for deletion Jethwarp (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that listed companies on major stock exchanges are not immediately presumed notable and still require sources to demonstrate notability (see WP:LISTED), but I would be very surprised if this one is not notable. The problem is that when I try to search for sources, the results are clogged by a huge amount of routine discussion of this company's stock price. Might count as an indicator of notability, though. Toadspike [Talk] 18:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The company passes both WP:CORP and WP:GNG , so the nominator rationale for deletion does not hold here. He says no significant independent coverage in reliable sources which is not true. 03:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
independent sources is still required per WP:CORP and WP:GNG, I conducted a WP:BEFORE search and found primarily routine financial reports like stock price updates, which do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH for significant coverage. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just would like to add that WP:CORPDEPTH argument does not hold here, there are substantial coverage in books and news media about Atul Limited. It is not a small a medium sized company , it is a large multi specialty chemicals manufacturing conglomerate which has spread its wings across the globe in these 8 decades. Also there is nothing promotional in the article, everything mentioned is a fact. The Lalbhai group are one of the most low-profile people, who hold highest esteem for their integrity, never involved in any controversy and known for their phinlantrohic activities also never seeking media attention and limelight. I have added many citations and expanded the article in last few days. Although I had removed promotional tag, it was added back without mentioning which part of article is promotion. It's current market cap is 19,995 crores, which is 199950 Millions. Jethwarp (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains substantial coverage, as I can observe. This is unequivocally a Keep. AndySailz (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on mentioned references in the article which is generally a reliable and independent references. Fade258 (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references cited are generally reliable and independent. Notability is not questionable. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article has good reference & coverage. Ogambo obmagom (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state welcome signs

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

A dictionary definition of a welcome sign, followed by a gallery. Fails to establish notability. See also: WP:NOTGALLERY. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many of these photos are also copyvios. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely copyvios, since these are all from Commons category|Road signs by country - Commons would have deleted copyvios. — Maile (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that Pi is an administrator on Commons? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep per WP:NLIST. There are sources for this group of things: "50 state road trip: State welcome signs" and "State welcome signs from around the USA", both USA Today; "Which U.S. State Welcome Sign Is The Best?", BuzzFeed; "50 Welcome Signs for the 50 United States of America", Condé Nast Traveler; "The Welcome Sign from Every State in America", Reader's Digest. Who would've guessed it? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a textbook case of WP:NOTGALLERY. I don't buy the copyvio argument above (except maybe with one or two exceptions), but that's really beside the point. At best, this belongs on Commons. There's no way to verify that these are current, or that a state doesn't use multiple variants, etc. -- just a bunch of (often low quality) snapshots of these things. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we actually have a bot that periodically goes through all articles and deletes state-owned images. An example is here, which removed an image I'd put on. The exception is if the images were taken individually and uploaded individually. The bot takes time and makes errors. Just an FYI. Bearian (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST as others have said. Also individual state welcome signs (and tourism slogans in general) generally tend to be notable with sources written about them whenever they're changed. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a discussion based on the source eval of the sources found, as well as on the notability on the list as a whole entity per NLIST?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see lists of signs like this from other countries. Each state has to delineate itself from another, but that is not enough for notability or a stand alone article. Each state sign can be put into the main article of the state if anything is to be salvaged. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST this looks nice. As to the comment above about other countries having lists like this, please refer to Category:Road signs by country. — Maile (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's source coverage specific to US welcome signs, see [12]. MarioGom (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list meets WP:NLIST. That leaves the other question - do we want this information? Does it violate WP:NOT? Personally, I am not especially interested in the United States' state welcome signs but I note that this page averages 45 page views per day (excluding bots and crawlers). That's more than the average WP page. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While interesting, this is a clear violation of WP:NOTGALLERY, as noted by the IP editor above, as the signs are shown with zero context. They would require context to make this a viable list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at book and academic sources available online, there seems to be a lot of in-depth literature and analysis of American welcome signs at the local level. At the state level so far, it seems to be mainly newspaper and magazine articles (precisely because it makes for such an attractive gallery-type article). Let's keep digging. (Maybe someone has access to a real physical library with books like this?) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGALLERY. This is not an article, it is a photo collage. There is essentially no prose or substance to it. I'm a little concerned at those who are looking at similar photo montages in publications and using them to support significant coverage claims - we would need articles that actually discuss the signs as a whole (and "discussed" is the exact verbiage in NLIST) rather than simply list photos of them with little or no further context. This article also asserts that each state has just one kind of welcome sign, which is not true, and does not check for the timeliness of the supposed "current" signs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Textbook case of WP:NOTGALLERY here, and the lack of coverage of these signs as a group leads to WP:NLIST not being met here. Let'srun (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+delete Besides WP:NOTGALLERY, there's also the implication that each state has one distinctive sign type. I don't think that's true in Maryland, and I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't true in other states. The style of sing evolves over time, but older signs are not necessarily replaced promptly; I also recall that on some more prominent roads there is more elaborate signage at some crossings. This feels like a commons category, not a list article. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't an article, it's a WP:GALLERY, and as Mangoe pointed out there are states with several welcome sign designs because of age or historic notability, along with several 'local' areas such as the state line between the Kansas Citys where there isn't expected to be a welcome sign at every intersection of State Line Road. Other signs are obnoxious WP:PROMO for their governor's initiatives with taglines (Florida especially, and any state which uses 'open for business') and switched out between governorships. Nathannah • 📮 22:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bravelets

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

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search. Although they have a considerably large social media following, it does not contribute to notability. No secondary coverage found that would satisfy WP:NORG or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, United States of America, and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears a decent amount of the coverage that was there in 2016 - including some of the sources I used in the article itself - have disappeared in the last decade. It's a shame I can't see the Austin.com article anymore. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the jewelry company may be notable, I will try to search for additional sources.--Amlikdi (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Council on Compensation Insurance

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

There are no references at all to this insurance-related industry-funded company in Florida. FeralOink (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. FeralOink (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article needs to be improved and sourced (If I have time I will do those things later,) but this article has reliable sources and the subject is notable. After all, notability is based off of the existence of sources, not just the ones in the article. It's also a non-profit, not really a company. Here we go: [13][14][15][16][17][18] (Primary, non independent source), [19][20][21][22][23][24]. In essence, this is a data collection non profit for the insurance industry, and its relatively influential and important. Clearly passes the WP:GNG and the WP:NORG guidelines. In the future, please conduct an adequate WP:BEFORE check. --AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AnonymousScholar49 is correct, that there exist some good sources that someone could add to the article, e.g. US Bureau of Labor Statistics and Insurance Journal are legit. As for this being a non-profit, I don't know about that. It is described as "a U.S. insurance rating and data collection bureau specializing in workers' compensation. Operating with a not-for-profit philosophy and owned by its member insurers...". I'm not sure why this is important but merely responding to Anon.--FeralOink (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY, I’ve cleaned up the article and added WP:RS sources from the U.S. Department of Labor, Reuters, and Insurance Journal (2). Promotional and unsourced content has been removed or, where appropriate, clearly tagged. The article now meets WP:THREE and satisfies notability under WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 09:28, 21 May 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

[1] ttps://x.com/sapphicspielbrg/status/1921957642097889287

[1]