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

UP! (Forrest Frank and Connor Price song)

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

Seems to fail WP:NSONG; I am unable to find sufficient WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. There is this with three or four sentences of independent coverage, as well as this blog post and trivial mentions like this. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Christianity, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thy Kingdom Come (Transformation Worship album)

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

Seems to fail WP:NALBUM; I am unable to find any in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources. JTtheOG (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Christianity, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformation Worship: I also failed to find coverage, including in the Christian sources listed as RSMUSIC. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformation Worship, per QuietHere, as an alternative to deletion. I also can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Charting on a niche/genre chart does not meet the criteria for WP:NALBUM, which refers to the primary music chart for a country. The creator of the article seems to be on a mission to create articles for every Christian music album, despite having WP:NMUSIC and WP:NALBUM and the requirements for significant coverage pointed out to them on several occasions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tzameret Fuerst

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

Advert. all sources are PR, no in-depth personal coverage --Altenmann >talk 15:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Israel, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomad (app)

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

The app seems to have no notability and what appears to be a bogus link to another company, with no reliable sources confirming it. The sources provided with mentions of the Nomad app appear to be promotional in nature and therefore I believe that this article should be deleted. Nyxion303 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business. Nyxion303 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Not sure what exactly the Nominator means by bogus link to another company. If he means their website URL is not them, then he is wrong. There is a link to their website from Apple here and also Aljazeera, so there is nothing bogus about it. Here are a list of sources that confirm they are notable: NY Times has a good coverage on them, Wall Street Journal has coverage on them, CNBC has selected them as one of 9 best eSIM cards and has a good amount of info on them, techradar has a great lengthy review on them and Drift Travel has a review on them. There are several others, but I believe these are enough to show notability.

I also think this nominator may not have enough experience yet to be doing deletion nominations, seeing that his account was only created about 15 days ago at the time of nomination. Maybe he should hold off doing nominations, until he is more experienced. I will be checking some of his other edits/nominations (if any) and if I find any issues, I'll report him to the admins.Jasonswat (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE~~ ADDITIONAL COMMENT— In regards to the “bogus link to another company” comment that I made, allow me to explain. In the history section of the article, there is a mention of the app being “a business line of LotusFlare, Inc., a [...] company founded by former Facebook and Microsoft engineers”. What I meant is that the fact the company (Nomad) is owned by another company which was founded by former engineers of well-known companies is being used as a way to make Nomad appear more notable. A company does not automatically become notable because of their parent company or the founders of the parent company it belongs to.

The article itself fails to demonstrate that Nomad, meets WP:GNG. To be notable, a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. While the app is mentioned in several sources, the coverage appears to be brief or trivial. Many of the references in the article (e.g: TechRadar, Mashable, PCMag) are general roundups or listicles of "best eSIMs for travel," where Nomad is briefly mentioned without substantial analysis or focus.

The sources cited (e.g: New York Times, Wall Street Journal) mention Nomad in the context of eSIM technology, but these mentions do not provide significant coverage focused on Nomad itself. The app itself does not appear to offer any groundbreaking technology or features that distinguishes it significantly from competitors. The services it provides (e.g: mobile data plans for international travelers, regional eSIM plans) are common in the eSIM industry and are offered by many similar companies. As a result, the subject does not appear to contribute uniquely or meaningfully to the broader field of eSIM or telecommunications technology.

While the app is noted for its use during communication blackouts in Gaza, the mention is trivial and not well-supported by significant independent coverage. This does not elevate the app to notability in terms of enduring or widespread coverage.

Some other sources, like Mashable and TechRadar, appear to be affiliate or promotional content, which is discouraged under Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:NOTADVERTISING). The article includes promotional language, such as descriptions of Nomad’s features and services, without critical or analytical discussion. Phrases like "Nomad eSIMs take the tension out of international data travel" (sourced from Mashable) and the inclusion of extensive product details suggest that the article may serve more as an advertisement than as a neutral encyclopedia entry.

On your last point. I appreciate your concern that you believe I may be an inexperienced editor. We all start from somewhere. However, threatening to report me to the administrators is not appropriate. If you find something worthy of the administrator team's attention, by all means make them aware but please don't use that as a way to discourage myself or other editors to make contributions to Wikipedia. I have seen editors who have been here for years who are clueless about so much and I have seen other editors who know so much in a short period of time because of their genuine interest.

Time on Wikipedia does not automatically make someone more knowledgeable; knowledge makes someone knowledgeable. I hope we can now stay on-topic.

Nyxion303 (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. You cannot post additional Delete votes as a nominator as your nomination is already considered a delete vote, but welcome to post comments. You are welcome to your opinion, but I vastly disagree with your point of view. the NY Times had a good amount of coverage on them and it is one of the biggest publications. Yes they are one of many eSIM companies out there, but consistently ranked as one of the Top 10 on multiple publications. I did notice that some publications may have Amazon or affiliate links, but I have tried to avoid the ones hat have not actually performed an independent testing, so that way we can have honest reviews. As you know almost all publications make money from advertisements and affiliate links, that does not mean they are not reliable. For example CNBC describes their methodology on how they selected their top 9 list here. Drift Travel has no affiliate links and did a 9 paragraph review on them. PC Mag also has a review here and as their website the test all products that are reviewed.

Also, the fact that the founders were ex-Facebook employees is only part of their history, information commonly posted about founders on all company pages. To accuse someone of intentionally inserting that to make them notable is ridiculous. This is why I say you are not experienced enough to be nominating pages for deletion. You should refrain from further nominations until you have more experience.Jasonswat (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Jason, for taking the time to reply. Regarding the sources you’ve provided, I’d like to respectfully disagree with your assessment of their significance under Wikipedia’s guidelines. While, yes, New York Times is a reputable publication, its mention of Nomad is brief and part of a broader discussion about eSIM technology. This does not constitute significant, in-depth coverage of the app itself as required by WP:GNG. Similarly, while the Wall Street Journal and other sources, such as PCMag and Drift Travel, provide reviews or mentions of Nomad, these mentions are primarily product-focused or listicles (as I mentioned in one of my previous comments) and do not analyze the app's unique impact or significance within its field. Lists like the one from CNBC, even with a stated methodology, are still curated recommendations rather than comprehensive, independent evaluations of the app’s notability. In the case of PCMag, anyone reading that will see it for what it is; a promotional piece.

Regarding the information about the founders, I want to clarify that I am not accusing anyone of intentionally inserting this detail to fabricate notability. The point is that a company's association with founders who used to be ex-employees of a known company or a parent company which in its own right may be notable does not automatically make its child-company also notable. This is a common misunderstanding, and the emphasis should remain on whether the subject itself (Nomad, in this case) meets Wikipedia’s notability standards independently — in this case, I'm afraid, it simply does not.

Lastly, once again, I understand your concerns about my experience level as an editor. While I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I have taken great care to familiarise myself with the relevant policies and guidelines, including those regarding notability. Constructive contributions on WP and adherence to policy are not exclusive to editors who have been here for years. Yourself, for example, only created your own account mere days before I did, however, I have not pointed that out for the simple reason that it is not relevant to the discussion about the deletion of the article and off-topic. I believe we should focus on the content and merits of this discussion rather than making assumptions about an editor's capabilities based on their time on the platform.

Nyxion303 (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I have reservations about the nominator's claim that it has no notability. According to my research, this app has been downloaded over 100,000 times on the Google Play Store and is ranked in the top 100 travel apps on the App Store. In addition, data from Similarweb shows that the average monthly visits to this website is around 600,000. So I think it has notability. Howiezhao (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE —~~ ADDITIONAL COMMENT— Thank you for your input. I appreciate you writing here and for sharing the statistics. Now, while the stats about the number of app downloads, app ranking and website traffic may indicate some level of popularity, they do not in themselves satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:GNG). To address each of your claim separately:

(1): Download numbers and rankings don't establish notability. Wikipedia evaluates notability based on independent, significant, and reliable secondary sources (WP:GNG). Stats like app downloads (100,000 ) or rankings on app stores (e.g: top 100 travel apps) are primary data and metrics provided by platforms like the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store. These metrics reflect usage but don't actually equate to significant independent coverage by reliable sources that analyse or report on the app's impact, innovation, or even its significance. Popularity alone is insufficient to meet notability standards, as noted underWP:POPULARITY.

(2): A website's traffic does not, also, prove its notability. Data shared from Similarweb, such as 600,000 monthly visits (only 30% of which is organic according to the same site), is similarly a measure of popularity or activity like the one shared about app downloads. It does not substitute for independent and in-depth coverage about the app itself. High traffic numbers or app activity do not inherently demonstrate the subject's encyclopedic value or warrant a standalone article unless supported by secondary sources discussing why the app is notable (WP:NWEB).

To put simply, the app has a lack of substantial independent coverage and the article primarily relies on brief mentions in the sources provided that list the app alongside competitors or other promotional-style mentions (please see my previous response for an in-depth comment on this). These sources do not provide significant, in-depth coverage that would meet the threshold for WP:GNG for a standalone article. The author may, should he wish, to edit the parent company's Wikipedia article and mention Nomad under one of the company's child which I think may be a suitable compromise.

There is one more thing that I would like to mention without making any assumptions. Your account is 8 years old and has made only one contribution to Wikipedia (Special:Contributions/Howiezhao); it is the one asking for this article to remain on Wikipedia. It does raise concerns about possible conflicts of interest (WP:COI) or the account being used as a single-purpose account (WP:SPA). While having an old account with no contributions is not inherently a problem, the fact that the account’s sole contribution in 8 years is to advocate for keeping a specific article does appear, well, suspicious. It may seem as though the account is being used solely to influence the outcome of the deletion discussion. Others may see it differently. Nyxion303 (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might be due to lack of your knowledge with Wikipedia, as you were not able to figure out that the guy has almost 100 edits in other Wikis such as Wikidata and Chinese Wikipedia. Check this link: Special:CentralAuth/Howiezhao. Either that or you are purposely trying to downplay his status to make him look like he was not qualified for voting. Although I do agree that per Wikipedia policies download stats are not to be considered for notability. Jasonswat (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that @Howiezhao has contributions on other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikidata and the Chinese Wikipedia. Now, while I appreciate you sharing this, I believe my initial concerns about the account’s activity in relation to this discussion remain valid.

While the account has 108 contributions across Wikidata and Chinese Wikipedia, nearly all of these edits appear to have occurred before 2019 — over six years ago. To add to that, it is also Howiezhao’s very first edit on the English Wikipedia. It is very unusual for an account with no prior activity on any wikis at all for such a long period of time, none in the English Wikipedia since their account creation, to suddenly participate in a deletion discussion, raising questions about whether the account may be acting as a single-purpose account (WP:SPA) in this instance.

To be clear, my concern is not to “downplay” their contributions to other Wikimedia projects, but rather to highlight the possibility of a WP:COI or coordinated effort to influence the outcome of this deletion discussion. This is particularly relevant given the timing and context of their participation, coupled with the lack of any activity on other wikis as well for the last six years.

Ultimately, the focus of this discussion should remain on whether the article meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria, specifically WP:GNG. I hope we can avoid distractions and continue working towards a consensus based on policy and guidelines. Again, I thank you for pointing this out, and I welcome further discussion. Nyxion303 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems suspicious that, while this user has made edits on other wikis, this vote is their first edit on enwiki. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006 Yakima hops fire

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

A WP:News article based on a brief burst of news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United States of America, and Washington. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (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/2024 December 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. One source from the time it happened doesn't cut it; zero lasting significance. (And incidentally, I lived in the area at the time and I have no memory of this incident.) WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's coverage of the hops shortage caused by the fire [1], [2]. [3], but that would be a new article I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a List of Washington wildfires equivalent for structure fires, this could be merged there. I don't see that such a list exists. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

31st Marine Expeditionary Unit

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

Half of the main text body is directly copied from https://www.31stmeu.marines.mil/About/History.aspx Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 17:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 17:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refs can be provided. Mztourist (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refs can be provided. I will begin to add today. Looper5920 (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Beach

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

Cites no sources, couldn't find any, doesn't look notable at all. I was mildly surprised to find that the book exists at all, although it does seem to! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I very vaguely remember these being released back in the day, when I was working at a bookstore. If I remember correctly, this series was intended to capitalize on the popularity of series like Twilight, Gossip Girl, and Pretty Little Liars. Quite a few publishers were trying to capture that lightning in a bottle that those series obtained. In any case, it didn't really get much mainstream attention - I can't find anything out there to suggest otherwise either. This released, sold well enough to warrant a few books in the series, but just never received any coverage in places that Wikipedia would see as a reliable, notability-giving source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam McCandless

AfDs for this article:

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

Been sitting in the unclear notability pile for 10 years now, and it cites only one source that doesn't help for NBIO or GNG. There's one mag profile that doesn't go into much real depth but I guess could help, but I couldn't find anything else. WP:BANDMEMBER is pretty clear that members don't automatically inherit notability from the band, so I don't see a NMUSIC pass either. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:14, 24 December 2024 (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. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cold (band). Plasuible redirect and it appears to be the only band he released music with. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per policy. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 22:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Equestrian Trade Association

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

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Currently defunct.Seems to have been created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Horse racing, and United States of America. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. automobile production figures

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

WP:NOTSTATS with no inline citations and mostly essay content in the lead, and arbitrarily cut off at 2000. WP:SYNTH may also be a concern because the sources used might have different methodologies for estimating production in a given model year. PROD contested because:

Objecting to deletion, there are citations, and this information doesn't appear available elsewhere on Wikipedia and it provides valuable information, I'm not sure why this should be deleted
— User:97.176.15.217 22:41, 31 October 2024

But "valuable information" and "not available elsewhere" are not valid justifications for collections of data, especially a year-by-year breakdown over an entire century that does not include all companies. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Business, Transportation, Lists, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a relic of an earlier era that would be more useful as tabular data on Commons. After 19 years, it's only linked to by 3 articles - two of them as improper circular references rather than useful wikilinks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and nom. I am sure someone else has collected these figures before but it won't have the significant coverage to sustain such a list. Conyo14 (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The news media does cover which are the bestselling vehicles of the year. Google news search for bestselling vehicles in America and each year, finds some results in reliable sources giving significant coverage to this. We have articles for List of best-selling automobiles and List of automobile sales by model. List of countries by motor vehicle production exist as well. This list just shows how many vehicles were made in America by each company year by year. Does production per country get coverage, or just global sales? Dream Focus 07:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that just be WP:SYNTH issues? In which case I would argue just for a redirect to the automobile sales by model list as a potential target. Conyo14 (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Pennsylvania Turnpike crash

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

Fails WP:LASTING and also WP:NEVENT Cutlass ^Ciera 23:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that the NTSB got involved shows notability, this wasn't a fender-bender with a few people. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NTSB investigating something does not make it notable. Countless road accidents have been investigated by them but that detail doesn't mean each and every one deserves an article. Cutlass ^Ciera 23:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Pennsylvania. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's also coverage in 2022 of the NTSB findings [4], [5]. Coverage of the accident in 2021 [6], that's almost two years work of coverage, that's sustained coverage. Some talk of lawsuits after, but I can't find RS about them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 deaths and 60 injured is more than notable. It was also the most severe one to that point in time on the road [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristal Nell

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

I am unable to find significant or independent coverage of this bridge player to meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. All I can find, except for primary sources (her own league, etc.) is an obituary and a piece that does not go in depth about her. Geschichte (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT) criteria. QEnigma talk 15:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Technology Development Center

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Imcdc Contact 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YL Ventures

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Mostly about routine funding. Some info from Techcrunch but notability is limited per WP:TECHCRUNCH. This was previously deleted per AfD before. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, Israel, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Noriega

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

Fails to meet notability criteria under WP:AUTHOR, doesn't appear to be many secondary sources on him. jolielover♥talk 09:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and News media. jolielover♥talk 09:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colombia and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find independent sources. There are hints of awards, but I couldn't find any that name him. The link to the Edward R Murrow award lists Vice World News and Noriega is prominent in the video. Yet I don't find sources about him. Lamona (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August Capital

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues. Was previously deleted per AFD. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS). QEnigma talk 16:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic-Pacific Capital

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues for years. Imcdc Contact 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Connecticut. Imcdc Contact 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS) criteria. QEnigma talk 15:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Save America (book)

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

No content that would be sufficient for a separate article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lengthy reviews in two independent and highly notable publications clearly meets the first criteria of WP:NBOOK. --Here2rewrite (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Also, not everything related to Donald Trump is notable by default, including a book that is, in essence, campaign literature. TH1980 (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes NBOOK. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — seconded that this passes NBOOK. No, not everything President Trump does is notable, but a book which receives SIGCOV is, in my opinion. A quick Google News search reveals what is, in my opinion, SIGCOV from RSs ranging from the Washington Post to the New York Times to ABC. Lastly, I fail to see how the book being “campaign literature” — or not — pertains to this AfD.MWFwiki (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bibliography of Donald Trump. As a practical matter it is unlikely that there will ever be enough about this book for an article. Unlike "art of the deal" this one is a re-hash of already seen photos of events covered in the media, so there is no new content, and from what I understand, nothing that we do not already know. Lamona (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This needs to be handled carefully. The main question here is less "is this notable" as much as it "is it individually notable from Donald Trump". My concern here is that the coverage for this seems to be pretty light and when it is discussed, it tends to be discussed in relation to his successful 2024 re-election campaign and his plans for if (as this was released prior to the elections) he was re-elected.

So I think that when people are mentioning this in the AfD as campaign literature they're probably concerned that sourcing coverage tends to shift from the book and its contents to coverage of the (then) impending elections as a whole - as was the case with CBS's coverage of the book. I'm going to see what I can find, but offhand I can see concerns that the existing coverage isn't exactly for the book itself. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was initially skeptical that there was enough out there but a search did bring up quite a bit - it's not a lot, mind you. Most tended to focus on the claims of Mark Zuckerberg committing election fraud and threats to arrest him if this was done again. But there's just enough to say that this passes NBOOK.

ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walden Asset Management

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 10:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Imcdc Contact 10:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails SIGCOV. Deriannt (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find are "company profiles" and non-interesting short pieces about the comings and goings of executives. It is a subsidiary of Boston Trust but we don't have an article for that so there's no redirect or merge target. Lamona (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PAAMCO

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Had a lot of COI and promotional edits. A quick search focuses only on the subject being part of a merger with another entity so the current subject in article no longer operates under this name. Imcdc Contact 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find company profiles, short articles in business news about executive comings and goings, SEC filings ... in short, nothing independent/nothing significant. It does indeed fail WP:NCORP. Lamona (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Common and Public Garden

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

We already have articles for the separate entities Boston Public Garden and Boston Common. There is no purpose to this duplicative article. Although the Garden and Common were listed on the National Register of Historic Places together (before being superseded by more appropriate separate listings later), an NRHP listing itself is not notable, rather the places it designates are notable, and they already have articles. The original author User:Doncram, who made articles for thousands of NRHP listings, even redirected it the day after making it with the note "'Boston Common and Public Garden' was the name given to the combination of the Boston Common and the Boston Public Garden when they were listed as a single entry on the National Register of Historic Places in 1972, with refnum 72000144. In 1987, the two were listed on the Register separately. It seems not helpful to have an article on the arbitrary combination of the two. Please see, instead, the individual articles for Boston Common and Boston Public Garden."

While I had redirected the page to National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Boston because neither individual site was a better target (Doncram originally pointed it to Boston Common), a redirect is likely not necessary either. This is an unlikely search/navigation target since these are separate entities that already have their own articles that link to each other with full histories, and replicating information in a third page just because they previously had a simultaneous historical designation is completely unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Reywas92^Talk 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Boston. I agree that an article on this is totally unnecessary, as it's a listing covering two already-notable parks, and the listing is not in itself notable. However, a redirect can still help with navigation, especially for people who are specifically looking for the NRHP listing. (As far as I can tell, this listing is still on the National Register, but there are additional, separate NHL district listings for both parks, which are overlaid onto this listing.) – Epicgenius (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, long-standing consensus that heritage listings are notable. Secondly, there are plenty of district listings that include individually listed items. The question is, what makes this district distinctive for historic reasons? It is the combination, which is what the article is about. Not one; not the other; but how the relate to each other over time. Rather than deleting it, elaborating on the relationship between the entities is the proper thing to do. Magic♪piano 01:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, there's a long-standing consensus that places listed on heritage listings are notable, not that the listing as a concept itself is or must have a separate page. Absolutely the Common and Garden are notable, but the fact that they were listed together doesn't make that listing a notable entity. Many listed districts do cover a whole neighborhood that includes multiple individual places, or may delineate a new place in a way that justifies its own entry, but those often also include dozens of contributing and non-contributing items, and it's still the place(s) that's notable, not the listing. Unlike for such districts (whose articles should never just be duplicative like for a neighborhood and a district spanning it), here there are just two specific places, and both articles already have history sections that describe their relationships. Those can be expanded, sure, but it doesn't need a redundant page that few will read and most will wonder why exists. Reywas92^Talk 02:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there's a long-standing consensus that places listed on heritage listings are notable" vs. "the fact that they were listed together doesn't make that listing a notable entity". Well, which is it? Either a listing is notable or it isn't. Magic♪piano 22:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The listing – an approved nomination that here was titled "Boston Common and Public Garden" – is not notable. The places listed – Boston Public Garden and Boston Common – are. There are many cases where the name of the listing is convenient way to cover the places listed (e.g. some districts), but that is not the case here. But even if I grant that any listing is notable, per WP:NOPAGE, notable things don't automatically need articles if they're already covered in others. Reywas92^Talk 14:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the Common and Public Garden are each individually notable. The 1972 listing implies that the combination is notable. So kindly explain where the historic significance of the combination is covered. It's certainly not in either the Common or Public Garden articles. Magic♪piano 02:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So more can be added. I just added a sentence from this page to each, but for the most part this fails to discuss the combination, certainly not in any way that justifies a separate page that needs to duplicate them. If the combination was so significant, why did they need to later designate them separately? Again, even if the combination is notable, that doesn't mean redundancy is necessary. No content that could go here can't also go on one or both of the primary topic articles. Reywas92^Talk 05:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(a) "because neither individual site was a better target" vs. (b) "both articles already have history sections that describe their relationships". If (a) is true, why not improve one or the other, and then propose a redirect to that place? If (b), well, why not propose a redirect rather than starting a confrontational process like AfD. In either case, there is no reason to delete the article NOW. If for no other reason, it provides a linking point from the NRHP list on which it appears until such a time as a more suitable redirect can be erected. Magic♪piano 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL what do you mean "propose a redirect"? It was already a redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Boston, but you started a confrontational process by reverting me and said this wasn't a useful target. The NRHP list can just link "Boston Public Garden and Boston Common", there's literally no need for anything else. It has a Description column that I suppose can mention they were listed together before being listed separately. I did make sure both individual pages mention this fact as well, but regardless of how they're developed a redirect to one or the other isn't necessary. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect to the list page is inadequate because it does not explain the historic significance leading to the listing of the combination, nor does it provide the space for doing so. Magic♪piano 02:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nominator's rationale. The article creator on the Talk page says this is a List of two that "explains simple fact of Nrhp listing". I query whether a separate article is needed for this, when a sentence could be added to the Park and Common articles stating they were once listed together. Won't oppose a redirect to the National Register article but like the nominator says there doesn't seem much need of one. Rupples (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Turner & Company

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues for years. Firm is defunct. Was previously deleted under a different name. Imcdc Contact 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United States of America. Imcdc Contact 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The company fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any coverage showing that WP:NCORP is met. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayer's unrealized projects

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Wikipedia as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Wikipedia article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic fightpicking.
"In my opinion"... Wikipedia is not about opinions, son. Quit while you're ahead, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. "Power trip", good description to whomever said it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David Ayer – it makes more sense to discuss these projects in the context of his larger career (or to omit certain projects if their coverage is too trivial, but that can happen after a merge). Regardless of notability, at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic (WP:PAGEDECIDE). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Few editors are willing to take responsibility of it. No issue in keeping the article for some more time unless there are no significant improvements. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brysam Global Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 06:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and New York. Imcdc Contact 06:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The North American Discworld Convention

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

WP:BEFORE only showed unreliable sources such as blogs and fan sites, or other passing mentions. This does not have reliable secondary sources to achieve WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in Gnews, nothing in RS that I can find. Sounds interesting, but no RS we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Events, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there coverage of the Discworld fandom as a whole? If so, then we might be able to justify creating a section or subsection (like under reception?) in the main Discworld article that could briefly cover the fandom and the various conventions like this one. I admittedly am not seeing a huge ton of sources, but perhaps someone else could have better luck? (I'm also not delving super deep as far as searching goes). I did find this one about the UK convention and this one about general convention appearances though, though. And this one that's paywalled but mentions a Pratchett superfan. They're all by The Guardian so it's not a huge depth of coverage, but it's a start. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noventi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. The notability requirements for companies is much higher now. Article seems to be created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An under-referenced article on a VC firm, simply listing the people involved. The current version makes no claim to notability, nor would the lists of past investments in prior instances. The sources at the 2008 AfD would now fall under the "standard notices" provision at WP:CORPTRIV, and searches are not finding more substantial coverage, whether as Noventi Ventures or CIR Ventures. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no WP:SIGCOV. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Zubretsky

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

WP:BLP of a health insurance executive, not adequately sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, health insurance CEOs are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on coverage that's substantively about them and their work, but the referencing here isn't really cutting it: the best sources are two short blurbs published on the same day announcing his initial hiring for the job, which aren't substantive enough to get him over GNG all by themselves, while the rest of the footnotes comprise a press release self-published by his company (which isn't an independent source), an industry trade newsletter that isn't a GNG-worthy publication, and three articles that aren't about him in any non-trivial sense, but just glancingly namecheck him in the process of being principally about the overall phenomenon of how much insurance executives are getting paid.
Further, the information about his annual financial compensation over several years is a bit of a BLP minefield, especially in the wake of last week's shooting -- the amount that a person gets paid is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, but that appears to be this article's primary concern.
Simply existing as an insurance CEO, regardless of how much money he is or isn't making, is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the principal subject of more GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work than this article is showing. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E - If the Brian Thompson murder had not happened, it is unlikely Zubretsky would be eligible for his own article. As is, it reads like an unremarkable resume. The same career background and compensation is not that out of line in corporate executive salaries. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the mention in the article, "While at Aetna, Zubretsky increased telecommuting for employees as a way to save on office and real estate costs." Maybe so, but this was already the going trend in corporate America about the time he started doing that. — Maile (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I mean, this is well-sourced. A "Run of the mill CEO article" isn't exactly routine, there aren't thousands of health-care CEOs, he's one of a handful... A company of this size is akin to General Motors or Enron, so the CEO would be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well-sourced how, if the only footnotes that actually represent real media outlets writing about him are both short blurbs? Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's generally at least enough for a stub article. We have confirmation of employment at a large healthcare enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's enough in terms of sourcing to justify this article's existence. I'm less than keen on Wikipedia being party to a naming-and-blaming campaign, but we're not censored. I created an article on a corporate executive that survived an AfD (Ted Decker) and this is article's subject is vaguely reminiscent of that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also this profile in a newspaper [8]. There are mentions of his name in newspapers back to 2007 with Aetna, he's had a long business career. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well yes, some sources are good. NatalieTT (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd be interested in hearing from a few more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothstack

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

Post-PROD undeletion; article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. All coverage based on a single incident. As disclosed, I am an employee of the company. TimJohn67 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (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/2024 December 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Nominator has a clear paid COI with the subject. UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure running a predatory company is the stuff of notability here. Could be seen as a form of PROMO to whitewash these issues? Regardless, I I can only find PR items, nothing helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nom is an employee of the subject and is being paid to delete the article. I don't think we should acquiesce to the company's desires. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Committee of Concerned Journalists

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 17 years ago with promises to work on the article. I'm not finding significant coverage and with this organization no longer existing unlikely to be any new sources generated. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing independent WP:SIGCOV for a WP:NORG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biometric Consortium

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

Non-notable program. Per a WP:BEFORE], there is no WP:SIGCOV, only routine coverage of conference announcements. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a source like that, it is valid that it remains. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[9] is a WP:MILL WP:BLOG and not a WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dorsey Road Warehouse

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

Non-notable logistics warehouse for the National Security Agency. The NSA likely has hundreds of such warehouses to store equipment, most of which do not pass WP:GNG, like this one. Longhornsg (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Hanover, Maryland where it is located - might not be enough for a standalone article, but worth mentioning on the location page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. No point in a merge to the page for the town; this is a WP:MILL warehouse, one of dozens in Hanover. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are dozens of NSA-operated warehouses in Hanover? That's probably news to everyone, including the NSA! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There are dozens of warehouses/distribution centers in Hanover. This is not a unique and important facility in Hanover and would not be worth even including in that page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete or if we have to, merge back to parent NSA article. This is really near the nadir of notability: "NSA has a nearby warehouse to hold their spare stuff." Big whoop-de-do. And no, don't merge to Hanover, as this is just one of dozens such facilities in an extensive industrial/business area. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Blade

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

Nominated on behalf of a non-autoconfirmed user claiming to be the article subject:

Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability BladeTerry (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
— Special:Diff/1263157720

I am the subject of this article, Terry Blade.
— Edit summary of Special:Diff/1263146142

I am the subject of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Blade. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? BladeTerry (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
— Special:Diff/1263156892

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources here to merit an article per WP:GNG. The context of this AFD attempt is that I created a sockpuppet case page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roberteditor, tying together a bunch of IPs and some socks that have been editing the Terry Blade bio and related pages. Two hours and change later, User:BladeTerry registered the username to delete the bio. My guess is that the history of socking is what BladeTerry wants deleted. Binksternet (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not the best quality article for sure, and some of the cited sources are better than others. But based on WP:BLP, Blade seems to meet the criteria of having multiple reliable independent sources. Him not wanting an article isn't a criteria for BLP. guninvalid (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced the wrong part of BLP, my bad, but my argument still stands. Whether he likes it or not, this guy is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and should be treated as one. If there are specific allegations or specific sections of the article that are undercited, those can be removed. But blanket removing the article in whole is inexcusable. guninvalid (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has a ton of problems, and Binksternet fixed many of them some time back with me trying to assist. The real question is simply "does he pass WP:GNG?" and I have to say yes, he does, although barely, as demonstrated by the sources, and the claim of winning the American Songwriting contest. If the subject of the article can be verified as the editor who wants it deleted, I would probably be ok deleting it because it isn't a slam dunk on notability, and we have a long history of respecting the subject's wishes with borderline notability cases. 14.1.92.185 (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (aka: Dennis Brown, trying to take a wikibreak logged out but reading my talk page....)[reply]
Keep. The article could be improved, but agree with the consensus that subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC No.1 and No. 9. Beyond what's cited in the article, this Earmilk article about the subject is one of the first listed on Google. Dug further and see the subject in a past issue of New Music Weekly, listed on page 33 under the "Country Up & Coming" chart, which is evidence he might also be notable per No. 11 of WP:NMUSIC. Rainydaywindows (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Party

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

This is a small, single state, third-party in the United States which has as of this nomination only contested a single election. Fails WP:NORG. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Kentucky. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Jill Stein 2024 presidential campaign or 2024 United States presidential election in Kentucky. Obviously not a real party, just a mechanism to get her on the ballot in that state since she couldn't as a Green for some reason. Reywas92^Talk 22:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I filled in the number of votes and percentage from the Kentucky State site. The second source here says that to form a party you have to get 2% of the vote, and Stein got 0%. I assume that now the proposed party will not be an official Kentucky party, at least until another attempt to create it and get the votes. The "party" is not mentioned in Jill Stein 2024 presidential campaign, and is simply listed next to Stein's name in the 2024 United States presidential election in Kentucky. I suppose there could be a redirect to that, but unless information is added to that article, at least in the form of a source, the redirect won't be very useful. There is only one reasonable source; others are just mentions. Lamona (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the KYP had nothing to do with Jill Stein besides nominating her. They have bylaws and a notable member with a Wikipedia page (Geoff Young)

Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://thekentuckian.bearblog.dev/ is their website (Young is listed as Party Treasurer) Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically we need sources that are substantially about the party. It would also be good to finally determine if the party is "official" or not, and where we can confirm that. Lamona (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Kentucky Party is "a group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power," making it a political party. However, it does not have automatic ballot access; As a result, the party must place its candidates on the ballot via petition, as demonstrated in the 2024 presidential election, where they collected 5,000 signatures statewide.

The party has local coverage [10][11] and plans to nominate candidates statewide in 2026, 27, and 28 (per their website) Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jill Stein 2024 presidential campaign#Kentucky, without prejudice to later recreation. Right now, there doesn't seem to be anything beyond local notability and the arguably-stunt of placing Stein on their ballot. If they survive and expland as plnned to nominate statewide candidates in future years, then the article can be recreated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Kentucky. If they manage to survive to nominate candidates in future elections, or if substantial sourcing develops about the party that covers more information about the party than just announcing its creation, I would be supportive of recreating the article. Right now, however, the party is a minor organization whose sole accomplishment is nominating a third-party presidential candidate for one election in one state. Windfarmer — talk 07:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Chamber of Commerce in Turkey

AfDs for this article:

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

The people in the 2016 discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chamber_of_Commerce_in_Turkey who did not want the article deleted have not added or suggested any inline sources and I don't think the general sources listed are enough to show notability. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Turkey, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is very promotional and lacks independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jms Brynt

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

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and New York. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GoodMusicRadar doesn't have any author credits or seemingly that much info on the ownership, Earmilk appear to be a more professional operation and there was an article on it until literally a few days ago, the Cultr piece lists an author with no bio and I can find no info on the ownership on site (if anyone knows if its reliable, please tell) Iostn (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Steven Svoboda

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

This article about a lawyer and activist has been tagged with too much reliance on primary sources since 2016. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added what I can, but am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I do not think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total lack of significant coverage. This is far below what we demand for a BLP, especially an Attorney. This is also just a coat rack for an issue that is best suited for a focused article. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's a recognized child genital cutting expert, at least for endosex male minors. He has written, probably a lot, in academic journals on matters of law and children's rights surrounding the highly controversial topic of non-therapeutic endosex male child circumcision (partially or full surgical removal of the penile foreskin, which is about one-third of the "motile skin system" of the penis). Also, he has contributed to, and signed, two large international child genital cutting experts statements (in 2024 and 2019), published in the American Journal of Bioethics: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2024.2353823 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2019.1643945 Chrono1084 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You get a few hits in GScholar, would that be enough to pass academic notability? Not sure what the citation factor for this person is. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/NBIO, unlikely to ever pass that threshold. Unclear if he would meet NACADEMIC in regard to the scientific subjects related to his focus. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just found him as an author of a paper on legal aspects of circumcision / MGM - one of relatively few on its topic ('Circumcision of healthy boys - Criminal assault?'), article could definitely stand to be improved and expanded esp. lede but plenty of material to prove notability Al. M. G. 2004 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG/NBIO and NACADEMIC. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the two American Journal of Bioethics articles mentioned and three others: a 2003 New York Times, a 2006 Journal of the Catholic Health Association of the United States and a 2013 National Post. Is that enough to keep the article? At least for now (my computer has some problem)? There now seems to be enough academic/scientific articles but I'll try to find some more news/media content. Also, probably don't take into account RomanianObserver41's opinion? This newly created user and another created one, ConeflowerDave, have recently deleted useful information, particularly the two American Journal of Bioethics articles, on another child genital cutting expert: bioethicist Brian Earp. They seem likely part of a relatively long list of, now blocked, accounts used by at least one person to make it difficult to update and improve child genital cutting-related articles. Maybe I should request to investigate them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax/Archive Chrono1084 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again in the hope that it will generate commentary/analysis of recently added sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 00:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirefreaks.com

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

Does not appear to be a notable company. The only reliable sources I could find that covered it were passing mentions to the website as a result of the Murder of Carly Ryan. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment references 1, 2 and 3 are the subjects websites. Ref 4, passing mention. Ref 5, they've organised a festival which is a 3 day event and touted as 'America’s largest 3-day gothic-industrial music festival and convention'. Ref 6 is a interview with one of the owners. Ref 7 now points to a casino website. Ref 8 another 'Dark Force event page which doesn't give any real detail about Vampire.com. Ref 9 is another interview. I will have another search before voting, but there doesn't seem to be anything indicating notability per WP:GNG. (Further edit) I've had a look gor referencs. I've added one from Kerrang about the network site closure. The only other references I can find are a tenuous connection to the murder mentioned above. Knitsey (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll be blunt, User:Knitsey, are you arguing for Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You're supposes to guess @Liz! Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG Knitsey (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence James Ludovici

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

PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958^Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. cyberdog958^Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sri Lanka and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gscholar brings up two papers this person wrote, but I'm not sure that's enough for an academic notability pass. I don't see any reviews of this person's other books either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have added further information and references - satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. Dan arndt (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. You added references that the subject wrote, but none of it is about the subject himself. There is no evidence that he is widely regarded or cited by peers, originated a new concept, authored a body of work that itself is notable, or created a work that has been regarded as significant. cyberdog958^Talk 15:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the author of the first biography on Alexander Fleming, which received significant international attention at the time of its publication. I would have to disagree with your view. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more input from the community on the recent edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The several archived reviews of the biography of Fleming in the article show that that book is notable. I picked one other book at random to search at the British Newspaper Archive and immediately found this review. I won't bother looking for more, since this author clearly meets the GNG, but I suspect many more sources exist. Toadspike [Talk] 12:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:SIGCOV. I only see two reliable AND independent sources that review his work here and there. I'm looking for one more. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several reviews on JSTOR; eg Fleming book in BMJ JSTOR 25394369, Science Progress JSTOR 43415178; Nobel winners in Books Abroad JSTOR 40114429; German scene in International Affairs JSTOR 2608910. Togther with others found elsewhere appears sufficient for WP:AUTHOR. (@Bearian:) Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Keystone State Boychoir. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fitzmartin

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

In my WP:BEFORE I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Much of the coverage that there was was related to the subject's role as musical director of the Keystone State Boychoir, and only passing mention at that. I couldn't find any critical reviews of the Concert Mass that is referred to in the article, although its premiere was at Carnegie Hall [12]. I therefore propose that the notability bar is not met, and that the content should be merged into the Keystone State Boychoir article (not that that itself is without problems!) with a Redirect from this article. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge to Keystone State Boychoir.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to KSB. There's nothing distinguishable in there to separate him from the group and thus warrant his own article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason-Shane Scott

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

I struggled to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources during my WP:BEFORE (there are a few interviews on soap opera related websites, but nothing of substance to my mind. The one significant role in One Life to Live does not meet the bar for WP:NACTOR, and so I submit that the subject is not notable. I proposed a Redirect to One Life to Live. The article is also not written from a terribly neutral point of view either, but that is somewhat by-the-by. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural close~~ as the nominator does not advocate deletion. The article can be boldly redirected as desired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to be unclear. I do think that the article should be deleted. My suggestion of redirection was as an alternative to deletion, and I wanted to get some consensus before doing that. Cheers SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, had a notable known role in One Life to Live and a notable recurring role in the web series The Bay. He also appeared in numerous films and television programs. He also meets WP:GNG from the sources found in Newspapers.com, Jason-Shane Scott: Acting based on looks along isn't true success (The Times and Democrat), 'One Life' actor Scott has family members who are there for him (Richmond Times-Dispatch), To Scott, talent counts more than looks (Austin American-Statesman), Dream come true: Wooster star get soap job; Diller goes undercover; Springer visits (Reno Gazette-Journal) and Jason-Shane Scott follows destiny on 'OLTL' (Oakland Tribune). Those five Newspapers.com sources shows that the article meets WP:GNG. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by OwenX. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources listed above are enough for GNG. Also passes NACTOR through roles in Shrieker, Curse of the Puppet Master and One Life to Live. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Paltalk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tinychat

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

Articles about companies must meet WP:NCORP requirements. This one clearly fails them.

1. [13] Puff piece by WP:TECHCRUNCH, an outlet infamous for its COI articles

2. [14] Very brief and clearly promotional article, even including calls to action with a link to the website. Fails WP:ORGIND.

3. [15] non-independent interview article, doesn't say anything of substance about Tinychat.

4. [16] reads like a routine announcement, not deep enough coverage to satisfy ORGDEPTH.

5. [17] Reproduction of another WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece.

6. [18] Routine announcement, doesn't say anything about the company in any depth (WP:ORGDEPTH). Also relies on TechCrunch.

Other sources I found were PR articles and top 10 lists. This article was also created by an editor with the same name as a co-founder of this company [19]. Badbluebus (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Internet, and Websites. Badbluebus (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any good sources either. I found this article that alleges that two celebrity investors used the software to "flirt with underage girls", but the article states that these are merely "rumors". At best, this source is unreliable, and at worst, it's a violation of WP: BLP and should not be added to the article. I also found a book called "Introduction to Omegle" by Gilad James, PhD. I thought that this source would be reliable, but the author's LinkedIn profile indicates that their PhD was obtained from a "distance learning institution". This, regrettably, makes the book an unreliable source. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paltalk as an alternative to deletion, since that's its parent company. There's enough sources including Techcrunch (some have bylines and not all of the articles are just rehashes of PR statements) and brief mentions in academic overviews of videochat services, that it should be mentioned on a suitable page, even if it does not meet NCORP on its own (it's at best borderline). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is closed as merge, please ping me and I will carry out the merge. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a selective Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paltalk per Patar knight, at the time both paltalk and tinychat articles did meet WP:NCORP. Why is it voted to be deleted now? Koltinn (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to Paltalk as volunteered by Patar knight above. The format/funding info and references in the article may have been sufficient in 2009 but fall short of the subsequently refined WP:NCORP criteria. And the present Paltalk article is long on lawsuits / short on acquisitions, so could benefit from the introduction of a broader view, including brief coverage of their operation of Tinychat over the past 10 years. AllyD (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uniswap Labs

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

No reliable sources found for this software developer Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources can be found in traditional media, books, and academic papers. For example, the company has received coverage in Bloomberg News ([20][21][22][23][24][25]), the company has been covered by The Wall Street Journal ([26][27][28][29]), and there are two chapters dedicated to Uniswap in the book Automated Market Makers (published in 2023 by a division of Springer Nature). Sources available span multiple years. The subject of the article meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, even if the current state of the article could use some work. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the product, i.e. Uniswap. Uniswap Labs has been involved in some legal cases but other than most of the coverage is about its DAO, Uniswap. As a company, Uniswap Labs fails WP:NCORP. Veldsenk (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect not notable on its own. Andre🚐 02:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Uniswap. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has sources from The Economist and TechCrunch, so it's notable. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with Uniswap, it is difficult to see where one entity starts and the other ends and it appears, for all intents and purposes, they are one and the same. For example this reference says the company was fined for illegal trading and describes is as a crypto exchange - and this talks about enforcement actions by the SEC. HighKing 21:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge things if necessary per WP:NOPAGE. With how closely related the two are, a separate article is not really suitable unless there is a truly compelling reason the two should be separate. I see no such reason. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seems to meet GNG and NCORP per GeorgiaHuman. I'm not strongly opposed to a merge, since the other article has plenty of room. But strictly speaking, the company and protocol are distinct, and things like the company's finances might seem somewhat inappropriate for the article about the protocol. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeerStream

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [30] [31] [32], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, Websites, United States of America, and New York. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree this fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage, edit history doesn't inspire confidence. Void if removed (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the 2017 brief confusion of this firm's Snap Interactive name with Snap Inc as appropriate for a mention on the Snap Inc. page. However as this firm is now Paltalk Inc and there is a longstanding page at Paltalk, that may provide an ATD target? AllyD (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is any support for the suggested Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

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

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the article is notable on its own. WP:SPLIT is justified for significant battles of the Soviet-Afghan war. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could be merged at best. Otherwise, I don't see a reason why this article should exist in the mainspace when the parent article itself does not cover this topic or lacks sources, even if it does. Garudam ^Talk! 19:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pure violation of WP:SYNTH. The topic is not notable and the article itself appears to be pushing a POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has standalone notability of its own established through significant coverage and a necessary split from Soviet-Afghan war article. Muneebll (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is not even notable for its parent article and lacks citations, clearly it does not pass GNG & SIGCOV. Garudam ^Talk! 14:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are real signs of notoriety here. Furthermore the story must be told without fear of repercussions from Moscow. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question, what do you mean by repercussions from Moscow? WP:LEGAL for more info. Conyo14 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG: The topic has not received significant coverage with the article appearing to push a POV. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PoV pushing at best. found nothing notable in my WP:BEFORE.
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Soviet–Afghan War. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Soviet–Afghan War: It's pretty short as it is, and does need some work to let it less pov-y. It might also need a bit of a copyedit Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 12:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Soviet–Afghan War. Besides the reasons suggested above, there's not enough content to warrant a standalone article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This does not qualify under Wikipedia guidelines for a standalone article. It could be argued if the "raids" ever occurred in Soviet Afghan or it is just a mere hoax, quoting from the Foreign involvement section:MI6 directly remitted money into an account of Pakistani leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Qazi Hussain Ahmad who had close links with Hekmatyar & Massoud. MI6's aim was for Ahmad to spread radical and anti-Soviet Islamic literature in the Soviet republics in the hope of rebellions against their Communist governments. I do not find a single raid so far, rather there are just plannings and some covert money transfers to terrorist organisations it seems like a WP:HOAX. Do not merge it when there are only passing mentions of a few words regarding Pakistani raids which are dubious or say hoax event. Nxcrypto Message 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: The article is quite notable but has not been given much attention.

The book what we won in America secret war by Bruce riedel highlights the notability and states that :-

"The cross-border operations were extraordinarily provocative—“bear baiting,” as the ISI later called them. The Russian archives show that on several occasions they successfully disrupted traffic on a critical rail line from Samarkand in Central Asia to the Termez border checkpoint, but they never sparked any dissidence against the Soviets among the Muslim populations of Soviet Uzbekistan or Tajikistan. Eventually the Russians decided that the attacks were too much to tolerate. In April 1987 the Soviet ambassador in Islamabad warned the Pakistani foreign minis ter that if they continued, the Soviet army and air force would retaliate inside Pakistan. By April 1987 General Akhtar had been promoted to a new assignment as chairman of Pakistan’s Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hamid Gul, his successor as director general of the ISI, ordered an end to cross border operations. The pot was boiling a bit too hot for Zia."

Further more in a book by Hein Günter Kiessling Page number 57-58 also mentions:

the mujahideen activities inside soviet union which penetrated 25 km beyond the Amu river which was international border. For example in 1986 a attack on hydro-electric power plants were carried out by mujahideen using Chinese and egyption supplied rocket launchers. These activities caused anger amongst the Russian high command and warning by the soviet ambassador was given and eventually Pakistani high command halted further attacks/Operations given the consequences.

Book link :- https://www.google.com.pk/books/edition/Faith_Unity_Discipline/pIQjDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=isi book&printsec=frontcover

I'm sure more research on this topic will help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahim231 (talk • contribs)

You should thoroughly go through WP:MILNG, as there is little to no information available about the raids, such as details on how they unfolded, their results, or their impact. It appears to be a passing mention of an insignificant event that does not warrant an article, let alone using an infobox template for it. Garuda ^Talk! 20:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I struggle to understand this nomination's logic for delete. The Soviet-Afghan war article is over-WP:SIZE-ed and in dire need of WP:OKFORKing; merging is not a solution. Numerous sources discuss the interventions in the Soviet Union. What sources speak of the raids as "measly"? How does the article glorify the raids or push a particular POV? And *even if* it was possible to answer these questions in the positive, that would be a content issue, not one of notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should go through the Raid section and sources have only passing mentions of such militant raids, only spun around the Soviet Afghan War. There's not enough significant coverage to have its own standalone article. Garuda ^Talk! 14:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a content discussion, it is a notability discussion. WP:NEXIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:BUTITEXISTS argument. In order to meet WP:GNG, an article must be sourced by reliable sources with substantial coverage, here it's not the same case. Notability could be established through few lines of passing mentions but that doesn't validate to have a standalone article. Garuda ^Talk! 01:35, 24 December 2024 (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