Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

WP:AFD/USA

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

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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyla Holas

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

There is no SNG for softball, so the article subject needs to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. Under that standard, there is not "at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject" that would indicate notability. Additionally, I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. This also fails SPORTSBASIC because I could not find any non-primary sources mentioning the article subject. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sports, Softball, United States of America, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, and Texas. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigcov here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Along with the source BeanieFan11 provided, there is [[1]] and [[2]] which should be enough to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:28, 28 July 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.

Greta Valenti

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

None of the sources presently used establish independent notability (either due to not saying much about Valenti, or not being RS, or not being independent), and I wasn't able to find significant coverage of Greta Valenti in reliable sources, only mentions. There also seems to be COI editing in the history of the article. toweli (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, United States of America, and Louisiana. toweli (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Boardgamer

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

I found no significant coverage for this defunct game magazine. SL93 (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Games, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Operations (magazine) as an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect because the article is mostly unreferenced, and the one reference that does exist is an unreliable source. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on whatever else shows up in this AfD, that may be the reasonable outcome. I'm open to see what others can come up with, as I know we have plenty who are more accomplished board gaming source hunters than I am. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Letters from a Killer

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

The film does not appear to be significant by the rules of Wikipedia WP:MOVIE. No detailed coverage in authoritative references, no reviews, no awards.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 08:47, 27 July 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 July 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: added things to page, including critical reception -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY. Newly added reviews. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides those already included in the article, there are reviews here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Ingalls

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chickenpox (South Park)

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

Only two sources, which do not appear to qualify as SIGCOV. There does not seem to be a justification based on notability as on why this episode should have a separate article (i.e. it could also be redirected to South Park (season 2). Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, United States of America, and Colorado. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Park season 2 - The A.V. Club is SIGCOV but it alone isn't enough. I found some list entries by MovieWeb ([3]) and Digital Spy ([4]) but I don't consider those SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AV Club is sigcov, and I feel making the list at movieweb for underrated episodes (coming 20+ years after it originally aired) is cause enough for passing WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 18:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two sources -- as they say, OH! That's A SIGCOV!! jp×g 🗯️ 23:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haz al-Din

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Most sources are links to social media sites (specifically YouTube and X) which aren't reliable. Also, COI issues are evident and possible self-promotion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lebanon, and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all of the current references are social media links which are pretty useless for a WP:BLP. The only ref I could find is from the Guardian [5]. I haven't spent hours searching for WP:RS. I would suggest this person fails WP:N WP:SIGCOV or WP:BIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitsey (talk • contribs) 22:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious issues with notability, and the vast majority of the sources are directly from the subject's social media, and by no means are reliable. This article also suffers from clear political bias and MOS:PUFFERY (e.g. "He is renowned..."). The author also appears to be clearly invested in this topic and possess a conflict of interest. SociusMono1976 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this is somewhat separate from the content of this article (and therefore this should not be seen as a !vote), it's worth noting that this article was created by a user who repeatedly is seeking to recreate the page of a non-notable political party deleted at AfD, and has now instead pivoted to one about its founder (while again recreating the deleted one in two different new pages...).--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page appears to have been created as an alternative workaround after other attempts to circumvent a page deleted at AfD were removed. That being said, I agree with the !votes above regarding the current sourcing (but am open to revising that pending different sources and after further research).--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Best I can find are a mention here [6] and here [7]. Daily Kos isn't a RS, the ADL was up for discussion for reliability recently... Regardless, two mentions don't work for RS and what's used in the article is primary/social media. Nothing we can use to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Internet, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not a matter of what the person says about themselves, nor even what their friends say about them. Notability is a matter of what independent sources have to say.Gronk Oz (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: spectacularly fails N and GNG. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above. That subject doesn't have enough notability in different reliable sources.

Ahri Boy (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per proposer. The one source that isn't YouTube, X or the American Communist Party website doesn't even come close to being reliable. Furthermore, the creator of this article is suspected to be a sock of an editor p-blocked for repeatedly recreating the ACP article against consensus. MiasmaEternal☎ 03:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survay Says!

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find some reviews, but they're from non-RS. toweli (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New Jersey. toweli (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Margenson

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Could be redirected to List of United States men's international soccer players as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United States of America, and Rhode Island. Let'srun (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States men's international soccer players as ATD. Giant Snowman 17:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joever

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

The article ~~only contains one reliable secondary source~~ [Ammendment: The Forbes source was written by a contributor] contains no reliable secondary sources that talk about the word "joever". The rest are sources that use the word in their headlines. This fails the general notability criteria because the topic does not have 1) signifcant coverage in 2) secondary sources. The only other coverage I could find in reliable sources is trivial mentions. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary. All coverage is trivial, and we’re not off to a good start when the second paragraph is WP:FORBESCON.

-1ctinus📝🗨 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that the Forbes article was unreliable; I will ammend my opening statement. That brings the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources down to zero. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a notable neologism/meme. Unclear if anything would need to be merged to paragraph at Withdrawal_of_Joe_Biden_from_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election#Debate_aftermath. Reywas92^Talk 20:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above. As it stands, the cultural significance of the meme is too small and is better left as a minor cultural note on Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election, Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, and Let's Go Brandon or Sleepy Joe (nickname). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oganguly (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wikt:Joever, or alternatively to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. Nearly no secondary coverage meeting WP:NEO. The "Background" section isn't about the term, and the sources in the "Growth and use in media" section are trivial mentions, which basically use the word without much (or any) discussion of it. The one in-depth source is from WP:FORBESCON. hinnk (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary: No evidence reliable secondary WP:SIGCOV for this portmanteau to warrant it's own article. IceBergYYC (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election#Debate aftermath since there's already existing content written about the meme in that section. Some1 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election#Debate aftermath and merge a few sentences of this article to a new subsection there. The phrase itself has seen a fair amount of use both on social media and in news headlines, but it's fairly self-explanatory and there hasn't been a lot of discussion of it. Here's what I found in mostly-reliable sources.

NYTimes: "Tina Wargo, 31, learned of the shake-up from a text inviting her to a party. “It’s Joever,” read the event name, said Ms. Wargo, who lives in Brooklyn and works for a theater ticketing company. She initially thought it was a joke, but was surprised to learn otherwise after seeing posts from Taylor Swift-related accounts on X using the same pun."
Teen Vogue uses the phrase and embeds tweets with the meme
CNET in a human-written article discusses usage of the term
Austin American-Statesman mentions the phrase and embeds a tweet with it. Djkauffman (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you for getting these. I honestly feel like if we give it a year, a few communications scholars will have written articles about it and then it'll be worthy of a C-Class article. Ornov Ganguly TALK 01:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. This probably isn't a subject deserving of an article on its own, but the phrase is mentioned in the withdrawal article as an element of the movement to get Biden to drop out. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content there might be original research. While this is related to the destination of a potential redirect location, I'd rather not crowd the discussion here, so I've made a comment on that article's talk page. ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Generation Z slang since it's a meme phrase that is used by gen z people GodzillamanRor (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable because there is coverage in 3 reliable secondary sources after searching Google News:

142.113.140.146 (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting that sources also have to be significant coverage, not just a passing use of it... Reywas92^Talk 03:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered acceptable WP:SIGCOV of this meme? A "book-length history" is not expected to exist. I don't think my sources look like "newspaper article about Bill Clinton, ... part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice ... a trivial mention of that band" because they focus on the meme topic specifically. I also added 7 more sources (mostly reliable but some unlisted at RSP but found in Special:LinkSearch) with coverage ranging from the overall meme to several individual aspects of the meme. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A neologism/meme that had a half-life of maybe a week. Mangoe (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to support WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTNEO, or WP:NTEMP claims that it has a half-life of maybe a week when the meme is from 2023, and therefore it clearly isn't "neo" and has been ongoing for more than 1 year. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed all the OR and trivial uses. The result is four remaining paragraphs of sources specifically mentioning and analyzing the meme. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't belong on Wikipedia for a number reasons already written. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme, nor a dictionary. Geschichte (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election#Debate aftermath, as it's mentioned in numerous sources as a meme related to the situation, but it doesn't have notability for a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. I added the word "Joever" to the article with an adequately-sourced paragraph of information. That's all the word needs. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is simply wholly unsuitable content for an encyclopaedia. Really don't have much more to add. AusLondonder (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's more self-explanatory than phrases like You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?, which is why there aren't many secondary sources explaining it (akin to how there aren't many articles explaining what a jam sandwich is); they rather just use and discuss the term without explicit explanation. However, it's kind of unclear at the moment if it fulfils WP:NSUSTAINED. Oeoi (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election#Debate aftermath As the author who has contributed the most to the article, I would recommend that the majority of the information I added to this article be consolidated to the aforementioned page. I will add it myself now!BakedintheHole (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as notable for Joe and Biden. It's over + Joe = Joever. It's so clever. PuppyMonkey (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not independently notable; its coverage is largely dictated by Biden's withdrawal. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect it was funny seeing this get an article but I really don't think it should be kept. It is a random meme that has never had the spotlight except for a few days, and is assured to not be coming back to it after Biden's withdrawal. Super Ψ Dro 09:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an encyclopedia, not KnowYourMeme.com J6he (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, merge, partially notable but I don't think this warrants it's own article. "Joever" has its place on Wikipedia as a section in the Biden withdrawal page. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since this discussion was started the number of reliable secondary coverage has increased, though the article is still badly written. (lead mentions a resurgence, then talks about the withdrawal and debate as background, then mentions the meme existed in 2023. Looking at Google Trends, it began in late 2022, and reached a temporary peak in Mid 2023 before the current peak. It is in no way related to his debate and withdrawal but a more general pessimistic outlook regarding his presidency and health. It might even have started with the 2022 midterms, which some expected to be a red wave.) Plenty of fads surrounding US Presidents have dedicated articles and I see no reason which this one in particular should not exist. — jonas (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirin Towfigh

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

Highly promotional article which doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO or WP:NPROF. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Medicine, and United States of America. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely promotional. Not notable – fails WP:NPROF. Ira Leviton (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made appropriate changes and removed the promotional content. Please re-evaluate. Umarfb (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential candidate firsts

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, Does not meet WP:LISTN, while claims can individually be verified, the set as a whole suffers from the same issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian prime ministerial firsts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts. I read through the prior AfD for this page and find the keep rationales expressed there unpersuasive (and essentially identical to the arguments raised in the later discussions I've linked here that were both closed delete) Wikilawyering: I think that the close of the first AfD for this page is particularly incongruous with the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts two weeks later, a page with a much stronger claim to meeting LISTN, as sources compiling the firsts of US presidents as a set do exist, but which was closed as no consensus...but perhaps closer to delete than to keep. There is possibly some information in this page that could be merged to related biographies or related lists, although other than perhaps List of United States presidential firsts there is unlikely to be a good candidate for this to redirect to post-merge. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and United States of America. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Not sure how we could delete this one, when it comes to Presidents, we have Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency. — Maile (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Any information in this list could be added to the pages of the presidential candidate if it is not already there. --Enos733 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NLIST merely states that "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Simply pointing out that an article doesn't meet a Wikipedia policy criteria that merely states "one accepted reason" for meeting notability is not itself a valid argument for deleting a page. And this is clearly a notable topic, as demonstrated by the numerous sources on this page as well as recent media coverage such as the The Washington Post which have discussed presidential candidate firsts. Orser67 (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources cover this, it has references to prove that. Dream Focus 03:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NLIST. There are plenty of sources for presidential firsts, but candidates? None that I've been able to turn up. The Washington Post article is about the firsts of a single candidate, Kamala Harris, not a group. (It's also very silly to include the candidate for the first election because everything old George did was a first.) Clarityfiend (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of these firsts are pretty damn silly, e.g. "First major party nominee to die before the official tallying of electoral votes". Clarityfiend (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that silly? He lost so it didn't ultimately affect the 1872 United States presidential election, but it was an important event in the history of the electoral college: United States Electoral College#Continuity of government and peaceful transitions of power. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per nom, I can see why this article meets some criteria for deletion, but upon reading it, its content seems worth keeping. It was put together well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Layne Harper

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

Highly advertorialized (to the point that I strongly suspect WP:AUTOBIO even though I can't prove it) WP:BLP of an actor and musician, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for actors or musicians. As always, actors and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence that they would pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them -- but this is referenced almost entirely to directory entries that are not support for notability at all, with the only semi-reliable source being a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person (which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better, but does not get him over GNG in and of itself if it's the strongest source in the mix, per WP:INTERVIEWS).
And further, the claimed "breakthrough" is a bit part as a supporting character (unnamed in the provided source) in a film that's still about a year away from release, which is obviously not the kind of role that can clinch an automatic free pass over NACTOR without adequate sourcing.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this article from having to cite much better sourcing, or from having to have a much more neutral and objective writing tone, than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Vibrant heart of ... with a diverse cultural tapestry" is the first red flag. As expected, The Source (source #2) is literally the first hit and the only one in a RS. There's a rich blend of, sorry, lack of references for this individual. Nothing we can use to build a rich blend of an article with a vibrant heart. Lack of sourcing, should be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And his photo is directly from Imdb. Red flag #3. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Google search results are mostly social media / self-published sites. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDB does give the name of his character, but even if we considered that a reliable source, it'd be far from enough. At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, which is indeed very PR-like. LadyofShalott 12:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gregorian

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The best source I could find is [[8]] which only covers the subject for a few sentences. Let'srun (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United States of America, and California. Let'srun (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States men's international soccer players as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with a redirect. Let'srun (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. C 679 10:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher McGimpsey

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. Being a councillor does not automatically confer notability, and criteria for GNG isn’t satisfied either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Northern Ireland, and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serving as a local councillor doesn't automatically establish notability, and I'm not seeing enough news coverage otherwise. The only in-depth coverage seems to be the news articles about the 2019 local elections, but that's not enough. Maybe the 2019 Belfast local elections deserve their own page, but McGimpsey does not. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OneTax

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

I can't find anything about "OneTax" other than records of a company with that name (which isn't what the article is about) and some self-published books which mostly seem to be copying from this article. The online references also don't mention OneTax (I couldn't check offline sources). As a whole, the article seems to just be general tax information. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and United States of America. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to single tax, surely.—S Marshall T/C 21:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure such a redirect would be necessary, since from my limited understanding of what the OneTax article is saying, it isn't equivalent to single tax. If it was two words (One Tax rather than OneTax) I'd agree, though. (And also, looking at the page views for OneTax, I don't think such a redirect would be used particularly frequently.) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 21:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. This appears to have been a policy proposal that found no traction; the references seem to be unrelated to the topic (i.e. the definition of "revenue-neutral", rather than content about OneTax being revenue-neutral). I can't find a website for the proposal, or a single reference that even mentions it; it seems indistinguishable from a hoax. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every random proposal is deserving of a Wikipedia page. This idea doesn't seem to have been taken seriously or reported on. I think a redirect wouldn't be worthwhile due to the reasons spelled out by Suntooooth. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose a redirect for reasons set out above. Appears to lack any significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016

Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements (2nd nomination)

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

Sub- and sub-sub-pages of List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign political endorsements, which was tied up with the 2017 deletion discussion. These pages stand out among Presidential candidate endorsement articles as excessively forked, hugely reliant on WP:SOCIALMEDIA sources (WP:PSTS) and thus not establishing notability (WP:TRIVIA). I am also nominating the following related pages:

U-Mos (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid page split. The other lists would be too big if this verifiable information were added there. --Enos733 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting a merger; very little of these pages meets notability through their reliance on WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, and what's left would take considerable effort to extricate. U-Mos (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said this in 2017 I am not sure Wikipedia is the proper place to document lists of endorsements for political candidates (Notable endorsements covered in multiple independent sources, probably as part of the main campaign page). Is AfD the proper place to hold this discussion, though? I still feel that AFD is not the right forum to determine whether we should retain all endorsements. That said, the main topic Clinton 2016 endorsements is notable, and it can be assumed that a page split (based on size) can inherit the notability from the primary topic. - Enos733 (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note It's come to my attention that there is a content guideline at Wikipedia:Political endorsements, with endemic violations of points 2 and 3 of the inclusion criteria for individual endorsements apparent on the pages here proposed for deletion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign endorsements. U-Mos (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High School Football Heroes

AfDs for this article:

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Punknews staff review of one of their releases. toweli (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rather minor ska band. Does not meet any criterion of WP:NBAND. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collective PAC

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

Pretty much all in-depth coverage I could find on Collective PAC were either about its founders (Stefanie and Quentin James) or articles where its founders were quoted, with a short snippet mentioning that they founded a PAC. You could make a decent case that Stefanie and Quentin James are notable, but the same can't really be said for Collective PAC. An editor removed my PROD from this page on the basis that they found a more recent source--a Hill article from 2024 with 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James. Most coverage I could find of this PAC is like that: an article about PACs more broadly that simply mentions Collective PAC in passing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let America Vote

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

Let America Vote got some national media attention when it first launched, but that's mainly a function of having a good publicist and the fact that the group's founder, Jason Kander, was coming off a high-profile Senate run. The fact that they seem to have gotten barely any national coverage since their launch (nothing cited on this page and I couldn't really find anything) shows they aren't really notable. Most of the coverage I could find was primarily about LAV's partner group, End Citizens United. The editor who removed the PROD on this page recommended a redirect to Jason Kander#Let America Vote, which I agree with. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jason Kander#Let America Vote per nom. Presently not notable enough to warrant a standalone page. Sal2100 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jason Kander#Let America Vote: As the editor who removed the PROD, I agree that the subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV at this time. Redirect as a WP:ATD with no prejudice against recreating a standalone article in the future should better sourcing emerge. Let'srun (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above makes the most sense to me. Woko Sapien (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Population Connection

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

Hasn't gotten much news coverage or done anything especially notable. Of the few sources cited on this page, several are the group's own website, and I can't find anything much better on Google. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seems to be some decent coverage here covering various reports the group has published along with some controversial actions taken, as seen in [[9]](1/2), [[10](2/2), [[11]], [[12]](1/2), [[13]](2/2), and [[14]]. I think there is enough here to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Let'srun. Passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NC Newsline is good, it discusses the organization and its history with some attention to details. I've also added some other sources and expanded the article to incorporate criticisms and reduce peacock language. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Jones (physician)

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

Creator blocked for UPE. No coverage of the subject easily found and cited sources don't seem to say anything about the subject but I'm out of my depth assessing notability in this field but none of the clams in the article seem extraordinary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Australia, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some digging, which was a little interesting because of overlap with his name and that of at least one other person. The cited papers on the page currently have very few citations. IMO there is not anywhere near enough here for WP:NPROF. I also don't see any reviews for his book for WP:NAUTHOR. Qflib (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Qflib. Further, in a search via Newsbank (wider and deeper than Google) I did find some 20 articles in the Ogden, Utah, regional paper The Standard-Examiner that reference and/or quote Jones' opinion in relation to allergies, but to me they seem very much ROTM for a community doctor. Nothing to meet WP:PROF. I neither could find any book reviews that would meet WP:AUTHOR. That the page creator has been blocked for UPE leaves an unpleasant taste too. Cabrils (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Interviews

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

This list is very incomplete, and only includes interview subjects for some years in the twentieth century, and none in the twenty-first century. The only sources are the Playboy magazine archives in which the interview appeared, so that there is no independent sourcing to establish list notability.

Draftify as nominator. This might be a useful list article when completed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded and is in the process of being completed. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Popular culture, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page is under construction and other editors are welcome to help complete the list. The main Playboy article frames the value of the interview to the success of the magazine. The Playboy interview is known as one of the most thorough features delving into celebrity, politics, sports, and current affairs. Over the next few days, the list will be completed and additional sources will be added for notable interviews which have been quoted in other media. Let's give this some time to be built before deletion. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The table is already well populated considering the task at hand and would only improve given more time to add content and additional references. The sources only being Playboy magazine archives in which the interview appeared makes good sense as the way to develop this article currently. Rockycape (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incomplete is never a valid reason for deletion. Notability is though. I see The Rolling Stone Interview that mentions why the interview section is notable, then links to some interviews. Doesn't list all of them, which is odd, no selection criteria listed. Anyway, nothing else at Category:Interviews is like this. Are we going to list every magazine there is, and all the famous people they interviewed? Dream Focus 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of this magazine's interviews, several sources point out that the magazine's body of work has had the same cultural impact. Ref: (1) (2) (3). Other sources are cited in the article. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see the great amount of work that @GimmeChoco44 has been doing. Dont see anuthing wrong here in temrs of notability either. Vorann Gencov (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HARDWORK applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources” – as presented here [15] and here [16]. Meets WP:CSC and WP:LSC. I think we should keep the list as it gives a broader understanding of the topic. Repurpose is also okay for me. Vorann Gencov (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Strong keep; HEY, WP:NLIST applies. If we start deleting incomplete lists or articles, then the whole thing can go straight to the bin.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an insignificant list that doesn't merit an article but is probably a violation of WP:PROMO. desmay (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with "insignificant" -- the influence of the "Playboy interview" is documented by many sources (some are cited in the list article). In addition to the comprehensive content of the interviews, the breadth of subjects (world leaders, entertainers, businessmen, athletes) is often cited as a benchmark for periodical journalism, and the list provides an overview without undue burden on the main Playboy article. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary database. Some of these interviews didn't even happen and were mere copy-paste job. Azuredivay (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a wild and unsupported claim. Not only did these interviews happen, but the proof exists in both printed and digital sources, and the interviews are referenced by major sources such as Los Angeles Times and Associated Press. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another unnecessary list that serves nobody but the most ardent fans. Lists like this needs to be purged off the already bloated Wikipedia site to keep it from becoming the poor Fandom imitation it already is. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: Since the essay about arguments to avoid was already cited, I will mention 2 other sections: Wikipedia:UNNECESSARY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Most opinions are more or less respectable but guidelines should prevail and WP:NLIST is the applicable guideline.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of disparaging nicknames for settlements in the United States

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

Scope is vague and due to the nature of the article it attracts unsourced information to be added (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 16:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer: major contributor). If the scope is vague, propose a move instead. If it attracts unsourced editing, that is not a reason to delete a page. See WP:BEFORE, Point C1: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Normal editing can fix the unsourced additions concern since undoing edits and rolling back to revisions are core embedded features to both Wikipedia and its extensions like Twinkle and RedWarn. Lack of will to work on a page is not a reason to delete it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. The best, almost the only, list I can find is The 5 Best North Texas City Nicknames (and Some of the Worst). (Ranker ["The Funniest Negative Nicknames for US Cities"] doesn't count since they rank all sorts of stuff that isn't notable.) Also, universities aren't settlements. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll just take one example I am personally familiar with: "Los Anchorage" for Anchorage, Alaska. Yes, those of us that live in more rural areas use this term dispairingly for people who move to Alaska just to live in an urban nightmare. However the source [17] is just the article's headline, the nickname is not the subject of the article. Seems like most of the sources are of this nature. This is just trivia, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Trivia" about sums it up. Qwirkle (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be spin-out of List of disparaging nicknames for settlements. There is potential to either smerge this back, or delete the parent list as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of disparaging nicknames for settlements: very selectively, for entries that are well-sourced. The topic doesn't justify being spun-off the original list, nor expanded to the degree it has been. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. It’s marginally notable, but a combined list makes sense. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between Delete, Merge and Keep. We need to come to a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Simmons (commentator)

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

WP:BIO1E. Coverage is only around his odd legal case 10 years ago of impersonating a CIA officer and committing fraud. He's just not notable outside of that. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There's plenty of coverage about him, but nothing past 2016... Still, he was rather "popular" for lack of a better term until he got caught. Semi-notable fraudster, unlike so many others that have articles here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
!Weak keep given only because there's also some discussion of his activities in peer-reviewed journals, this was the first one I pulled up [18]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles in The New York Times (March 2015), Rolling Stone (January 2016), Time (October 2015), in Australia (October 2015), Canada (October 2015), China, etc. make him a notable fraud. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have enough reliable and independent information to prove he's notable, the article fails to meet WP:NBIO. Yakov-kobi (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Attack Matrix

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

Fails WP:GNG. There was one article with WP:SIGCOV written about the document presented one time to the CIA Director, but its notability is not WP:SUSTAINED. There are a few WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, but nothing speaking to its lasting importance as an important document notable enough for a WP article. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump

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

Was this article made in haste? I think it would be much more prudent to discuss this subject matter within the context of existing articles first before further muddying the waters. TNstingray (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Yeah I was just about to do this. There's basically no information about it right now, it does not warrant an article. Not news. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep it because the secret service might use Iran as a scape goat for bad protection LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTADVOCACY. Wikipedia shouldn't do things with the explicit goal of influencing public opinion in certain ways. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't really see the need for this as a standalone article now because there isn't much information about it from RS, just mentions of it. If I had to pick a side, I would lean toward deletion. This can be mentioned in other articles as it is relevant.

In the future, if this becomes notable enough as a standalone topic, we can revisit it then. JMM12345 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep it incase more information comes out and if any statements from the Iranian Government come out as well LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of us can predict the future. If that happens, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. JMM12345 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Iran, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this deletion as I think the user is biased to both the secret service and trump and is attempting to censor something LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FUTURE, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:DEADLINE. There is no rush to create these articles just to speculate on unconfirmed possibilities for the future. Also, please don't accuse people of random conspiracy theories. They're not helping anyone and are disruptive. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of bias, you literally created your account today to stir up non-encyclopedic discourse, including the repeated violation of WP:FORUM, one instance of which I have already reverted ~~and another which I am leaving on this article's talk page for now as public record.~~ TNstingray (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Background of Assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Clearly there isn't the content to support a standalone article at this point, so would be better merged with existing article on Trump assassination attempt. CNC (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now see this is already referenced in the Background section, so can simply be Deleted CNC (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. The retaliation by the Iranian government is planned in response to the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani ordered by Trump's National Security Council. It therefore targets not only Donald Trump, but also other former US officials [19]. This is important info, but it does not seem to qualify for a separate page yet. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is currently poorly written, the references to significant coverage in reliable sources are strong. CNN also published a lengthy article about this topic. This AfD should run a full week, and we can see how coverage of this develops. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MVBW, and the fact that we don't have any details anyway. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS By the time this election is over, there will have been a whole lot of so-called plots directed at both candidates, maybe even on a daily basis sometimes. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is literally nothing in WP:NOTNEWS that says this article is inappropriate. That policy language says Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. The policy forbids original reporting by Wikipedia editors, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, Who's Who type coverage and celebrity gossip. Nothing else. None of that is present in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it is too s, oon for a stand-alone article here. Other than the recent reporting that there are rumors, we have no information. I have no specific opinion on what the merge target should be yet; hopefully in the next few days there will be sufficient follow-on reporting to determine that. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Cullen328, this is essentially guaranteed to have enough information to merit a standalone article in the next few days (even a short one); and we can always merge it back to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani or some related article if for some reason that doesn't happen. The news on this just broke 4 hours ago, it's patently unhelpful to be pouncing on AfD's that quickly before this has even had time to marinate. WP:CONFUSESTUB applies; as does WP:ITSINTHENEWS (especially the cautionary part saying The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. There are a variety of reasons an article may be written about a particular event, and this must be taken into consideration when a news event is sent to AfD.) ��SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sounds reasonable. I am not opposed to "keep" as my second choice. My very best wishes (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. There seems to be a lot of non-policy based arguments for deletion of articles based on their current state, regardless of their notability, which is really the only concern here. "Keep" arguments like the user is biased are exactly as meaningful as "delete" arguments like a whole lot of so-called plots directed at both candidates: zero impact. Full length stories on this assassination plot are currently found at all tier 1 news sources including The New York Times, AP AP, Reuters, CNN, and a "live updates" sub-site at NBC News. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or merge per MVBW. It sounds like this is already mentioned in the background section of the Qasam article, so it could also just be Deleted. However, there is not enough prose to support a full article at this time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there ends up being significantly more information released on this plot. Estreyeria (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not enough content to support an article yet. The details are fairly vague at this point, even with the above sources. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CNC. Her Pegship (?) 17:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge. Unless there is evidence they actually tried to assassinate him, this is just an - albeit very delayed - reaction to Qasem Soleimani's murder, and in my opinion not notable on it's own. As noted by the NYTIMES article, Iran has been wanting to get revenge for a while.

In the very unlikely event this turned out to be related to Thomas Matthew Crooks' attack, then it should be merged with that article. If Iran actually does something, then it should be put into it's own article.

If none of that happens, most of this should be merged into Qasem Soleimani, and the details around the Secret Service's increased security should be added to the Trump Assassination article.

That said, I believe we should wait before making a decision, and allow more time for discussion and new evidence to arise. 174.61.187.77 (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify as it seems a bit WP:TOOSOON - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani#Attempted retaliation by Iran. I took the liberty to merge the contents of the article in question into the target article. The Mountain of Eden (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is No Consensus right now (Redirect, Merge, Keep, Delete AND Draftify options proposed). But I'm also not sure how much this article resembles the version that was nominated as already one participant has stated that they have merged content to another article prior to a AFD closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. There is nothing of substance in the news coverage. --Викидим (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Callahan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Not all senior government officials are notable enough to justify a WP article. Mentions of Callahan in WP:RS are WP:TRIVIAL related to his WP:ROUTINE job duties and not WP:SIGCOV focused on Callahan that would establish his notability. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 16 July 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, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sufficient sources are included in the article to satisfy notability.XavierGreen (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see little justification for deletion - he held the position. Political? OLDGUY50 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC) — OLDGUY50 (talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic[reply]
I also see little justification for deletion as he held the position and was within the agency for 25 plus years. 198.100.2.74 (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC) — 198.100.2.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. So far no policy-based justification or RS presented to justify keeping. Only source with WP:SIGCOV in the article is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and an official biography. Longhornsg (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Gov't official did gov't official things". Nothing notable in his actions, nor in the coverage, which remains trivial. Both of the references fail WP:SIRS for this topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Director of the United States Secret Service#William J. Callahan (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. In my searches for sources, I found only passing mentions about the subject. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (people). The closest additional criteria is Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges, but the Director of the United States Secret Service is not a politician or judge so that part of the guideline does not apply.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He exists, yes. Is he notable per WP:NBIO? Clearly not. No in-depth coverage, just name drops and primary sources. Don't strongly oppose a redirect but also not sure it's desirable when there are other people of the same name who attracted media attention such as a soldier killed in Iraq AusLondonder (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two sources on a BLP is not notable. Felicia (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Two sources would be sufficient for a BLP to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria if these two criteria were met:
  1. the two sources were independent reliable sources that provided significant coverage of the subject and
  2. the two sources did not cover the subject in the context of only one event
  The two sources in this case are either not significant coverage (the first source) or not independent (the second source) so do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AusLonder raises a good point that there are other people with the same name. Instead of redirecting William J. Callahan to Director of the United States Secret Service#William J. Callahan, I propose a redirect of William J. Callahan to the disambiguation page William Callahan which can cover all of the people named William J. Callahan who are mentioned on Wikipedia. To keep the history of the new disambiguation page separate from that of the Secret Service official, the article on William J. Callahan could be moved to William J. Callahan (Secret Service)—which matches the disambiguation for another Secret Service director article, Joseph Clancy (Secret Service)—and then redirected to Director of the United States Secret Service#William J. Callahan.
I could not find the soldier killed in Iraq mentioned on Wikipedia. According to this search on "William J. Callahan", except for three articles, all of the mentions are of the Acting Director of the United States Secret Service. Those three articles are Ancient Regime of Spain (where there is a William J. Callahan who is the author of a reference), Sacco and Vanzetti (where there is a William J. Callahan who is mentioned as an attorney), and 1936 United States Senate election in New Hampshire (where there is a William J. Callahan who is mentioned as a political candidate).
Some of these people can be mentioned at William Callahan per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Items appearing within other articles. Cunard (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability. Wakeupking (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ivory Tower (album)

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

I'm not sure if this album is notable. There's a PopMatters review and there's a brief review in HM (magazine) (page 32). According to the Wikipedia article, there's also a Kerrang review, but I wasn't able to find it; according to oldies.com music mail-order company, it at least contained the words "Taking driving riffs and breakdowns from emo and the huge radio-hugging choruses of, say, Journey or Mister Mister, Orange County quintet Takota are on to a winner on this, their debut album." Other than that, there's a Punktastic review, consisting of 10 adjectives, there's an Alternative Vision review (listed as generally unreliable on WP:A/S), and there's a NeuFutur review, a publication I hadn't heard of until today. toweli (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was a pretty good BEFORE, which it would be good to merge into the Takota article at least. There is also supposed to be a review printed in this edition of Burn. Geschichte (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Saipan International (badminton)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:EVENT. The winners are already covered in base article Saipan International (badminton).zoglophie^•talk• 06:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Badminton, Oceania, and United States of America. zoglophie^•talk• 06:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

Sorted by State

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