Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New York

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to New York. 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|New York|~~~~}} 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 New York. 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 US.

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/New York/archive

Purge page cache

watch

New York

Zimei Bu

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

Promo page for a chemistry academic. With an h-factor of 33, 3.3K cites and no evidence of major awards it is WP:TOOSOON by a few years (3-5 I estimate). She works in a high citation field, and the only moderately well cited paper (>500) is a multiauthor paper from 1997. AfD since I see no evidence the page can be edited to pass WP:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Chemistry, and New York. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 15:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I have to point out the first criterion is met in the above Google Scholar h-index cited, a verifiable accepted secondary source.... It is not my "original research" lark on that person. 3325 citations do demonstrate nontrivial impact, if only you were aware of biophysics standards so as not not to injudiciously count papers; this is mostly what my colleagues and I look at before any jive secondary stories. In my years of editing Wikipedia this is the first I've heard a bogus implicit claim that secondary sources are required detailing in the references (!) in predominance over primary sources, in this case papers, which academics immediately assess and rely on. The secondary sources are available, but I have dark views on the con jobs of e.g. Garrett Lisi's page enabled by excessive reliance on (inferior) secondary sources. Attending a meeting of academics rating CVs could rapidly unconfuse the objectors on what rates and what does not. It might well behoove you to be the proverbial "people" hoped for in the template, and format the info in a way comprehensible to people at large, if you are truly anxious to help the project. L Henley MD FACS (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Cohen (military)

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

The reason for the nomination is that the subject fails Wikipedia Notability. A great many soldiers in World War II had the identical experiences; he did nothing extraordinary at the time or after to warrant singling out for recognition in an encyclopedia. The general subject at issue is thoroughly covered in articles at Wikipedia. Talking to school children about his experiences is meritorious, but not encyclopedically noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:180:dc0:7897:64bd:78bb:bc83 (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copypasted from the edit summary of the tagging. I have no opinion at this time. --Finngall ^talk 23:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing terribly notable presented in the article, other than liberating the camp, had a very routine military career. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing here that raises him to the level of notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Effects (studio)

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

Claim to notability seems to be that they worked on Tron, and notability isn't inherited. Not seeing coverage, though the company name does certainly hamper the search. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Companies. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and New York. jolielover♥talk 07:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Bermudez

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

Outside of a reserve team, Bermudez has thus far played in the third tier of American soccer at his highest level. I could not find non-primary sources about him to help establish notability, and therefore he appears to fail WP:GNG. Raskuly (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Mexico, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah. Raskuly (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand your point about "Outside of a reserve team, Bermudez has thus far played in the third tier of American soccer at his highest level". According to Wikipedia:NFOOTY, players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria including "Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition" and "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional". Christopher Bermudez fits both of these criteria. If you need non-primary sources, here

Also reserve team would still count as that reserve team was playing in USL Championship at the time, which is a fully professional league according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know playing level does not establish notability, I was just providing context. "Also reserve team would still count as that reserve team was playing in USL Championship at the time". Count for what? Playing level does not matter. Professional play is old guidance. And I know Real Monarchs was at the time in the second tier, hence why I worded it that way.

1st, 2nd, and 3rd source is a passing mention of Bermudez doing something in a soccer game, which soccer players tend to do. I simply can't read the NYT source so I don't know how Bermudez is mentioned in the article, but when I search his surname it only comes up once. Raskuly (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Professional play is old guidance"? Its still the criteria listed though? We should follow the guidance listed and not make up our own criteria. Yes, the sources mention Bermudez in passing but in context of the sport it would be continued coverage of him playing professional soccer. Playing soccer is something soccer players tend to do and this is evidence, from independent sources, that he is a professional player. Which is notable. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY has been superseded by WP:NSPORT, and Bermudez is an attacking player so it would make sense that he would do things in a game that would be noted in an article about a game, but the mentions of Bermudez in those articles appear trivial. Sources 1-3 are all about the exact same game so I fail to understand how that is continued coverage. Source 4 which I cannot read appears to be about John Harkes while he coached Greenville Triumph, so it makes sense that Bermudez could be mentioned since he was one of Harkes' players. Could you tell me to what extent Bermudez was mentioned in the NYT article? Raskuly (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, the only time the subject is mentioned is midway through the article, where the author notes "In January, midfielder Christopher Bermudez moved to Real Monarchs, and Kevin Politz was sold to Hartford Athletic this past December." Purely trivial. Let'srun (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no kidding? I did not know that WP:NFOOTY had been superseded by WP:NSPORT. I appreciate you informing me and apologize that I was going off old criteria. It seems like it that is the case a lot of lower division American players will be re-classified as not notable because coverage can be spotty (not being the most popular sport in America does that). Not sure if that is a shame, losing so much work, or a good thing to clean up. Any good examples of USL League One players that fit the criteria that I could look at? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only references presented are passing mentions and I don't see anything better elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CLAVVS

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

I just tried to clean this article up and it's absolutely not worth saving- there is nothing notable about this band or whatever they want to call it and short of Graham Marsh (who is questionably notable himself) there is absolutely nothing that lends itself to getting close to meeting the low bar of WP:NMUSIC COOLIDICAE🕶 18:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and New York. toweli (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Graham Marsh (producer) as an ATD, though as a group, CLAVVS does get mentioned and featured in a handful of interviews and features like this1 and this2, have yet to see more independent SIGCOV about them, if any, let me check for possible stance change.Lorraine Crane (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CLAVVS in NPR , Consequence of Sound, and The Line of Best Fit Bobhopesmoking (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CLAVVS major radio coverage here and here Bobhopesmoking (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Rockefeller Junior

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

This was previously redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rockefeller Jr., and little to nothing has changed over the past 8 years regarding notability. The only trustworthy sources that mention him in much detail seem to be interviews (or at least pieces that heavily rely on the subject's own commentary) when they aren't from corporations he's affiliated with. These things don't count as independent coverage. Anything that could be considered independent is probably just minor name drops in things more focused on other Rockefeller family members. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are actually not directly affiliated to the Rockefeller's (except maybe the Asia Society). He also seems to have more coverage than many of his siblings (so if we apply rules consistently, either their articles have to be deleted or his has to be included). FT also called him the "new patriarch" of the Rockefeller's after his fathers' death (See: https://www.ft.com/content/5fa4777a-10ec-11e8-940e-08320fc2a277). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afus199620 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure InfluenceWatch is credible (especially when the layout's formatting makes me suspect it mirrored a past version of his Wikipedia article) or what the point of adding "directly" here was when one cannot be "indirectly" affiliated with anyone or anything, but let's not downplay how he's a trustee for National Center for family Philanthropy while the We Are Family Foundation is an institution his wife co-founded. FYI, a spousal connection does count as an affiliation, which also definitely means Asia Society is one when his uncle started that up (the "grandnephew" part it gives is an obvious mistake when David Sr. was actually a brother of John III instead of a nephew). Palace of Versailles just gives a one-sentence mention, which doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV and neither would obituaries of family members that merely list him among surviving relatives. As for siblings, whether they warrant their own pages is a separate matter, so using the existence of those as a rationale to keep this would be a WP:WAX fallacy when their notability (or lack thereof) has no bearing on David Jr.'s personal merits. You're free to start other AFDs for any of them. The Financial Times piece you linked isn't by any means independent of the subject when containing lots of his commentary, and same for things like CNBC. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Liu (immunologist)

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

Page with a very large number of sources that fail verification, or are irrelevant. Of the five references on his career [1-5] only [2] is valid, the rest not. If I remove all the unverified material not much is left. I also cannot find enough via GS or Google to verify independently as his name is too common. As a failure of WP:V I think it needs a delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 17:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this person meet the named chair professorship criteria of NPROF#5? See [1]. There's also a fellowship of AAAS which I understand is highly selective (NPROF#3).
Also can you clarify what you mean by references being "valid"? I checked the first citation which no longer lists the person as they left U of Maryland, but the archive link[2] is clearly this individual. I haven't looked further, but I don't see verifiability concerns.
I will say that the article is written in a highly promotional style but we're not here to discuss cleaning up articles. Oblivy (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not agree with you
1. I think it is standard that AAAS does not qualify for #3; NAE, NAS do, as do being a selective fellow of a major society such as APS. Note that there is no source for any of his awards.
2. Only distinguished chairs at the highest level qualify for NPROF#5. When someone gives money they typically want their names associated with them. In strong R1 University Depts in the sciences 1/3-2/3 of the full Professors have a named Chair. Of these only a small fraction are at the level for #3.
3. The Scopus link is not encouraging. An h-factor of 48 is borderline for a high citation field. Most troubling it stops in 2015.
The page has too many problems. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing (aside from the issue of failed links where you are clearly not looking at the archive). I asked for your views. Would be interested to hear from others.
I do think you are misreading NPROF5 - distinguished professorship and named chair (equivalent to...) are in the disjunctive, but I'm not sure if you are saying you considered this chair rather than a statement about "small fraction" at generic universities. Oblivy (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this archived notability discussion on C5, there are more in the archives at WT:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion (which features your then-1/3 figure, now up-to-2/3) just explains how we ended up with the current language. So we're back to what made you conclude, on the basis of that language, and before bringing this AfD, that this specific/non-generic named professorial chair should be disregarded. You certainly didn't acknowledge it in your nomination rationale. Oblivy (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn

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

Does not meet the WP guidelines for album notability Tiakat333 (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, New Jersey, and New York. jolielover♥talk 18:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Seems obviously notable, at least four reviews from reliable sources per WP:RSMUSIC: Allmusic, Beats Per Minute, Consequence of Sound, Pitchfork Media. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nomination seems untrue/meritless. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, is has all the reliale sources and this person is borderline harassing me across Wikipedia at the moment and anything related to the artist page. Henchren (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated since I posted this but the source issues remain - single sources are counted multiple times (see numbers one and seven), at least two sources have no links or ways to access the content, and multiple sources are dead links (such as the NYT citation). Additionally, the critical reception section of the article is almost entirely long excepts of the positive statements in reviews. The whole article screams bias, though if someone wants to clean it up they should go ahead and do so. As it stands now it doesn’t seem to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Tiakat333 (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Just go ahead and do so. Henchren (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I was going off the sources, two of which are permanently dead links and at least two others are personal blogs. Tiakat333 (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)

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

A serious lack of secondary and independent sourcing that would demonstrate notability. I didn't find the high quality sourcing that would demonstrate WP:NORG as being met, feels somewhat original research-y Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, Education, and New York. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Irving literary society was both formative within the early history of such societies, serving as an example to those who were established in subsequent decades, and the Irving was solidly documented in the newspapers and books of the time. We already list 43 references, and while JSTOR notes more, the current count is probably overkill. No, the Irving was not a topic for first-tier national newspapers, like the NYT. But editors who are knowledgeable about early campus societies (Fraternities, sororities, honor societies and literary societies) realize that such blanketing coverage is not likely unless the group becomes notorious for some scandal. Rather, the Irving was covered extensively in its time by the city and campus papers, in biographies, and such mentions were common over subsequent decades. Notability does not diminish over time. This is an unnecessary and unwarranted deletion prod. Jax MN (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable, independent sources offer significant coverage of the organization? Student run publications are neither reliable, nor independent Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: this is the third time this article has been nominated for deletion. Also, not all of the WikiProjects associated with this project have been notified, including WP:FRAT and WP:UNI. Rublamb (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References, while many are directly related to Cornell, the History of Cornell books and others are not Student run.Naraht (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a secondary source that provides significant coverage, Manual of College Literary Societies, with Statistical Table. Other secondary sources include non-campus newspapers and the History of Cornell that was not published by the university. These satisfy notability. Although campus publications are heavily used, these are considered reliable sources and are allowable to supplement the article's content. Rublamb (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at Bishop's History of Cornell (which I assume is what you and the above commenter are talking about), and all it says is "At Cornell the Irving Literary Association was founded only thirteen days after the University's opening", within one paragraph on the broader phenomenon of Cornell literary societies. I struggle to see how that is WP:SIGCOV. If the paragraph at Manual of College Literary Societies is the best coverage we have (akin to an entry in a phone book or directory), how are the requirements of WP:NORG met? Where is the secondary coverage of this club? EDIT: I just saw Hewitt's 1905 History, which contributes another couple sentences, but again don't see how this organization is independently notable from the broader article Cornell literary societies. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The history book is by Hewitt (vol. 3) and Holmes and Williams (vol. 4). Granted the mentions are brief, but I was simply affirming @Naraht's assessment that it was an independent secondary source. You must not be looking at the right section of the Manual of College Literary Societies as there is non-trivial third-party coverage on p. 85 and 86; not just a name and address entry. Other secondary sources included in this article are: United States Bureau of Education, Contributions to American Educational History No. 28: History of Higher Education in New York, "The Immortal Eight" in A Half-Century at Cornell, and History of Washington. Two citations are from The Daily Democrat, and independent newspaper. This fulfills WP:WHYN, which notes "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." I think the red flag here is the volume of text attributed to primary sources, such as campus newspapers. If I were to reduce this to a stub or start class article, removing most of the campus sources, it would have enough secondary sources and coverage for notability. Thus, this falls under the "can be improved" category. I suggest flagging it for improvement and see what happens. Rublamb (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes even its third time coming before deletion committee. GNG Iljhgtn (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Minogue Band

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show passage of certain defined notability criteria supported by reliable sources -- but the strongest notability claim here is that one of their music videos won a minor award that isn't significant enough to pass NMUSIC #8.
Otherwise, this is strictly on the level of "band whose music exists", and is referenced mainly to primary sources, directory entries and a Q&A interview in which Annie Minogue is answering questions about herself, which are not support for notability -- and the few reliable sources left (one relatively short album review and two articles from minor magazines that read suspiciously more like mildly-rewritten press releases from her record label rather than GNG-building journalism) doesn't add up to enough to claim that she would pass GNG.
Further, the creator started this in draftspace and submitted it for review several times, but it's been declined each time for the inadequacy of its sourcing, following which they submitted it for the fifth or sixth time on August 13, and then made no further edits before coming back today to move it into mainspace themselves without waiting for the latest review they had submitted it for, which is not proper process.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the band from needing better, more GNG-worthy referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 16:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day @Bearcat,

Thanks for your feedback.

As a new editor to Wikipedia, I have really appreciated the feedback given by some editors on this platform.

After the last review by @HilssaMansen19, who contributed to the article also with 2 further sources and were extremely helpful with actual suggestions on how to improve this article, which I did, I was confident that this article was ready to be published.

I realize that I have not followed the proper process here, so what would be the next steps?

Thank-you Van1985 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi @Van1985, I'd be open to !voting to move this back to draft space, but my concern is that the band doesn't meet WP's notability criteria for musicians, and the draft won't ever make it through AfC.

Are you able to have a read over the criteria and let us know which points you think the band may meet? This will help other editors come to a decision in this discussion. Thanks, Nil🥝 20:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a vote as I initially declined this article and edited it later per conversation with @Van1985 on my talk page. I came here because of this mention. They are a new editor, and surely, not aware of Wikipedia:Canvassing as they asked for motivation and for guidance. Agf, for a new editor not being aware of the policies is common.

Including that, I initially declined it as a draft as explained in the conversation linked above. I did advise for being patient about the process and to seek another reviewer to review the draft. I believe there is some sort of notability. As mentioned in the detailed nomination by @Bearcat about awards, I found a source mentioning some notable awards - even if considered minor, Telly awards, National Award, WSA award 's may present minor notability. On non-famous charts like World Indie Charts and European Indie Music Charts, they have peaked at #1 and #2 respectively. #1 two times maybe. [3]

Per NMUSIC #5, their album record label is a major label Varèse Sarabande and tied up with others (independent, known and old) on digital release of singles or album. Per NMUSIC #11, will their broadcast of songs on national television be considered? Along with an independent feature film, their music has been featured on television shows like Dawson’s Creek and Strong Medicine as another criteria met.

Still, if that might not be sufficient, since there is no page on Annie Minogue, or members like Brian Karp Letters to Cleo's former member, I am suggesting to draftify the article and then redirect it to Annie Minogue (will suggest the editor and help edit it) would save both the article per Wikipedia:ATD, though an old band but let's consider Wikipedia:Too soon given they are releasing a new album and have been releasing singles recently. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 20:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to charting, the only thing we accept as a notability-making chart is an IFPI-certified national chart on the order of Billboard or the Official UK Charts, not "non-famous charts like World Indie Charts and European Indie Music Charts". And even when it comes to "the albums are on a label", it's not the fact of being released by a label that confers notability, which would allow some bands to bypass having to have any sourcing: it's the question of whether the albums got GNG-building coverage about their release and reception in reliable sources.

Basically, everything in NMUSIC always has to be supported by reliable source coverage about the achievement, and nothing in it ever confers any automatic inclusion freebies on a band who haven't been shown to pass GNG on their sourceability. It's not the claim that makes the band notable, it's the quality and depth and volume of GNG-worthy sourcing that media devoted to reporting on it. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context Hilssa. I'm still not quite comfortable that WP:NMUSIC has been met, but would support draftifying. Looking at the criteria you've alluded to:

NMUSICBIO #2 (charting) – "World/European Indie Music Charts" are not ones I'm familiar with, and is not listed at WP:CHARTS. The only place I've found where it's parent has been discussed is here, but there isn't consensus that it's reliable.
NMUSICBIO #8 (awards) – A good rule of thumb is that if an award doesn't have it's own Wikipedia article, it is unlikely to be considered notable. Having a Google of the Telly Awards also raises concerns. Unsure what some of the other awards listed in that article are as no presenter/context is given to them. The ASCAP Pop Music Awards seems the most notable of the bunch, but would need RS that they received it.
NMUSIC #5 (major label releases) – Searching Varèse Sarabande albums discography shows only one release, but the criteria requires two or more. One could argue semantics over what a "major label" is, but either way sigcov is required for all releases to meet this criteria.
NMUSIC #11 – Featuring on a soundtrack isn't enough for notability; this criteria is about receiving significant radio play.

Also noting that the criteria only indicates a band may be notable; significant coverage from reliable sources is still required to pass SNG. For that reason, I'd say draftify is best for the time being. Nil🥝 23:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nil NZ for the detailed reply and @Bearcat for yours. I also agree with your points and found several articles but RS are needed. It will be hard to pass AFC but I will try to add more sources (if they exist) and work on it if draftified.

NewTimes RS mentioning ASCAP award (bad writing style/format but The New Times (Rwanda) is RS per Wikipedia:WikiProject AfroCine/Reliable Sources. @Nil NZ, idk if one would be enough apart from PlasticMagazine one.

Adding this - They won National artist of the year at LA Music Awards, a notable regional award (more like an unique award type).

Additionally, it turns out EIMN is a big network and the leading continental indie chart (not on Wikipedia as an article but mentioned in songs/bands/singers articles as an achievement chart like Billboard) There are several global news mentions available of the charts as well. Some minor mentions -[4]

[Italian Network] available on [5], mentions Annie Minogue Band.

Another topic:

What are your thoughts and suggestions on "Anne Minogue" article @Bearcat and @Nil NZ? As far as I could find a few hours back while writing that, she had a solo career, two Albums (early or pre 2000s magazines found confirming it), songs probably but much of her solo work is pre-Internet and it would be hard to find old prints, if they do exist in e-format like archives. There is coverage of her 4-6 primary sources, two secondary and independent sources with 2 significant mentions in relation to band in RSs per Wikipedia:Notability (people). NSINGER: not so sure, your opinions are much welcome. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 01:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HI @HilssaMansen19, @Bearcat, @Nil NZ,

Thank you all for your valuable feedback and input here. I would really appreciate the chance to make this article better so that it meets Wikipedia criteria, rather than remove it completely and not give it the chance it deserves. @HilssaMansen19 you have pointed out some valid points with regards to Annie Minogue and creating a page for her. Would it be worthwhile? I would be grateful for any help with this article for Annie Minogue Band and Annie Minogue if we are given the chance to go back to a draft - thank you for your assistance with this @HilssaMansen19. Van1985 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per NilZ, awards/competitions if having no WP page may not be considered reliable. Adding to that - unless presented by national academies under sovereign governments, WP may not be there but if RS can confirm it, it would be helpful.

Apart from that as the LA Music Awards(RS), a major award competition with WP page and ASCAP Award (RS mentioned above), hopefully will be considered towards NMUSIC notability. About Annie Minogue article, let's discuss that on my or your talk page per consensus here.

Since, we don't have an appropriate article to redirect to, we can draftify and redirect when an article is there. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 14:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Woefully fails any variation of WP:NMUSIC and lacks any meaningful sources to prove otherwise that I can find. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,

It does meet NMUSIC criterias and a few sources (RS) are available. As for right resources, it is not quite easy on first search as I had to do quite a few.

NMUSIC # 9 : A major international online voting music award-competition LA Music Awards where they won "National Artist of the Year". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annie_Minogue_Band#c-HilssaMansen19-20250826011900-Nil_NZ-20250825233700

Mixed NMUSIC #11 & #12 : Featured on two major TV shows and continued on radio networks.

Since we don't have a proper article to redirect to, a draftify will allow for a few other additions and per Wikipedia:ATD, TOOSOON as their new album is set to release under a European label and has recieved quite a few coverage sources mentioning the awaiting album's release. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 18:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop leaving a bunch of nonsense responses to every person who replies here. You make absolutely zero sense and nothing is in line with what policy or guidelines are. I'm not reading all of this multiple times. Provide adequate sources and simplify your responses - trying to win people over by sheer volume won't do you any favors. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I shouldn't !vote, because the band leader appears to be a friend of a friend (Manhattan is, after all, the smallest village in the world). In any case, quality of sources and strong arguments are more important than quantity of citations or repetition. Bearian (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your comment. Does this mean that you think that the article has strong enough sources to meet NMUSIC criteria? As pointed out by @HilssaMansen19, I can't see why it would not. And the article as it stands has been completely changed from its original state, based on the advice from various different Wikipedia experts. I went onto the Wikipedia chat forum for advice when it was first rejected, and I was told by 2 very helpful users there to remove certain information and add other sources, which I did. It was then declined by @HilssaMansen19 who advised me to change the structure of the article, remove some information, and add further sources, which I have done.

Please could someone advise on the next steps here. Thanks! Van1985 (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Ortega (Superyacht Captain)

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

delete: absolute not notable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) - this is an mid season entrant on a minor reality tv show. I presume this article was created either by them or their agent. Dimspace (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon at best. -Jahaza (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only known for his appearances in Below Deck. Fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is BLP1E. Bearian (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- for points above, though not opposed to draftify if any more SIGCOV can be added to check in the future as an ATD.Lorraine Crane (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Emilio Baglioni

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

The article reads more like a promotional biography than an encyclopedic entry. Much of the content is unsourced, or sourced to highly unreliable or self-published material (e.g. personal websites, YouTube uploads from the subject, a dead local blog). There is little evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that would establish notability under WP:BIO. The inclusion of unsourced claims about childhood experiences, family lineage, and personal relationships further contributes to the article’s promotional tone. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Switzerland, England, California, Nevada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a chef of some local renown---his restaurant got a LA Times review back in the 1980s and received additional WP:MILL coverage of the restaurant's life cycle. (1 2)---but there is no significant coverage of the subject to substantiate WP:GNG. -- BriefEdits (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally promo article, no evidence of notability, clearly fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing a lot of coverage in California newspapers in newspapers.com extending from 1968 through 1998; some of which cover television appearances. Additionally google books shows snippets of articles in culinary magazines such as a 1990 article in Epicurean Rendezvous and a 1991 article on him in National Culinary Review. This book published by Wiley (publisher) indicates he was a notable figure in an "Italian renaissance" in cuisine in America of the 20th century. I don't think demonstrating WP:SIGCOV will be difficult.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the Restaurants & Institutions article, the coverage only mentions the subject and is mostly about the restaurant as it's a piece on the landscape of Italian restaurants in the United States. The same could be said about the Epicurean Rendezvous page (a 90s restaurant guide). The WP refs and JSTOR hits are more or less the same---some occasional name drops, some WP:MILL coverage of the restaurant. Therefore, I don't think the coverage as it stands passes WP:SIGCOV. -- BriefEdits (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Lisa (singer)

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

Article about a singer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage documenting passage of certain specific criteria of achievement -- but as written, the strongest notability claim here is that one of her songs appeared in a movie soundtrack (i.e. the one criterion in NMUSIC that explicitly undermines itself with a "not enough if it's the only criterion they pass" clause), with the rest of the content being strictly on the level of "musician whose music exists".
And the article is referenced entirely to bad primary sourcing that isn't support for notability (label PR, YouTube, Amazon, a music video database), with not a single GNG-building source shown at all, and has been flagged for needing improved references since 2012 without ever having a single new reference added in the entire 13 years since.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to American music media from the 1990s can find evidence that she passes GNG on better sourcing than I've been able to locate, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, New York, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find evidence she attained musical notability and this (not and not using as an RS) all but clarifies she won't meet that or GNG. Star Mississippi 17:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Can't be Wasting My Time" charted and if I read a review in The State (Columbia) right it also went gold. Good for both NMUSIC 2&3. I will update the page with some sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated, Bearcat? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, but merge/redirect both 11-20-79 and Just Wanna Please U to her. Geschichte (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input on the recent article expansion may help establish clearer consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per duffbeerforme sourcing; "Can't be Wasting My Time" on a soundtrack charting gold may meet WP:MUSICBIO#3. Wish I could find a more official source for the gold claim but it is stated in the McCormick reference in The State. Nnev66 (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple bad reviews, as we have seen from other AfDs, are significant coverage. I recall seeing this with opera signers, science fiction writers, and pop musicians. Bearian (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Geidel

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

A firefighter who was killed during the collapse of the World Trade Center in 2001. Fails WP:NBIO. I was unable to find any sources that significantly coveraged the individual. Redirecting to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (A–G) is also an option. Alvaldi (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Alvaldi (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the list of victims is fine. This person doesn't appear more notable than any of the others that perished that day. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List above. Metallurgist (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1-2 Special

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeibgeist (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the articles all have by-lines, they are clearly press release driven type pieces. Not much here that would qualify under WP:SIRS.4meter4 (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

16:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly press release type material. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bills–Titans rivalry

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks the sustained, independent coverage required to meet WP:NRIVALRY. A search for "Bills-Titans" and even "Bills-Oilers" yielded very little. Most sources focus on the two notable playoff games between the teams, with none providing in-depth coverage of any ongoing rivalry, if one exists at all. Playing in two memorable playoff games does not necessarily constitute a rivalry. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Sports, New York, and Tennessee. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this series is currently not as intense as it has been, there is ample documentation in this article to back up a historical rivalry besides the two playoff moments in the 1980s/1990s, covering eras such as the 1960s and the late 2010s/early 2020s. There are pages on several of these "historical" rivalries. See Dolphins-Raiders rivalry or Giants-49ers rivalry. WuTang94 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not because of WP:NRIVALRY because that is a one-sentence deep statement that does not help anyone. It's because I searched through Buffalo and Nashville/Tennessee papers to find anything calling them a rivalry or even nemeses and nothing except typical WP:ROUTINE] sources came up. However, if someone with a newspapers.com account happens to find stuff from the 1980s, then I'll consider a keep !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a 2019 piece from The Tennesseean that seemed to assess whether or not Bills/Titans is a true rivalry. There's a paywall on it though. WuTang94 (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to bypass that paywall, do you have a link? Conyo14 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it must be either this or this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First source was the aforementioned 2019 "is it a rivalry" piece, which the article leaned towards. The second one from 2022 is new to me, and can be viewed as a more contemporary one, but it leans towards a reheated rivalry existing to some extent, as Kevin Byard acknowledges its existence. I do agree that it's died down since that 41-7 Bills win in 2022, followed by Derrick Henry, Mike Vrabel, and Ryan Tannehill all leaving the Titans. WuTang94 (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical. This rivalry dates back to 1960, so I highly doubt that there won't be someone who finds SIGCOV on Newspapers.com or somewhere else. NotJamestack (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Let'srun's sources below, there seems to be enough SIGCOV for a keep. NotJamestack (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The franchises had two big playoff moments against each other, but they're not really rivals. The fact the Tennesseean had to write an article asking if they were rivals pretty much definitively answers this one. SportingFlyer T·C 18:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found some mentions of a "rivalry" at [[6]] and [[7]], [[8]], and [[9]. Let'srun (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say there is enough here for a weak keep, especially with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram providing SIGCOV from the 1980s. Let'srun (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of those articles were all written right before the two teams played each other. They don't demonstrate a true rivalry. SportingFlyer T·C 09:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'd look for articles focusing on the teams "trolling" each other, like when the Titans keep running lateral pass plays against the Bills in reference to the Music City Miracle, or the sour taste left in Bills fans' mouths from that play. I know there may be some sources out there. WuTang94 (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer I do not understand your logic. You can't just use the date an article was published as a framing device. You have done it with this AfD AND the Broncos-Patriots AfD. If you're just going to do that, you might as well not participate in these AfDs at all. NotJamestack (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'll participate. I'm simply noting that if the only coverage about the "rivalry" happens immediately before and after the event, it's probably WP:ROUTINE. You can easily find articles on different actual rivalries from many different sources at many different times of the year, not just recaps of the times they've played, which is all we have here. Every. single. article. here. mentions that the two teams are about to play each other. If they hadn't, no one would be writing about it! That's not a rivalry. Consider one of the sources even has to ask if it's a rivalry! SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The third article gives SIGCOV about the rivalry. Does it not? NotJamestack (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article - Bills, Oilers renew old rivalry in playoff game - is about the upcoming Bills-Oilers playoff game, and contains only two paragraphs on the history between the two teams, out of 22 in the article. The rest is on the upcoming playoff matchup.

Same with the other articles. The first mention they've played five times in five years, but is mostly about the upcoming game. The second is a short article and talks only about the two most important games the two teams have played, which were indeed memorable playoff games. The fourth contains lots of text, but only one sentence about a rivalry, and it's from the year after their famous playoff game. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
22 paragraphs in a game article? That sounds like something that can satisfy GNG per WP:NOTROUTINE. It is an essay, but it gives good advice, and makes some good points that I definitely agree with.

An article dedicated to their two most important games? It's short, but it does justify SIGCOV, especially if the two teams played eachother in both games, and no, they are not passing mentions either.NotJamestack (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, two OUT of twenty-two, and only used to frame the context of the game preview article.

Two teams playing two individually important games against each other does not constitute a rivalry. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue these sources do not constitute a rivalry between the Bills and Titans, but a rivalry between the Bills and Oilers. Also, the first source is not a source that significantly covers the history of the Bills–Titans rivalry. Conyo14 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's good because notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Yet another reason to keep this article! NotJamestack (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider the Bills–Oilers rivalry is not the Bills–Titans rivalry, which would require a rename. Conyo14 (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Oilers and the Titans are the same team, so I don't think a rename would work, but that's just what I think. NotJamestack (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of historical rivalries. There is even a section for Defunct rivalries on List of NFL rivalries. As of right now there is no sourcing for Bills–Titans. Conyo14 (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful since there isn't even certainty that this rivalry is a "thing".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source brought up by Let'srun are just about good enough. Cortador (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another example of a mostly made up rivalry. Basically only described as rivalry by sources that are more of like a Bills, Titans/Oilers (Or possibly even sites about history of Pro Football in Houston, combining Oilers and Texans). Basically the article was possibly made to try and get things heated up. Don't use Wikipedia to try and make people believe these are rivalries. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Read the sources. No one is "trying to make a rivalry happen", and while it's not as strong as it was before, sources exist for one that was stronger back in the day. I have a few more that I'll add tonight. WuTang94 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think anything that is between the "Oilers" and Bills cannot be counted towards the Bills–Titans rivalry. Conyo14 (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some old NFL Films documentaries covering the Music City Miracle seem to mention the Titans' old history as the Oilers and point to a heated rivalry with the Bills. If I can track them down on whatever streaming service they're on and cite them here, would that change your mind? WuTang94 (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'd just say move the content on anything Bills-Oilers related to its own thing. Bills–Titans rivalry should be axed. Conyo14 (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WuTang94 I should be more specific. I didn't say it is made up. I said mostly on the article. What I am saying is it makes it seem bigger than it actually is. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Redirect to List of NFL rivalries #Buffalo Bills vs. Tennessee Titans. They were formerly division rivals and I am convinced that this is somewhat of a rivalry considering The Comeback and Music City Miracle, but I am just not convinced that this is notable enough for an article on its own. So redirect per WP:CHEAP, WP:BLAR and WP:ATD. Also tagging other editors from both sides to see if anyone thinks this is a good idea. @WuTang94 @Let'srun @Cortador @Conyo14. Also going to tag a bunch of other sports Wikipedians: @Left guide @Yankees10 @BeanieFan11 @Aaron08 @GoodDay @Sbaio @400spartans @2012Olympian @Hey man im josh. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, I recommend you advertise this to specific WikiProjects instead of pinging specific editors, unless they have been directly involved on the talk page or in editing the article itself. We don't want it to ever look like canvassing @Servite et contribuere. With that said, if the article were deleted, that entry would also likely get removed from the list. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I lean towards keeping the article, I agree that it might need a slight rewrite if we were to keep it, such as incorporating the additional sources for Bills/Oilers, making a characteristics section that compares the Oilers era to the Titans era, and incorporating more sources from the Mike Vrabel era that ended just recently. But if it's deleted I understand, though I think a brief mention would still be warranted in the "Rivalries" sections of both teams' main pages.

My assessment, however, is that many Bills fans view the Oilers/Titans as the same franchise and remained bitter towards the Titans for the Music City Miracle for a long time. WuTang94 (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recent source from SB Nation: [10] Prior to the Jacksonville Jaguars/Buffalo Bills game in 2024, the Jaguars' writer interviewed the Bills' writer, who went on to compare the Jags/Bills series to Bills/Oilers from the 90s (and by extension the Titans): "This matchup [sic] tend to remind me of the 90s rivalry between the Bills and Houston Oilers (boo Titans) — mostly due to the existence of a genuine cross-division rivalry." WuTang94 (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A single sentence in an interview isn't SIGCOV, though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – If no further SIGCOV is found, merge relevant content about The Comeback and Music City Miracle into the Buffalo Bills or Tennessee Titans articles, as the rivalry itself lacks sustained notability per WP:NRIVALRY Editor1769 20:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reviewing the sources provided by Let'srun.
- [11] refers to it as a "budding rivalry," meaning its a new and developing rivalry. Since there was no follow up to that article and the Titans now stink, it's safe to say that this didn't go anywhere.
- [12] focuses primarily on the teams’ playoff history and is written like a pre-game coverage article. It's also from the "Tennessean", a newspaper in Nashville, which fails WP:Local.
- [13] is fine and probably the best source for this article to pass GNG, but like SportingFlyer stated, only two paragraphs go into depth of their history while the rest is talking about their upcoming game.
- [14] reads like a standard pre-game coverage and the "rivalry" part is when it talks about an incident where oilers fans sent packages of ground buffalo meat to Houston coaches to motivate them. It provides no in-depth analysis of the rivalry.
- Additionally, the source provided by WuTang94 is from a fan blog who interviewed a editor from another fan blog.

For this article to pass Wp:GNG, it has to receive " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Even if the source from Fort Worth is considered reliable, we still need another source because basing an entire article on one source doesn't make sense. As Conyo14 noted, we still don't have a reliable, independent source for Bills-Titans. I can believe that there is/was a rivalry between these two teams, but I don't think there's enough to warrant an article about it. Maybe a paragraph or so on the team's pages would be better suited for this? WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Tennessean source doesn't "fail" WP:Local because you can't fail an essay. And definitely not a failed essay (Wikipedia_talk:Places_of_local_interest#Failed) This isn't only of "local" interest anyway. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiGiancarloC2: Are you thinking of WP:LOCALCORP? The Tennessean would be a regional publication anyway, but NORG doesn't apply to this article. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I too do not see how The Tennessean fails WP:LOCAL. Rlendog (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SportingFlyer. Two teams playing two individually important games against each other does not constitute a rivalry is a good summation of the situation. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of NFL rivalries § Buffalo Bills vs. Tennessee Titans per WP:ATD... but that's only because it exists, as quite frankly I'm not seeing the kind of coverage that would warrant the continued existence of that section. The fact that a newspaper reporter ran an entire article questioning whether the rivalry even exists is illuminating (plus their argument that one famous game, the idea that the Titans have to have some sort of rival, and "Mike Vrabel played most of his career for Bills division rival New England" [lol] adds up to a rivalry is utterly unconvincing). Other sources read like routine game coverage that push a rivalry angle into headlines to attract more eyeballs. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That list is only for rivalries that have articles. Either this should be deleted – and the content at that list removed – or kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that has to be the case. The rivalries could include summaries of rivalries that are not deemed notable enough for a standalone article but for which some relevant information exists. Which is not to say that I don't believe this subject is not notable enough for a standalone article. Rlendog (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a good precedent to set for minor rivalries that exist or have existed, but aren't notable enough for standalone articles. We should also look into better defining what makes a sports rivalry notable enough, as the rules are somewhat murky. WuTang94 (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New York

Contents

New York

Zimei Bu

David Cohen (military)

Digital Effects (studio)

Christopher Bermudez

CLAVVS

David Rockefeller Junior

Yang Liu (immunologist)

A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn

Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)

Annie Minogue Band

Hugo Ortega (Superyacht Captain)

Emilio Baglioni

Mona Lisa (singer)

Gary Geidel

1-2 Special

Bills–Titans rivalry

Proposed deletions

Templates