Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

Note: This is a high level category for deletion sorting. Whenever possible, it is recommended for deletion discussions to be added to more specific categories, such as a state and/or relevant subject area. Please review the list of available deletion categories, and see this page's guidelines below for more information.

Page guidelines: This United States of America deletion sorting page may be used for the following types of articles:

AfD discussions about people, organizations, companies and other entities that are known for activity or have a presence on a national level in the United States can be listed on this page.
Topics and subjects that are U.S.-based, whereby the article does not provide a specific state of origin or where activity occurs.
Media such as films, television shows and books that have national distribution in the United States.
Products that have national distribution and a significant presence in the United States.
Multinational companies that have a significant presence in the United States, whereby the article does not provide specific state(s) of ___location.

Dear reader/writer of this WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America. The present page was above the template_include_limit. As a result, the bottom of the page was not displayed correctly. For this reason, the transclusion of the deletions sorted by US states has been moved to WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/sorted by State.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to United States of America. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|United States of America|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to United States of America. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.

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

Purge page cache

watch

General

Aresh Banaji

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

non-notable music engineer - at best a background person who has no significant coverage anywhere other than their name appearing as a passing mention (ie. "my assistant" and as a title in print) COOLIDICAE🕶 17:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Maharashtra, and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 17:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Günther Kletetschka

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

Lacks sufficient reliable sources discussing him in detail. Even the Boyce article is on phys.org which is a news aggregator. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Mathematics, Physics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. jolielover♥talk 16:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FRINGEBLP which does not rise to WP:NFRINGE levels. Also fails WP:NPROF. jps (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFRINGE is irrelevant as it is for evaluating notability of theories, not their proponents. Barack Obama may end up saying he's a Younger Dryas enthusiast, but in no universe would WP:NFRINGE apply to him. This is a pure easy WP:GNG matter. Let's not give FRINGE authority or precedent scope it is not entitled and never will enjoy. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for basic apparent failure of WP:GNG alone. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)

Józef Kasparek

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

Primary contributor/creator (with Logologist being an older account of Nihil novi) has self-identified on Wikipedia as someone who is related to the subject of this article (see this diff, book can be found on Internet Archive where the name can be confirmed).

Undisclosed COI aside, sourcing is really poor throughout. The parts of the article that contain references are mostly sourced from the subject’s own works (including memoirs which are not published anywhere, as far as I can ascertain) and a “Who’s Who” book which I would think best to extend caution on given the integrity of these genres of book as raised by MediaKyle at the AfD for Kasparek’s relative.

I’ve also had to remove material from the article which was cited to another source because it failed verification – it most likely employed some degree of original research. I imagine much of the other unsourced material is also OR.

I can find a couple of instances where Kasparek’s work has been cited in the occasional journal article and a single question/statement to the editors of the NY Book Review hosted on their website but no significant and reliable coverage regarding him. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Law, Military, Politics, Czech Republic, Ukraine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NHL team colors and logos

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

Seems to fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY, essentially duplicating content of the #Logos section of the respective articles. And the use of 30 non-free files seems to violate WP:NFCC8 ----Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Lists. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks a lot like WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's WP:LISTCRUFT.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 02:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a blatant violation of WP:NFCC8, and complete failure of WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRUFT. There are no independent reliable sources which justify having all NHL logo and colour changes in one list. Sportslogos.net and Sportslogohistory.com are fan sites which are not encyclopedic in purpose. Sources from the teams or league are not independent. Sources from The Hockey Writers are independent, but do not discuss the list as a whole and do not justify LISTN. Flibirigit (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Daniel Brown

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

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan_Daniel_Brown. The subject is complaining about their participation in a pornographic film shortly prior to the beginning of their mainstream acting career (ultimately sourced to the tabloid TMZ and repeated by other tabloid sources as well as pornographic trade publications) being repeatedly restored to the article despite the BLP subject's objection. They seem relatively low profile and I am not sure they meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NFILMMAKER given their limited number of roles (while his lead role in Project X (2012 film), is undeniably notable, NACTOR requires multiple notable roles in high profile films) and the current sources do not appear to give many biographical details that would allow for a reasonable biography of this individual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article currently stands, references 2 and 3 are a rehash of reference 4 which is WP:TMZ and shouldn't be included. Without that, I think this falls under WP:BLP1E. I have had a look for other sources and can't find anything that isn't a reference to Project X (2012 film).Knitsey (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah @Editor1769: has made the bold move and deleted the section. Knitsey (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to find a 2023 piece he wrote for Deadline about the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike, but I don't think this counts towards notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it could count as a quote about his opinion on the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike? I wouldn't delete it if it was added but I don't think an opinion piece written by the subject is going add much to move the article from WP:BLP1E to WP:BLP? I am frequently wrong though. Knitsey (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see enough sourcing to show notability, regardless of any deletion request from the subject. Some items penned by this person [1], nothing about his person. For the two decent sources in the article, this person is only mentioned. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sourced well. Reads like AI-generated trash.Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 21:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Notability is borderline; his acting in Project X (2012 film) is widely mentioned in reviews, but I don't find extended coverage about him, nor yet much beyond that film. The porno appearance was in a single film of a large series, very much not a "porn star" role; I found a summary in this 2012 retrospective assessment of Project X (cited in our article), which is on Metrograph, less tabloidy than what had been cited in this article, but demonstrates that it isn't a second point of notability, so that leaves us with a BLP1E and a solid case for acceding to the subject's wishes. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Sheppard

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

Promotional, and there are some self-published sources. Could not find anything about them online. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, United States of America, and Arizona. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:33, 25 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. [2]

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 -[3]

[Italian Network] available on [4], 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]

Katherine S. Layton

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

Not notable. Cited sources are non-independent or primary. A WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Education, and United States of America. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOVE BACK TO DRAFT this was moved into article space from draft more than once by the creator. The last move was very much done without properly addressing the reasons why it was moved back into draft space in the first place. Only a couple of additional sources were added. So it should either be deleted or moved back to draft. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I refuse My Page to be Moved back to a Draft or even get Deleted and That it should Stay the way it is and I also don't know why The World's 1st Enclyopedia has to be so Strict on making Sure Articles look very Proper on Everything including Citations (I'm not saying Copyright and Vandalism shouldn't be One of those Things i know they're Both Bad and doesn't deserve to Exist at all) Devolver789 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot refuse anything. This is a community. It is your contribution but it is not your article. See WP:OWN and perhaps also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, there is only one remotely-reliable source cited in the article and none in a search. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Against Deletion: You said "none in a search" that Is actually not True because I Searched for this Information on The Chrome Search Bar and Tried looking for Available Websites for This and I did. Devolver789 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review what counts as reliable source, because user-generated content doesn't count as reliable. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't find any sources that suggest Layton is notable. I wondered if Chechens: culture and society might be notable; ProQuest finds a reasonable short review in the ALA journal Choice from July 2015, but it'd need at least one more to meet WP:NBOOK. Adam Sampson (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Choice counts much towards notability; they are not very discriminate in what they review and their reviews do not have enough depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Did a search myself and couldn't find anything that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Not to mention that the prose and broken grammar used in the article is so challenging to decipher, it might be easiest to tear it down and start over even if the subject is notable. nf utvol (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely does not pass WP:PROF, my searches did not turn up any additional book reviews that would contribute to WP:AUTHOR notability, no evidence of WP:GNG notability, the unsourced state of most of the article brings WP:TNT into play, and the combativeness of Devolver789 suggests that, if kept, maintaining the article in an acceptable state of encyclopedicness is likely to be difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If You are Really considering to Delete Katherine S. Layton then Delete Draft:Katherine S. Layton aswell. Devolver789 (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That should happen automatically; the draft is currently just a redirect to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah I agree with you I don't understand why the draft doesn't have a Deletion Post unlike it's Redirection which does have one. Devolver789 (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  If the article is deleted, the redirect at the draft will presumably be deleted under criteria G8. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This bizarre article smells of trolling. Possible joe job directed at the subject. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the nominator, she doesn’t satisfy any notability standards.Gedaali (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamverse

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

Non-notable development studio and contested WP:PROD. The article lacks quality coverage as evidenced by a strong lean on primary sources and user-generated coverage. The studio's individual works are non-notable. Generally has an LLM output tenor as reflected by the AI focus of the studio's works, relevant due to the extent of uncited content. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 05:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-notable" appears to be very subjective here. According to Steamspy (https://steamspy.com/app/593730) just one of their games has an estimated 20000 sold copies. I would consider this "notable".
There is plenty of cited secondary sources in the references from people not affiliated with the indie company.
And "LLM output tenor" makes no sense.

DCorian (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the WP:GNG if you get a chance. Notability has to do with the breadth and depth of coverage to substantiate the topic and is not really about the popularity of the subject matter. Please see WP:USERG for why IMDB and YouTube videos are not good evidence of notability. The only source here that is secondary and potentially reliable is an indie games zine about one of the titles the studio has created. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then what exactly constitutes "significant coverage"? How many "reliable, independent, non-user generated" sources is required for a topic to be considered notable? For the informational articles presented do not seem to be specific in this regard. (Further hence, why "notable" seems to be subjective here.)

Steamspy is not user-generated, and the data is aggregated from the Steam platform. Would this count as a reliable secondary source? DCorian (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing - that [reliable sources + significant coverage + independent of the subject] support notability and not that reliable sources substantiate facts. The objective here is to figure out if a topic has recieved enough coverage to merit an article in an encylopedia so that its information is in-depth and reliably independent of the subject. Yes, its unfortunate it is a subjective exercise, but that is part and parcel of how sourcing is assessed and evaluated - the guidelines are Wikipedia policy and there is no small amount of guidance to help. Completing the subjective exercise with consensus of the community is the whole point of this discussion.

Depth of significant coverage for notability is laid out pretty clearly in WP:SIGCOV. Reliability for video game notability has some concrete examples on WP:VG/S, which suggests SteamSpy can be used to complement other sources when discussing sales figures, albeit that is not really coverage in any sense and wouldn't be useful to prove notability. On the number of significant sources, there is no hard and fast rule, but essays like WP:THREE make this point: if you were to take the best three sources available for the subject matter, would they strongly suggest it has broadly recieved in-depth secondary coverage? Unfortunately the answer to that question is fairly unambiguously a 'no'. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising tool; studios must pass WP:NCORP. This does not include popularity except as reflected by the amount of significant coverage from reliable sources. The third party sources appear to either be user-generated or unreliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Primary and secondary sources exist (plenty of which are not "user-generated" and should be considered "reliable", see below). The studio does not have an "AI focus" as their content has been clearly available long before AI became publicly and readily accessible. Their focus has been primarily video games, which is clearly evident. So, this claim makes no sense and is unfounded, and is not relevant anyways as there is no stipulation against people or companies who might use AI.

Sources so far (not all inserted yet):

There is no reason for this article to be deleted, as it does contain verifiable third-party sources. Though I admit it probably needs to be written better to conform better to Wikipedia standards and all the sources used to be added. I am more used to finding and correcting errors than writing whole articles.

DCorian (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are entirely user-generated sources, primary sources, or just not reliable. Please actually read the policies you are referred to rather than charging ahead with misconceptions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More than half are from data aggregated from the Steam platform (steamspy, steamdb, and stmstat). This is not "user-generated" as users and/or crowd-sourcing did not have a hand in the creation of the information. It is pure, unbiased data and stats. And the article from the indie games journalist and the entry in "https://www.moregameslike.com/" is not either, they are legitimate coverage of the company (or at least the company's games). I read the policies carefully. DCorian (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the data, it just isn't significant coverage. If the best two sources are coverage about one of the games the studio made and not the studio itself from an obsucre indie zine and a generic description from a recommendation site with no author, far from the mainstream coverage sought, it is really, really hard to see how the sources establish notability. As you note, there is no coverage of the company, just the company's games. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds overly specific and unintuitive, as talking about what a company did/made is by extension talking about said company itself. One page about the company and the things it made that was covered by third-party sources makes more sense over several pages about the individually covered things the company made. But, whatever. I cannot find anymore sources specifically about the company itself than those listed at the moment after my digging (or at least those that are actively live on the net still), other than what has already been found, its own fandom page, social media, and website, so do whatever it is you need to do, I suppose. DCorian (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the best with your future editing efforts - apologies it didn't quite line up here. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I initially found a few sources but seems to be a different company based on the website. I cannot locate anything meeting WP:ORGCRIT for this one. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I attempted to search each of this studio's games on Google News through the query "Dreamverse" "[game name]", and was astounded to get zero results. Linked above are a lot of database entries and such, but I'm not finding any independently written copy-edited publications the describe this studio or its games. There's nothing for us to work with to compose an encyclopedic article, so deletion is the only option. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Looks like a nothing-burger. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long family murder–suicide

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

Well written, but just one of many familicides that happen across the nation every year, nor is it even the deadliest one. Perhaps the most notable aspect of the incident is that the mother was the perpetrator, as it is usually a male, but I do not believe this allows it to meet the notability criteria. WP:NOTNEWS Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA: Routine news events, regardless of how tragic or widely reported at the time, are usually not notable. Raskuly (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Firearms, United States of America, and New Hampshire. Raskuly (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. Per WP:N/CA there must be WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE sourcing that extends beyond the immediate news cycle after event. That requires time and distance. It's clearly WP:TOOSOON for those types of sources to exist.4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I realize the associated image should also be deleted if the result is deletion, but I'm unsure whether or not I should begin the nomination process yet. Raskuly (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul S. Victor

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and unreferenced. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTPROMO. A search yielded nothing in newspaper.com, google books, google scholar, etc. I even checked the Trove newspaper archive at the Australia National Library given the Hillsong Church connection. Nothing there either.4meter4 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean, Minnesota, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no references, clearly Fails WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and feels largely promotional. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. It can be passed of CSD G11. ROY is WAR Talk! 02:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did my own WP:BEFORE as well and couldn't find anything. Nil🥝 03:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced WP:BLP. In ordinary times, not a big problem, but nowadays, this is a legal risk. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Atlantic Championship

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

Reverted redirect without improvement. Zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources. And there's a reason for that, searches did not turn up any. Previously an earlier redirect had been reverted with the the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument regarding 2018 Atlantic Championship. And while that is it correct, the other article also fails GNG, and I will be nominating it separately. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Atlantic Championship Series - Minor series with no SIGCOV. The only things I find are about what individual drivers have done elsewhere, or from the promoter. I did the tables but that's just because sometimes I get bored and like to do tables. - Mitchea99 (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Atlantic Championship

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

Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage from independent, reliable references. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The First Rule of Mastery

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BOOK. The sources are largely promotional (publisher’s site, Barnes & Noble, author interviews). Coverage in Forbes, Entrepreneur, and Fast Company is brief and not significant critical analysis. There is insufficient independent, reliable secondary coverage to establish enduring notability. Setwardo (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. 15:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. 15:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. 15:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setwardo (talk • contribs)
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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reviewed in Library Journal (in article) and the School administrator magazine (EBSCOhost 177074785). More reviews would be nice, but two is sufficient for NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the reviews listed above there is another review here. Passes NBOOK. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Design Officer of the United States

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

Not a position that is guaranteed to exist in the future; thus, the information here can neatly fit within Gebbia's page for now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: With widespread international coverage, the subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. The position does not need to be permanent to warrant inclusion. Its creation by the U.S. government makes it historically significant, even if it is temporary or later abolished. This is not a company founded by Gebbia. The office's notability is not dependent on Gebbia. He is an individual, whereas CDO is a government office. A government office should not be treated as a subsection of a biography; it is an institutional entity in its own right.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It's an official U.S. government position and whether it exists in the future is speculation and irrelevant, because it already received widespread coverage which meets notability guidelines. I'd also like to point out that this is not a symbolic position. The CDO is in charge of a nationwide initiative ("America by Design") and Trump ordered the creation of the National Design Studio. They also launched 2 government websites (ndstudio.gov and americabydesign.gov). Johndavies837 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Executive Office of the President of the United States for now. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS. All we have now is White House press release sources, and media based on those. We can't build an article based on press release and press release adjacent materials. Not enough has happened with this position yet to warrant a stand alone article because it is WP:TOOSOON. I note that the earlier keep votes didn't actually provide evidence of notability. What we see in the press right now isn't actually significant coverage of this post because nobody has actually done anything in the job yet to write about. 4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Executive Office of the President of the United States for now. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS. There's not enough news sources out there to support this page. KitCatalog (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Seriously, you want to delete an article about a U.S. government office? The article could easily be expanded and better sourced. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. The subject matter of this article consists of nothing but press releases, so it cannot be WP:NPOV. Maybe someday there will be something meaningful to say on the subject but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Fine Apples (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - it's all PR, all part of the executive office. There's no ongoing coverage. Sadly, it's part of the real problem with the media today. Bearian (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. As it stands, it is WP:TOOSOON and lacks adequate sourcing. Redirecting to a page that focuses on the Executive Order establishing the office would be more appropriate and would allow more inclusion of reliable, non-PR sources. Playoff7133 (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuk Sul Do

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Only three sources are cited in the article, and those too are from the organization itself. There is no significant coverage. Baqi:) (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and India. Baqi:) (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts, South Korea, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per total lack of independent coverage. Svartner (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Given that the sources are primarily primary and do not demonstrate notability, I don't see justification for keeping this article. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Firstly, I'm here to inform that I may have been erroneously identified as the entry creator. I created Kyeok Sul Do under the name Kuk Sul Do by mistake, but the article was moved to a proper name. I think User:2601:282:1900:33C0:BC6A:451:9534:2472 and/or User:Ish00ra created the current incarnation and not me. Also I think an earlier incarnation was made by User:SwordDance108 who tried to revert my edits when I thought Kyeok Sul Do was called Kuk Sul Do. It believe that the IP user/who made the new one could be SwordDance108 -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Eagle (military slang)

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

Its been unsourced for years, if ther are no sources it is OR. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't say I've ever seen or heard this term in this context, and sources are lacking. Intothat darkness 15:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 15:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the term is legit, it would be best covered at Wiktionary Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only evidence of the topic I found is this blog(?) post. The article is unsourced and should be a Wiktionary term as the article is specific to the slang of the US Army. GGOTCC 21:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all of the stated reasons. In addition, the article appears to be an uncredited paraphrase of the first two sections of the "this blog(?) post" mentioned in the previous opposition. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:43, 25 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]

Timothy P. Riley

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

Little to no independent notability outside of Activision career; could warrant a redirect. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Video games, United States of America, and Missouri. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only the Complex article is significant and reliable. No additional reliable sources found in my search.Darkm777 (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this article is not enough to redirect to Activision? IgelRM (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Hinn

AfDs for this article:

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

Minimal notability demonstrated. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Video games, United States of America, and Virginia. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACADEMIC. The sourcing here is not great. The Next-gen.biz. piece was clearly a republication of PR bio, likely written by the subject, as the author of the piece actually works as a PR promoter. The second source was written by the subject. And the third piece is the newsletter of the IGDA from the time Hinn had a leadership role there, making it not independent. There are zero sources here qualifying her for notability. She doesn't any of the SNG criteria either.4meter4 (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the article is unsourced. Excelse (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A case of how notability has changed since the Keep in 2006 here. "Recognition" isn't enough now. IgelRM (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hole-In-One Golf (1986 video game)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, United States of America, and Florida. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BOZ has added three references after Go D. Usopp has nominated the article for deletion. Thus there are now four reviews in magazines listed, so "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG) is given. --Cyfal (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY, BOZ, well done! There is now a well sourced reception section that has been added post nomination with four reviews from reliable, independent sources. More than enough to now meet WP:GNG. -2pou (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A highly obscure game, but seems to meet the WP:GNG bar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:HEY; the magazine reviews establish that it meets GNG. MidnightMayhem (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Four nontrivial reviews covering two platforms; clear WP:GNG pass now. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reviews that have been added are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4cf (singer)

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

Not passed in WP:BANDMEMBER and WP:SINGER. There is no significant coverage about him. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Did a Google News search and found nothing useful. Unregistered Biohazard! 18:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO yet. Happy to reassess if other sources are uncovered, but the short name didn't bring anything tangible up in my before search. Nil🥝 00:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Parker (security researcher)

AfDs for this article:

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

Bringing this back to AfD after a previous no consensus decision as it was referenced on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Welsh. There remains no significant coverage of the subject of the article. Notability is not inherited and discovering vulnerabilities, even if notable, does not make the discoverer notable. Brandon (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Computing. Brandon (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing mentions of article subject in the news coverage, but no WP:SIGCOV on this individual. Does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Nayyn (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, dude you don't get to rehash the same arguments over and over again. The sources haven't changed significantly and neither has any of the guidelines. My previous argument still stands. -- Sohom (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For context, "I think having ArsTechnica, a variety of legal sources, TechCrunch and SC Media go into depth about a specific vulnerability and explicitly accredit the discovery of said vulnerabilities to a person, should push the said person over the bar of WP:GNG, since, such coverage is pretty rare in the field of cybersecurity and would count as significant coverage in my opinion" was what I said before and I still stand by it. -- Sohom (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and redirect to 2023-2024 Jason Parker cybersecurity vulnerabilities. That appears to be the topic that has significant coverage in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, the subject is not necessarily notable as an independent cybersecurity researcher, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to note for the record that the article on Dan Kaminsky demonstrates precedent where a security researcher is considered notable specifically for a discovery in his case, the 2008 DNS cache poisoning vulnerability. The article itself highlights this under ‘Known for Discovering the 2008 DNS cache poisoning vulnerability’ This suggests that discoveries, when accompanied by significant independent coverage, can satisfy WP:GNG. AxiomGaming (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kantrowitz

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

Fails all notability requirements. Sources in the article are primary and WP:BEFORE doesn't indicate notability Ednabrenze (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, you do not demonstrate the notability of a journalist by sourcing the article to his staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers, or to work where he's the bylined author of coverage about other things — he must pass WP:GNG on sourcing where the's the subject being covered by other people, but that describes none of the sourcing shown here. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G.I. Robot

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

A character from DC Comics. A search yields largely plot summary or VALNET sources. I did find one solid Comicbook.com hit [5] but beyond that it's largely trivial mentions or the aforementioned plot summary and Valnet. There is very little in the way of WP:SIGCOV to satisfy a whole article split off the characters list for this character, especially given the character's general lack of appearances in the franchise. I'd suggest a redirect to the character's entry at List of DC Comics characters: G, where this information, albeit with a trimmed down plot summary, can be covered much more succinctly with other characters from the series. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No reception/analysis, plot summary+list of appearances=fail of WP:GNG I fear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: G in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. Fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG without significant reliable reception. I'd have no objection if someone tried to WP:PRESERVE some of the WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs with a slight merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZO (Yung Fazo album)

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

Failed WP:NALBUM. This review is not a reliable and professionally written and the rest cited of Twitter and YouTube. There is no coverage on this album it's like a promotional or have close connection. ROY is WAR Talk! 03:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. ROY is WAR Talk! 03:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While this article may not be AI-generated, User:Gdshordy has a history of seemingly using AI to write articles and removing notices if they are tagged; see Monsoon Season, 4cf (singer), Rarin, and Chuckyy. - dwarfroe (talk / contr) 04:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that and they not even address the issue or fix, and I will revert it. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yung Fazo#Discography: I've run a WP:BEFORE. The New Hip Hop source seems reliable, independent and third party, but that's it. Coverage is quite bare across the internet and neither WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG seem to be achievable. sk satsuma 11:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see Gdshordy (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yung Fazo#Discography: Fails WP:NALBUM. Unregistered Biohazard! 18:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as above. Lacks reliable sourcing for a standalone album. Nil🥝 02:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Hefton

I am nominating this article for deletion because I am questioning the subject's notability. The few sources currently provided have reliability issues and are not placed or cited correctly. Much of the information appears to be unsourced or poorly sourced, which raises verifiability concerns. Without sufficient high-quality sources, the subject does not merit a standalone article per Wikipedia's inclusion standards.

GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I beilive the sources are reliable and the kickboxer is quite popular in the full contact kickboxing scene in the old school era as for the citation I’ll fix them. What do you think? If final decision comes to deletion I’d prefer moving it to draft.Judgejury28 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Judgejury28, the sources are still not formatted properly and there is unnecessary spacing. Also, IMDB is not a proper source and the Vocal.media source isn’t even loading. Please fix these problems and try to find more reliable sources, thanks. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will and also help would be appreciated thanks for your time. Judgejury28 (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Martial arts, and United States of America. Cassiopeia talk 02:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age of Television (2000s–2023)

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

It should be re-titled "Golden Age of Television (2000s-2020s)" since some articles mentioned shows like Shōgun,^[1] The Studio and Adolescence^[2] that were made after 2023 (the supposed end of this Golden Age of TV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espngeek (talk • contribs) 18:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rich, Katey (2024-05-20). "'Shogun' Starts Some Drama". Los Angeles Magazine.
^ The many "Oners" of prestige television|A Shot

Speedy keep. Woah there. If you want to change the title, you should've started a move discussion at WP:RM or something similar. This is awkward... Carlinal (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. As already noted, an article deletion request is not an appropriate place to suggest a name change on this site. It feels like you're reacting to the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shows considered as Peak TV, and trying to do the same with this article. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:50, 18 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, History, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The nominator has provided a rationale as to why the article should be renamed, but not for deletion. This would be better suited for requested moves. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As is, this is confusing to the readers, as the so-called Golden Age was the 1950s and perhaps early 1960s. After that, it was just the evolution of each style (comedy, news, drama, etc), But calling each decade or so a new golden age, is misleading. The CNN source "The new, new TV golden age" was just sticking a label on it. — Maile (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion still seems way too extreme, and there can be multiple golden ages for something if enough people agree on it. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename/move. I can tell you, there was nothing worth watching until 2001, and likewise, nothing worth watching after about 2017. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions on decent television are irrelevant here. Please. Carlinal (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucille Ball, Mary Tyler Moore, Jackie Gleason and others will be waiting for you in the parking lot. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This deletion nomination is frivolous. The subject matter of the article is clearly notable and well-documented. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike my Peak TV list Espngeek (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personal jealousy and bad faith retribution are absolutely not grounds for deletion of an article. We do not own these articles. They are a collaborative project released under an open-source license. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep as a misuse of the AFD process. Nomination is a non sequitur in that it requests a page move (which I had nominated before, but the discussion led to no consensus). Furthermore, even if there is still programming in the style of Peak/Prestige TV being made, it does not mean the age is ongoing or that those shows are part of that era, especially if those programs do not reflect the norm (just as the evidence of Camera Three continuing to air until 1980 and other teleplay anthologies into the 1960s did not mean that the original Golden Age continued through the 1960s and 1970s). The preponderance of evidence shows that television has seen a visible decline since 2023, a result of the streaming wars, the decline of cable and the labor disputes as discussed in the article. A change in the article name was necessary since the opinion of it being ongoing was becoming much more of a minority view and more difficult to justify. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirina: Teenage Vampire

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

This is an upcoming television series, and so is too soon for an article, and does not satisfy television notability. Nothing in this article describes the third-party significant coverage that is needed to establish general notability. This article was already draftified once, in 2024, so that another unilateral draftification would be move-warring. Draftification may be a valid close of this AFD, but there should be no subsequent move to article space until the series is broadcast and is reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Disney, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It'a a major-network series with a premiere date in prime time. George Fergus (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's less than a month to go, idk how that is "too soon" to you. Also, it's a full scale Disney Channel series so is does satisfy television notability.
Coolelvin2 (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Austin Target shooting

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

Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, United States of America, and Texas. XYZ1233212 (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Target Corporation#Since 2020; I just added a brief paragraph there. This is in accordance with:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion including WP:ATD and WP:ATD-R

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A news story, not a subject of sustained secondary analysis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 in Texas#August. I disagree with A. B.'s proposed redirection and believe that the section dedicated to the shooting in the Target article should be deleted as well. This isn't an instance where a ___location has its own dedicated article, this is an incident that happened at a single Target store among many stores. The El Paso shooting for instance, is mentioned in the Walmart article because the shooting changed company policy. Raskuly (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:Crime the circumstances of this crime are unusual - suspect claiming to be Jesus and found naked clutching a bible. One of the victim's was transgender so this case is getting discussion in the LGBTQ community and there is criticism of the police for deadnaming & misgendering the victim. I think it is simply too soon to delete the page and perhaps we should wait to see whether on going coverage continues. I believe the unusual circumstances of this shooting make it stand out from other crimes. Inexpiable (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons put forward by @Inexpiable. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Raskuly. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Mogul

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

Lack of sources that prove notability. Basically it only currently appears notable for designing a couple of sports games. Specifically Baseball Mogul, Masters of the Gridiron (No article of it yet), Football Mogul and Baseball Mogul Online. As an alternative for deletion, an option could be merging the content from the articles of the games it has made into this one. If that is bad, maybe just delete? This feels like a tossup... Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, Business, Sports, Baseball, Football, Technology, and United States of America. Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The three sources given are the company's website, and two links about the game Baseball Mogul. The gamespot link doesn't have anything significant on it (here's what I got on the archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20210830220556/https://www.gamespot.com/games/baseball-mogul-2007/news/), the gamershell link says that Baseball Mogul was the best selling PC baseball game for two years in a row (https://web.archive.org/web/20080207062631/https://gamershell.com/companies/sports_mogul/374303.html). The second article could be added to the Baseball Mogul article. Per WP:PRODUCT, this article could be merged into Baseball Mogul (though that article has mostly dependent coverage). I've proposed Football Mogul for deletion, since it has only dependent coverage or insignificant coverage from IGN and Gamespot. Truthnope (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sourcing fails WP:NCORP and regardless has nothing to say about the company itself, see WP:NOTWORK. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You could derive notability through a third party way on the games they produce, but nothing is talking about the company directly. This clearly fails NCORP and should be deleted. I also feel we shouldn't have any redirect. The term itself Sports Mogul could be a notable term. So this was always the wrong title for the article in the first place. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clay Dreslough, notable person associated with the subject. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks standalone notability, and I think redirection is a bit of a stretch for something bigger than just one guy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge- to the more notable games I see is a good ATD, no SIGCOV caught my attention upon searching its current name, tried even to search for its former name Infinite Monkey Systems but seems to mostly turn up the Theorem than the game devs, did find this interview which I know is primary source, will add it here anyway as part of the discussion.Lorraine Crane (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Clay Dreslough – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Hurley

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. The references that are presently in the article don't help establish notability. The 2009 discussion resulted in the article's deletion. toweli (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, California, and Indiana. toweli (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. I'm not sure what it takes to be notable in the genre of "trance" music, but some of her albums are reviewed in indie magazines/music sites. Including 1, 2, 3, and 4. --
Jaireeodell (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: If the decision was to delete in 2009, why wasn't it deleted? -- Jaireeodell (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed deleted in 2009; the current article was created in 2010. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to pass notability requirements. I also have concerns about the promotional tone of the article; it looks like the user who made the current article from December 2010 only ever created and edited this page, and hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since December 2010. This alongside the extremely promotional tone and lack of reliable sources in the article means it seems quite possible there has been an undisclosed COI (e.g. the first draft contained extensive information but 0 sources which is highly irregular). Greenleader(2) (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, this means it has significant issues regarding WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NPOV, and WP:SPAM, as well as failing on the aforementioned WP:GNG issues as raised by the nominator. It is possible at a stretch that a case could be built around one or two requirements in WP:SINGER, but there's no reliable or independent sources that seem to confirm this, so verifiability is not established for this. Greenleader(2) (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- so far no SIGCOV in my searches, found this from Google News, though unsure if source is count as RS.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 shootings of Tremonton police officers

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

Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, United States of America, and Utah. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States#2025. Raskuly (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Tremonton, Utah#2025 shooting of police, a section that existed before this AfD was initiated. This is per WP:ATD-R.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments for the nominator, XYZ1233212

@XYZ1233212, you've nominated a number of current events articles for deletion, getting considerable pushback and feedback. Recently, the vast majority have been kept, merged or redirected. Please re-read your instructions for nominating articles for deletion at WP:AFD. In particular, see the section titled "Before nominating: checks and alternatives":

- Part A. "Read and understand these policies and guidelines:"
  - Item 1."The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion as well as alternatives to deletion and the various deletion processes.
    - Most of these current events articles you've been nominating have clear alternatives to deletion. Our deletion policy clearly states "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
- Part B. "Carry out these checks:"
  - Item 6. "Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia."
    - Had you done this, you'd have discovered that in most cases, there were articles with existing mentions of these events that you could've redirected the articles to without bothering yourself and and the rest of us with AfDs.
    - In the few cases where there wasn't an existing mention in another article, you could have added one.
  - Item 7. "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles."
    - In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riedlingen derailment, you'd have seen the German article had extensive coverage you could use. It even has an {{Expand German}} notice on it when you nominated it. If you don't want to fix the article yourself, you can put an {{Expand language}} tag on it and skip the AfD.
- Part C. "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted:"
  - Item 4. "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. Shortcut WP:CONRED. If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page."
    - In most cases, the title was either a valid search term or else close enough to it for Google to find and follow a redirect to its target.

These detailed instructions are derived from our deletion policy. On Wikipedia, a "policy" means "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.". Including you. And me, too.

See the section Alternatives to deletion

- The Editing and discussion subsection says "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

- The Redirection section says "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate."

- The Merging subsection says "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists."

- The Incubation subsection says "Recently created articles that have potential, but do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace, optionally via the articles for creation (AfC) process.". It gives other details including the comment "Incubation must not be used as a 'backdoor to deletion'." Editors forget about articles, so "draftification" is not as desirable as other alternatives because drafts get automatically deleted after 6 months of activity.

I hate calling you out on this but I've left comments pointing to these policies on previous AfDs as well as on your talk page at User talk:XYZ1233212#Redirects for current events; these have had no impact to date.

As always, thanks again for your concern for our content. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}

A. B., AfD is an appropriate venue to discuss a WP:BLAR. If XYZ1233212 performed a BLAR on each of these articles instead of starting an AfD discussion, I guarantee you they would be accused of backdoor deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States#2025. It is definitely due here, while but it's not so clear cut whether the whole subsection at Tremonton, Utah. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that this article should be given a chance for a standalone article. The shooting itself was high profile in nature, and from the looks of it, it appears that the unlawful killing of police officers in Utah was lesser in comparison with quite a number of states in general. Also, there was clear emotional impact left on the public and the local community especially. According to the mayor mentioned in the article, this was Utah's first case of double murder of police officers in more than a century. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just to add on, I note that the death penalty was not frequently sought for murder cases in Utah, plus reference to the article about the upcoming execution of Ralph Menzies [6], there were only 11 people condemned to death row and executions in Utah were also extremely rare. Just today, the prosecution confirmed that the death penalty will be requested in that case. [7], [8], [9]. I thought that the nature of the case and circumstances themselves could warrant it a chance to exist in Wikipedia. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, then this case will get persistent coverage. Readers will also be Googling it over the next 1-3 years and it would be helpful to have something reliable on Wikipedia (as opposed to their relying on social media or hallucinatory AI).

I’m busy now but leaning toward keep. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Awful crime, Northern UT has very little violent crime. Albanianrapper (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While on a national scale these crimes may seem routine, in Utah and Neighboring states, this rarely happens. The effect of the community and state is profound. Thus, people will be researching this case and the court trials heavily throughout the following months and years. Having a Wikipedia page would help people to find the full story quickly. ‪Tagloph79‬ (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changed from "redirect". See my 14:30, 21 August 2025 comment. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per A. B.. I will also comment that this nominator seems to keep nominating similar pages like this for deletion, the vast majority have been kept, merged or redirected. I don't think it's right they should be allowed to keep doing this as it feels like they are making basless Afd nominations without fully studying each article. I will add that not all of them are baseless, such as this one: (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Crown Heights nightclub shooting), but most are. Inexpiable (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MLR Draft

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

One paragraph of content, can all be explained in the main article (Major League Rugby), delete and merge/re-direct to Major League Rugby Louis (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, and United States of America. Louis (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge- to Major League Rugby is an agreeable ATD, as of current lacks citations for it as standalone and would be better as merge to the target subject to improve context for both the topics.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:01, 24 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]

Raiders–Seahawks rivalry

AfDs for this article:

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

Another classic example of a rivalry that is either made up, or non notable. In this case I am saying the latter is more likely. No history section and only one notable event. Unless someone can improve the article and provide history etc, this should either be Redirected to List of NFL rivalries where content should be added or straight up Deleted. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, United States of America, California, Nevada, and Washington. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment Last discussion was speedy keep. Not going to vote myself, but since I was unaware of the previous two nominations (I might have once knew about them but I think I might have forgotten, I might have RSV RN so it makes remembering harder) but is anyone else thinking speedy keep? Just normal keep or are there some people who now think redirect is a good idea? Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be a speedy keep if you formally withdraw your nomination. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't know this, but I am a bit shocked that this is the 3rd nomination for deletion. Maybe this nomination was a mistake… Maybe editors will have different views this time… Oh well, I am keeping it open. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of sources listed in the previous two AfD discussions. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 11:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another further comment from the Nom If this is kept, I think there should be a Moratorium on this discussion until at least January 1 2028. I will make this a vote know. Tagging Darth Stabro to see if Moratorium is supported by the current only user in discussion. Voting on this one like all is not compulsory. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an AfD is kept, the advice is to wait six months for a renom. SportingFlyer T·C 14:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer Is a Moratorium possible? Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, users are generally allowed to take articles to AfD if they so wish, though anything before six months after the last one is usually considered improper. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seattle appears to have cared much more about this than the Raiders, but there's decent enough coverage to support the fact it's a historical rivalry from when Seattle was in the AFC West. I don't see sources discussing it as a current rivalry. I've been using the standard that the rivalry has to be discussed outside of just the week before/after the two teams meet. This Athletic/New York Times clearly meets that standard. Furthermore, someone needs to adopt and improve this article. SportingFlyer T·C 14:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer Do you have any view on the proposed Moratorium? Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He already replied to your "Moratorium". Notability isn't temporary. If it's notable in 2025 (for the third time), it will always be unless guidelines change. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WikiOriginal-9 Oh, must have forgot. I do have RSV RN so it is making it tough. Thanks for the reminder. Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Alvaldi in the first nomination are more than sufficient for this article to meet WP:GNG. While they are no longer divisional rivals, notability is not temporary, as per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. I do agree that this article is in bad shape and poorly written, but per Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, that is not a valid reason to delete the page. I do hope that someone expands and improves the article. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WikiGiancarloC2 Do you have any view on the proposed Moratorium? (It makes it easier to say stuff like support, oppose or abstain. Just letting you know.) Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles being poorly written is not a valid reason to AfD an article. NotJamestack (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that advice (Whether you intended to give it to me or not) NotJamestack. I feel like I am pretty bad at judging whether something meets or fails WP:GNG, most of my nominations are either a redirect or keep. But my own personal study that just quickly came into my head tells me to apply tags like needs additional citations for verification. What I just figured as I was typing a few seconds ago is to use the talk page. Great idea that popped into my head. Use the talk page to improve the article to discuss improvements and possibly even discuss notability instead of/before nominating for AFD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per GNG. Also, let’s not forget that these two teams were once in the same division and notability is not temporary. ````

US–China strategic engagement

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

In addition to being highly essay-like, non-encyclopedic in tone, and lacking WP:RS, it could be considered a WP:POVFORK of China–United States relations. Amigao (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to China–United States relations: This article clearly fails the WP:NOT test of WP:GNG by being an essay. No objection to any encyclopedic content being merged as appropriate to the target page, though, and redirection with page history preserved will facilitate that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:23, 26 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. ^Complex/_Rational 16:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eran Thomson

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Article relies mainly on primary/self-published sources and promotional content. LvivLark (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Business. LvivLark (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 15:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and promotional. Local Variable (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to find sources establishing notability. LightlySeared (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Subject meets WP:GNG through significant independent coverage. Thomson has been covered by independent media in both Australia and the US. Notability is further supported by his role as founder of PowerProv, which has worked with companies such as Google, Canva, Cisco, Toyota, and SXSW. Additional independent sources are being added to the article to better reflect coverage. - TG (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)TatianagGoldflower[reply]
Fails the GNG because there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Only podcast episode pages on Spotify, YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and the subject’s own sites, which cannot establish WP:GNG and does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV/INDEPENDENT/RS.

The 2015 AfD on this subject closed delete, and you doesnt provide something better than earlier version.

Claims “worked with Google/Canva/Cisco/Toyota/SXSW” appear only in selfposted sources but even if true that wouldnt confitm notability per WP:NOTINHERITED/NBIO.

Presence on Spotify/YouTube are primary sources, and the official YouTube is just a tiny channel with only a few dozen subscribers and viewers.LvivLark (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly WP:PROMO. Svartner (talk) 04:16, 20 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.

Hi Tech Expressions

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

Fails GNG with a lack of reliable sources with sigcov. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Hoffman (technology executive)

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

Pure promotional puff piece, likely generated by AI. The only good source here is an interview, which does not contribute to notability. Unfortunately, we have no room for any more brochures. MediaKyle (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. MediaKyle (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO with substantial independent coverage over decades, not just interviews: Wired (Feb 1997) on PrivNet/PGP; Forbes (July 1999) “The E-Gang”; Los Angeles Times (Apr 10, 2001) and Adweek (Apr 9, 2001) on eMusic’s sale to UMG (~$23–25m); Reuters (Sept 14, 2016) and Light Reading (Sept 14, 2016) on Amdocs’ acquisition of Vindicia. That is secondary, non-promotional sourcing across multiple career phases (so not WP:BIO1E). Any puffery is a cleanup Qrivas (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is likely related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vindicia. -- MediaKyle (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Forbes source seems to be okay (apparently staff-written), although it is part of a listicle. But none of the other sources have independent non-trivial coverage. Many of these sources don't even mention Hoffman. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LaSheena Weekly

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

The mother of FBG Duck and FBG Brick who died in shootings. Unexpectedly she spoke out against gun violence after that. The article claims however that she "has become a prominent voice calling for peace in Chicago and has organized community initiatives". This article is one that is used but as far as I can tell, Octavia Mitchell is the organizer of the group, not her. I would not be opposed to a redirect to her son's page as an AFD. Moritoriko (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Music, and United States of America. Moritoriko (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, and it fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep, The nomination is based on a misunderstanding of notability and a detailed look at the sources. The subject has received years of significant, sustained, and in-depth coverage from a wide variety of reliable, independent news outlets, making this one of the clearer examples of WP:GNG being met from 2020 to present. This article goes  past any concerns of being a temporary story (WP:NOTNEWS) or a person notable for only one event (WP:BLP1E). The evidence shows a clear way from being the mother of a victim to becoming a notable public figure in her own right.

For years, LaSheena Weekly has been a central voice in Chicago's conversation about gun violence. This isn't just a single quote in one article; it is a consistent pattern of media seeking her out as a subject.
* The Trace: Published an entire investigative feature centered on her story and her fight for accountability. * Chicago Tribune: Has covered her extensively, from her initial pleas for peace to her involvement with the "Warrior Moms" activist group and their community events.
Her calls for peace were major stories on their own, covered by NBC Chicago and Fox 32 Chicago. Outlets like Revolt.tv, HotNewHipHop, and XXL Mag also report on her activism, such as her public request to meet with Lil Durk. This alone is sufficient for notability. She is the lead plaintiff in a massive, widely-publicized wrongful death lawsuit against some of the biggest names and corporations in the music industry. Covered by WBEZ (NPR), ABC7, and the Chicago Sun-Times. A major story in TMZ. And also reported by XXL Mag and multiple articles in HotNewHipHop. Reliable sources report on her personal life and choices, proving she is a newsworthy individual beyond her activism or the lawsuit. Her own actions generate headlines. XXL Mag reported on a domestic incident that resulted in her being struck by a car. This story is entirely about her personal life. HotNewHipHop covered her decision to start an OnlyFans account, treating it as a newsworthy event in the hip-hop world.
She has generated her own headlines for calling out other artists, as documented by HotNewHipHop. The widespread interest is further evidenced by long-form interviews on major platforms like VladTV and No Jumper.

She is a well-documented public advocate, the central figure in a major national lawsuit, and a personality whose own life is considered newsworthy. The notability criteria are met. MeVonFans (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources linked by User:MeVonFans shows that there is WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED.

Chicago Tribune, a few paragraphs dedicated to her, definitely significant coverage

The Trace, significant coverage

HNHH, about her

XXL Mag, about her

Revolt, about her

HNHH about her

And essentially all the sources linked by MeVonFans, except the VladTV playlist since that's an interview. These sources definitely show significant and sustained coverage, and that she has become a significant anti-gun violence advocate. Quick note: "FBG Mama" or other similar terms finds more results, which may be why a WP:BEFORE lacked on it. And if anyone thinks it may be a case of WP:INHERITED or WP:BLP1E, I disagree. She became notable following his death for her anti-gun violence awareness and advocacy, and has sustained coverage from 2020 until now. jolielover♥talk 15:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Important note: contentious topics procedure applies to the article. jolielover♥talk 16:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a large amount of this coverage is really coverage of FBG Duck and thus does not contribute to her own notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. This is further proved by all of the articles needing to define her and her actions in relation to FBG Duck. I will say that the second HNHH source about her onlyfans is temporally removed from Duck's death but it still refers to her as his mother, but regardless I don't think that is significant coverage!! Moritoriko (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 16:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Greenewald Jr.

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

This article is entirely duplicative of content present at The Black Vault and should be deleted under WP:BLP1E; they are known only for establishing and running the website The Black Vault.
There is no point in merging as there is no mergeable content; the only content present here that is not present at The Black Vault is the BLP's date of birth, which would not be preservable in a merge scenario. Chetsford (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Black Vault article was created by the nominator earlier this year. I don't see the point of a separate article for the Black Vault if all the material is already found at the biographic article. Greenewald has written three books and is the subject of extensive press. He appears to be the primary notable entity. Thriley (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the press is about The Black Vault and mentions Greenewald's name only in the context of being the owner. In point of evidence, none of the sources provide even the most rudimentary biographical information customary of a BLP: place of birth, education, family, professional occupation/vocation (he's said this is an unpaid side project), etc. We essentially have no information on Greenewalde other than he started this website. Chetsford (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Paranormal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some additional sources I found that aren't currently in use in the article.

Just call him Mulder Jr. by Fred Shuster (1999)

Book Follows Feds' Eye on UFOs (2002)

Personally, I think it makes more sense to merge the Black Vault here as a sub-section, particularly since there isn't that much info there anyways beyond a paragraph or so. Silver seren^C 17:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the only non-The Black Vault information we have on Greenewalde is his (approximate) age and what high school he attended, that's going to be a long sub-section. Chetsford (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Shuster article I linked above has some good details and it mentions a Baltimore newspaper article that first brought him attention, so we might want to track that down. Silver seren^C 18:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Shuster article I linked above has some good details " This is the non-TBV stuff I got from it:

He attended Alemanny High School
In 1999 he was thinking of attending Cal State Northridge
He has an unnamed sister

Not sure if I missed anything.

Chetsford (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Black Vault using the WP:B&R method (not a delete) until such time that needed referencing for a stand-alone bio occurs, per WP:TOOSOON. 5Q5|^✉ 13:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 11:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I notice he chose as his X username blackvaultcom, even though his own name, minus Jr which exceeds 15 characters, is unregistered and available as I write this. But even jgreenewaldjr is available. This I think adds to the evidence that his website The Black Vault currently has greater notability and why I support a blank-and-redirect, which preserves the edit history and talk page. Should he ever become as famous as his website with multiple in-depth profiles -- about him -- to cite then his article could be retrieved from the edit history and republished with the additional references. 5Q5|^✉ 15:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

H.G. Heim Company

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

Also nominating:

Speedy deleted G15. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating these articles by User:Dannnii0722 because they are sneaky spam for the company SYZ Rod Ends, and likely AI-generated. All of these articles cite this company's blog. I am not sure whether G11/G15 applies here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Rose Bearings Ltd doesn't cite the company website but there are still issues with it being AI-generated. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the picture uploaded by this user on Steering link, File:Tie rod adjustable steering link.jpg, states This file was created and photographed by SYZ Rod Ends and is released under Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback.

I understand the concerns. It is fine if this article is deleted. I will look for more independent, third-party sources and recreate the article in the future in a way that better meets Wikipedia’s standards. Dannnii0722 (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Steering link under G15; the other articles have extremely vague references. H.G. Heim Company cites a patent with the wrong patent number according to https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/ppubsbasic.html. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rod end bearing per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there more support for Redirection and which article (or both) do you propose redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Norberg (engineer)

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

Nominated for deletion 12 years ago and kept on the argument that there is more on this subject to be found. If there is, it has not been, certainly not beyond a passing mention, and he remains in the position of a run-of-the-mill recording engineer who happens to have worked on some big albums. BD2412 T 00:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first nomination was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Norberg (the article has since been renamed due to disambiguation with Bob Norberg (songwriter)). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Hall of Fame

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

Cannot find any decent in-depth coverage. Anyone can start a vanity award. There is no money or any real kudois attached to this award. And this article has quickly led to lots of other articles being spammed with links to this so-called award. Edwardx (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not think it is fair to call this a "vanity award" or "so-called award" without proof. Most of the recipients are notable, as can be seen from the column of mostly blue links to the names of recipients. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Eastmain. That some of the recipients are notable counts for nothing, as no one has to give their permission to be given an award from anyone else. YouTube is not a suitable ref, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Edwardx (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Arts, Awards, Organizations, Science, Sports, Asia, United States of America, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't seen in-depth secondary coverage either that would satisfy WP:GNG, and nothing really independent beyond things like press releases or articles focusing on the awardees. The mention of awardees having their own BLP pages isn't relevant here and would run against WP:INHERIT. We don't chain notability of one page to the notability of another. This is a notability discussion for the WP:NORG, not those other pages. Coverage of the group itself appears to be pretty trivial rather than substantial too. KoA (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some coverage in digitised newspapers, and in news stories found through a google search (including in news media in Asian countries). References could certainly be added for the inductees. Some of the sources also have more information about the Hall of Fame and the Robert Chinn Foundation, which could also be added to the article. According to the sources, it is a non-profit charity, and does provide support to various beneficiaries. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, RebeccaGreen. You say that there are sources, but have not added any here or to the article itself. WP:ORG sets a higher bar for this sort of article than for most other article types. Edwardx (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TX2

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

Contested draft. This article does not demonstrate this band meets the criteria of WP:NBAND with no charting songs and the 3 sources being 1 primary sources, 1 PR source and 1 non functional sources. Other sources found have been from colleg papers or other SEO type listings. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have fixed the non functional source. It is here. No comment on notability. ResonantDis_tortion 08:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hate to be an avid user of whataboutism/otherstuffexists, but they don't NEED to have charted songs to have a page. there are plenty of other criteria that can allow an artist page to exist. especially considering the amount of other artist pages who's subjects have never had charting songs. Haaayzey (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Haaayzey, so which criteria do you think they meet? I didn't say they had to have a charted song, only it's a quick avenue to determine notability. I then evaluated the sources in the article at the time and the ones I could find in my WP:BEFORE search. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has had several EPs/works published through a major record label, currently one of the most popular/notable pop-punk bands of Colorado, has been placed in rotation of a major radio station (Octane (Sirius XM)). Haaayzey (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of LGBTQ+ studies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of the United States communities where English is not the majority language spoken at home

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

Basically per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home. This is mostly WP:OR from sources that don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, it fails WP:NLIST. The second paragraph is not an excuse either, since NLIST states "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". It links to WP:LISTPURP, which provides the definitions of these terms. I don't think these are excuses since Information: Now, I don't think that this list is a particularly useful information source, since it just rearranges the information of the census. Everything you would hope to find here, can already be found solely there. Navigation: This is not an index, outline or other table of contents Development: These topics are very fringely related and all of them are blue links anyway. If this list did serve a purpose for development, that is already fulfilled and so it can be deleted. The above comments for navigation also apply. Lists and categories: Again, this doesn't really apply as this doesn't serve a navigation purpose. There isn't a category for this list, and if there was then that would be WP:OVERCAT. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the United States counties where English is not the majority language spoken at home 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 19:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST. Here's how this article complies:

First: collectively, the list as a subject is notable. The topic of multilingual communities in general is clearly notable given constant discussion in the USA about multilingualism. Someone on right-wing news always clutches their pearls when another town or region tips to a foreign language. There's been a lot of academic research, too; for example, see this Google Scholar list of journal articles about multilingual communities.

Second: the individual list items are all reliably sourced to the United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey data. Per NLIST, individual entries require reliable referencing but do not each require significant coverage ("Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable").

Third: the purpose of the article is to provide useful or interesting information. I find both this and the counties list interesting. This article received 8,013 page views in the last year, excluding bots and crawlers; this is better than many of our articles, so there is some interest in the material.

As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home, I cannot speak to the topicality of multilingualism in Australia. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Keep, Move to "List of places in the United States where English is not the majority language". Atavoidirc (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per this N talk, it looks like most editors would want the exact list group/set (United States communities where English is not the majority language spoken at home) to be notable, rather than a rescoped group/set (like "US multilingual communities" as in the Google Scholar link by A. B.) Agree with A. B. that individual list members do not need to be notable though. Still could not find the list's exact group/set via quick Google search (but might've missed something?). Agree with nom that this list's group/set seems a bit like WP:OVERCAT imo (unless noted in sources I missed, ofc). Would keep per A. B.'s point re list's informational purpose, but honestly not sure how to assess that :/ - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The false balance with Australian article is unconvincing (WP:OTHERSTUFF). desmay (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of the United States counties where English is not the majority language spoken at home

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

Basically per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home. This is mostly WP:OR from sources that don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, it fails WP:NLIST. The second paragraph is not an excuse either, since NLIST states "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". It links to WP:LISTPURP, which provides the definitions of these terms. I don't think these are excuses since Information: Now, I don't think that this list is a particularly useful information source, since it just rearranges the information of the census. Everything you would hope to find here, can already be found solely there. Navigation: This is not an index, outline or other table of contents Development: These topics are very fringely related and all of them are blue links anyway. If this list did serve a purpose for development, that is already fulfilled and so it can be deleted. The above comments for navigation also apply. Lists and categories: Again, this doesn't really apply as this doesn't serve a navigation purpose. There isn't a category for this list, and if there was then that would be WP:OVERCAT. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the United States communities where English is not the majority language spoken at home 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 19:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST. Here's how this article complies:

First: collectively, the list as a subject is notable. The topic of multilingual communities in general is clearly notable given constant discussion in the USA about multilingualism. Someone on right-wing news always clutches their pearls when another town or region tips to a foreign language. There's been a lot of academic research, too; for example, see this Google Scholar list of journal articles about multilingual communities.

Second: the individual list items are all reliably sourced to Modern Language Association of America data; per NLIST, individual entries require reliable referencing but do not each require significant coverage ("Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable").

Third: the purpose of the article is to provide useful or interesting information. I find both this and the communities list interesting. The county level information shows whole areas where languages other than English are really established as opposed to the communities list which lists what are sometimes just small pockets of foreign language. The article received 2103 page views in the last year, excluding bots and crawlers; this is better than many of our articles, so there is some interest in the material.

As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home, I cannot speak to the topicality of multilingualism in Australia. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Keep, Move to "List of places in the United States where English is not the majority language". Atavoidirc (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for same reasons as my delete in the other AfD - except that would not keep this one even for informational purposes as per A. B., as this list seems less relied on for info than the other one, and they both serve similar info purposes it looks like/imo - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brand

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Lacking significant coverage of this executive. Does not seem to be notable as an author either. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 21:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, United States of America, and Missouri. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 21:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Disclosure: I am the subject of this article. My comments are based on independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of my career and published works.

Tom Brand’s career spans decades in agricultural broadcasting, including roles at KMA and KFEQ, and 12 years as Executive Director of the National Association of Farm Broadcasting (NAFB). This leadership has been covered in national trade publications such as Radio World, Agri Marketing, and Inside Radio.

He has received multiple nationally recognized honors — including the NAFB Horizon Award, the Honorary American FFA Degree, and induction into the St. Joseph Ag Hall of Fame — each documented in independent sources.

In 2025, Brand published two books, Welts on Your Butt a Calf Could Suck and I Never Heard of Johnny Fry, both covered in News-Press Now, The Bedford Times-Press, and American Ag Network.

Examples of independent coverage:

– Radio World – Tom Brand Is Named to Head NAFB

– Inside Radio – NAFB's Tom Brand: Positive Feedback From Lawmakers on AM Radio Issue

– The Bedford Times-Press – A Familiar Voice Finds a New Page

The article contains over a dozen independent, reliable citations, meeting WP:GNG and WP:NBROADCAST for notability in broadcasting. ~~~~ HeartlandStoryteller (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.newspressnow.com/news/social-services/2024/07/08/community-alliance-hires-new-director/		~ Some details	? Unknown
https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/tom-brand-is-named-to-head-nafb			✘ No
https://www.bedfordtimes-press.com/2025/06/10/a-familiar-voice-finds-a-new-page-former-kma-broadcaster-publishes-debut-book/		Dead link	? Unknown
https://www.legacy.newspressnow.com/veteran-farm-voice-leaving-kfeq-radio/article_e943b2aa-d855-5253-a749-e72f202b8572.html		~ Some details	? Unknown
https://nafb.com/node/100064	Primary		✘ No
https://www.agrimarketing.com/show_story.php?id=16688			? Unknown
https://www.insideradio.com/free/nafb-s-tom-brand-positive-feedback-from-lawmakers-on-am-radio-issue/article_0a3891d0-1641-11ee-b135-eff4460bf618.html		~ Some details	? Unknown
https://nafb.com/blogs/nafb-journalists-and-friends-tour-china	Primary		✘ No
https://radioink.com/2025/04/22/asu-study-shows-farm-radios-adjustments-to-digital-era/			✘ No
https://www.rrfn.com/2024/07/09/brand-to-advocate-for-st-joe/			✘ No
https://www.americanagnetwork.com/2025/05/19/veteran-farm-broadcaster-tom-brand-shares-heartfelt-humor-and-rural-roots-in-new-book/	Press release	~ Some details	✘ No
https://sheridanexpress.blogspot.com/2025/06/hopkins-native-tom-brand-publishes-new.html			✘ No
https://archives.indianapolis.iu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/07437591-c15b-46e3-b972-f59b00d086d8/content			✘ No
https://nafb.com/blogs/hall-fame-award-presented-tom-brand	Primary		✘ No
https://sites.google.com/masc1.org/mascstuco/recognition			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I've assessed the sources in the article. I was unable to determine the reliability of most of them due to their being trade publications (see WP:TRADES) or being of poor quality (e.g. this blogspot). I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 22:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt for four years, after the current effort to take away Wikimedia Foundation's nonprofit status has dissipated. The richest man in the World wants to destroy us, as does his frenemy, and they could succeed, in part because of poorly-sourced autobiographies like this one, which create a conflict of interest in violation of IRC § 501. I've written about this concern at several times and places, in the past few months, and need not repeat myself. If there's a concept that is the antonym of kairos, HeartlandStoryteller is experiencing it right now: Tom Bland could not have picked the worst time in the world to do this. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – Disclosure: I am the subject. Independent coverage exists:

– News-Press NOW: Former NAFB head chosen to lead St. Joseph Community Alliance (2024)

– News-Press NOW: Veteran farm voice leaving KFEQ Radio (2011)

– News-Press NOW: Familiar local voice has book published (2025)

– Radio World: Tom Brand Named NAFB Executive Director (2011)

– Radio World: NAFB Executive Director Tom Brand Steps Down (2023)

– University of Illinois ACDC: New Books (2025)

These show coverage across independent local media, reliable industry press, and academic listings. —HeartlandStoryteller (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HeartlandStoryteller, editors can only cast one bolded "vote" and you have already done so at the beginning of this discussion so I have struck this second vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more participants to weigh in here and a review of these newly added sources if they are not already included in the source assessment table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States governors who died in office

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRIVIA, does not meet WP:LISTN. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 18:07, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:34, 12 August 2025 (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) 18:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too specific, and since it already fails WP:NOTTRIVIA, it would get deleted. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 22:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom and comment above. Asteramellus (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends if this is WP:SYNTH or not. Bearian (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian chief ministers who died in office, this is a relevant topic and I don't believe it's synthesis or mere trivia. Reywas92^Talk 02:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Reywas92. Article with potential encyclopedic interest if reviewed/kept in scope. Svartner (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Reywas92.PortraitMaster1 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I disagree with the interpretation it does not meet WP:NLIST and believe it fulfills a purpose relevant to Wikipedia. Today I learned how many governors died in office and am a little surprised it hasn't happened in 22 years. I also know this is a bit "other stuff exists," but certainly lists like List of members of the United States Congress who died in office (1950–1999) do demonstrate the usefulness of such a list. I do preface it as a weak keep because there doesn't seem to be a ton in the article at present that ties the concept together.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "This article provides an overview of the important turning points in the history of U.S. states by linking to further articles, which helps in understanding how these events shaped the subsequent governing history of each state. It also allows for comparisons with similar situations in Indian states by referring to the corresponding article on Indian chief ministers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh PreetManak (talk • contribs) 02:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Kalika

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No significant coverage of this chiropractor in reliable sources. Does not appear to be notable as an academic either. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 17:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, United States of America, and New York. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 17:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTCV. Svartner (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is not written like a CV/resume; it's written in an encyclopedic way, stating factual information. WP:NOTCV does not apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangutan Enjoyer (talk • contribs) 21:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is WP:ADMASQ for Kalika's practice. The sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS; he's a WP:ROTM chiropractor who gets quoted occasionally in the media. A review of his Google Scholar page shows that his papers are almost never cited by others, so there's no argument from WP:NACADEMIC based on influence in his discipline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MLB Slugfest

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

Unsourced article full of unsupported claims. Go D. Usopp (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source, but it's MobyGames. MetaCritic has a list of reviews, which I think is generally enough? [10] SportingFlyer T·C 22:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or disamgibuate This is a series page, as Slugfest: Loaded has its own page already. I do not believe it is notable enough for a series page, though. Either it should be turned into a DAB page for the various MLB Slugfest games or deleted to let the search function do its job. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking DAB it, too, but technically I believe it should be a Set index article -- SIA -- but either will work. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there could be a section on List of video games by Midway Games but either way is fine. IgelRM (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are a lot of suggestions floating around here and none have consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above comments that there's ample space for a feeder page, but no evidence of series coverage for a standalone article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Squadron

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG. Not supported by independent sources. Lacks notability.Keith H99 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The existence of an entity known as the "New Orleans Squadron" would appear to be the creation of a banned user. Neither primary nor secondary sources use this term to describe the assets of the United States Navy that were stationed at New Orleans. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. 4. Given that this "unit" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new "unit" as theorised by the creator's original research. This "unit" is not recognized as such by the United States Navy. 4. The article is unsourced, like a lot of the fantasy essays that he published on wikipedia. It is a given that one of the ships mentioned was at the Battle of Lake Borgne but it was not there as part of this fantasy "unit".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keith_H99#The_Borge_belt_-_Az81964444_is_$1LENCE_D00600D?

Further comment on this user's fantasist activities above. Keith H99 (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I checked my sources as well. While I support the deletion of the current article due to the lack of citations and questionable content, it appears that the title of New Orleans Squadron was retroactively made to refer to the gaggle of Navy-related boats in the area, and as such counts as original research/imaginative. I have found nothing that refers to an established squadron raised for the War of 1812. This article from the USNI refers to a formal New Orleans Station tasked with the protection of American assets in the region that fought during the war. The American Battlefield Trust also refers to an to the small fleet in the region that defended the area. The article could be true if mentions of an established unit are removed.

On a related note, I saw your comments on the article's talk page. I can confirm that a Tickler did exist during the campaign, although it is questionable weather she was commissioned or not. Many of the small 1-gun gallies have little information on them, as they were likely purchased for the wart. GGOTCC 16:15, 22 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After a quick Google scholar search, I've found a few sources that mention "New Orleans Squadron" ([11], [12], [13], [14]), though I'm not sure it applies to the same squadron mentioned in the article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Significa liberdade

The existing article states the Squadron existed from an undetermined start date through 1838. I do not believe this to be the case, insofar as a different group name of the Navy vessels, being those of the "New Orleans Station", was used to refer to those vessels in this locality.

The articles, upon first glance, would appear to relate to an entity that was in existence decades later, and certainly after the date when it was purportedly merged with the Home Squadron.

It appears an entity of this name was in existence, albeit fifty years later, and whose vessels did not therefore participate in the War of 1812.

The article was created by an editor who created a number of fantasy essays, the content of which did not stand up to scrutiny. Some of their fantasy content lingered on wikipedia for many years. This seemed like another essay that could not be rewritten and was best deleted. Keith H99 (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Keith H99! I have no issue with this article being deleted, just wanted to share a few sources I found that might be useful. It is worth noting that one of the sources is discussing 1814 and mentions the Squadron. Again, I have no idea if this is the same squadron discussed in the article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again,

The Vogel article (via JSTOR) has "New Orleans" in uppercase, and "squadron" in lowercase. As such it is using a collective noun to describe some vessels, and is not referring to a formally titled body of ships that is a permanent formation.

A search was performed within the excellent fourth volume of The Naval War of 1812, Edited by Hughes & Brodine, Jr., from the Naval Historical Center. There were no instances of "New Orleans Squadron" that I encountered. Given this is a US Navy publication, via the G.P.O., I would have expected the proper nouns of US Navy formations to be in evidence within this publication, where a bona fide formation exists.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/publications/publications-by-subject/naval-war-of-1812.html

I am puzzled that if an entity of this name was in existence during the American Civil War, why has this not been reflected in this article, within the last 15 years? Keith H99 (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of pertinence to this article, I looked at the US Navy's website entry for USS Louisiana.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/l/louisiana-i.html

They refer to the sloop as "The heaviest and most powerfully armed ship in Patterson's small flotilla". Were it the case that the formation commanded by Patterson were known as the "New Orleans Squadron" then I would have expected such a term to have been used here. Keith H99 (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Significa liberdade.

I am pleased to report that the other article, a copyright violation for nearly 15 years, has been addressed by a root-and-branch rework.

It does seem that the banned user only "wrote" when putting together his nationalistic fantasy essays, and for the genuinely noteworthy topics, he plagiarised content from elsewhere on the internet. Keith H99 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent time recently on rescuing the USS Louisiana from fourteen years of copyright violation, to revamp it, and to similarly add further content to USS Carolina from reliable sources. I have yet to see any reference to the fantasy unit of "New Orleans Squadron" in any of the literature.Keith H99 (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:17, 19 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. Owen× ☎ 14:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Parks-Valletta

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources; closest is this source which shows the notability of the charity more than the man. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Entertainment, and United States of America. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to request a review of this deletion proposal, as it may be based on a misunderstanding of the sources. After reviewing the citations, it appears that the only press release-type source is the PR Newswire reference this one The remaining references come from reliable, independent third-party sources that meet Wikipedia’s verifiability and notability guidelines. I believe these sources support the article’s subject meeting the criteria for inclusion. User972364 (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the same sources you're seeing. Which remaining sources are you talking about? Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 14:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Winning "regional Emmy awards" is probably not enough for notability. And I'm not seeing much coverage of this actor. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With limited roles such a waiter and man in the audience, I don't see notability. The hosting duties appear to be for a local tv show and without extensive sourcing, this isn't notable. Sources 9 and 10 aren't helpful. Regional Emmys are considered notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b thank you for your feedback. I'd like to exposure my confusion here because, there are some other reviewers that consider regional emmys not a notable source, which to me they are. Can you please clarify that they actually are? Thank you User972364 (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've not used them to show notability; I don't have an exact link to the policy in question. See this discussion from 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irene_Byon, or here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion&search=regional+emmy&ns0=1&ns11=1&searchToken=55yq8i0b0j8tifng4rdgv1qzy . If anyone else can pull up the policy, that would be helpful; to be honest I've been doing this for so long, you just commit certain rules to memory without remembering the exact page/list where it says the rule. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b thank you so much for sharing this. I appreciate it. Now I understand. User972364 (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Hi again, I wanted to ask if it's possible to edit the article and completing it even if its flagged for deletion? This actor actually was one of the star of the show vandervamp rules and appeared on True Blood, plus he is the brother of the model Amber Valleta.

Thank you, please let me know. User972364 (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Until it's actually deleted, you can do what you want with it (short of blanking it or doing something silly to it). It's helpful to try and improve it, we see that happen in discussions here all the time. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Oaktree b will work on it next Monday. User972364 (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b I’ve expanded the article with stronger sources to help show notability. These now include coverage in People, E! News, Entertainment Tonight, Refinery29, and the San Diego Union-Tribune, along with other references for his charity work and production career. I also kept the official NATAS documents that confirm his regional Emmy wins. I know regional Emmys aren’t treated as major awards here, but given now there's more sources I decided to kept it, but I’m open to adjusting and removing if necessary. I'm just considering them as additional sources. Thank you so much for your time User972364 (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the expansion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure they show notability with the new sources added, People is more about a couple splitting, that doesn't really show notability. The article is better, just not sure it's enough to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b thank you for the feedback. I’ve reworked the article again and added a wider range of sources. In addition to the People and E! News coverage of his relationship, there is sourcing from the San Diego Union-Tribune, Haute Living, Look to the Stars, Hawaii News Now, and Nicki Swift that covers his charity work and his hosting/production career (Staycation and Destination shows). I’ve also included mainstream entertainment coverage from Page Six and BravoTV that ties him to his family background with his sister Amber Valletta .

I think the article is in much better shape now. Happy to keep refining if needed. Thank you! User972364 (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like WP:RESUME of an unknown Hollywood personality. The only significant coverage is the SD Tribune article listed in the nomination. Other coverage can be broken down to trivia (relationship), WP:NOTINHERITED (sibling), insignificant roles in tv shows, and a non-notable "non profit" -- BriefEdits (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @BriefEdits for the feedback. I see your point about WP:RESUME, and I’ve tried to address that by focusing the article on what appears in independent coverage. In addition to the San Diego Union-Tribune, there are sources from Haute Living, Look to the Stars, Hawaii News Now, and Nicki Swift that provide feature-style coverage of Parks-Valletta’s charity work (Tag the World) and his Emmy-winning hosting/production work (Staycation / Destination shows). There is also entertainment press from People, Page Six, E! News, and Bravo that independently covered his appearances on Vanderpump Rules.

I understand WP:NOTINHERITED means Amber Valletta’s career shouldn’t count for his notability, and I agree. But I think between the mainstream coverage of his own career, the multiple regional Emmy awards, and his profile in outlets like Nicki Swift and San Diego Union-Tribune, there is enough to meet WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.

That said, I’m happy to refine further or trim areas that feel too much like resume-style listing, if that helps. User972364 (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. I think you're conflating gossip mills with "mainstream coverage". Like you wouldn't compare the New York Times to TMZ. 2. I don't think there's much for you to do other than finding better sources. You can break down the subject to various chapters and none of which are notable. There's Parks-Valletta the entertainer whose roles are insignificant as they are in non-notable productions or the roles are minor. And having one recurring appearance on a reality tv show because he was dating somebody being his only substantial on-screen credit is not notable. (fails WP:NACTOR) There's Parks-Valletta the philanthropist whose non-profit has only generated local interest WP:MILL coverage of fundraising events. The book and family stuff is barely worth mentioning. And winning a regional Emmy is really no more important than winning an award at a regional film festival, especially for a producer of all things, or an unknown industry award. The prestige is nowhere the same as the Daytime or Primetime Emmys. Like you could add it but I wouldn't count it toward notability. I hope that clarifies some stuff. -- BriefEdits (talk) 05:21, 23 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.

Lyle Rains

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

Low amount of sigcov in sources, while also lacking non-inherited notability. May warrant a redirect into Atari, Inc. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article is hardly encyclopedic as is and is doubtful WP:V-erifiable, support for redirect. IgelRM (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting just to confirm that participants see an outcome of redirecting this article to Atari, Inc.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep creation of Asteroids is supported by the Museum of Modern Art.[15]. Additional information in [16] Jahaza (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked the article a bit and added some sources. Jahaza (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Atari, at least on current sourcing. Appreciate Jahaza's search for sources but on a cursory look, most of them are trivial mentions of Rains to support his affiliation with these games and not significant coverage about the developer that would support a reliable biography. More work needed here - I can imagine there might be much more out there. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to Asteroids, he also worked on Tank (video game) and was considered by Time magazine one of the founding fathers of video games. (I was going to do some work on this article last night, but got sidetracked.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This Time magazine photo essay is hardly significant coverage. Tank is also an Atari game, so I can support the redirect there. IgelRM (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable in the early era of games development, passes WP:NCREATIVE. Svartner (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG & WP:BIO 200.46.55.99 (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 25 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!} 05:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Octoroc

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of GNG. Couldn't find more sources that aren't the subject's videos masquerading as sources or marginally related to the subject. Go D. Usopp (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. Go D. Usopp (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Nil🥝 01:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In the previous nomination editors argued that WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE were met, and I think their analysis still stands (even if it was closed as no consensus, I think the keep !votes were stronger). The artist and his projects have had coverage from a variety of reliable and independent sources (Kotaku, 1UP.com, Brandon Boyer for Offworld, GameSetWatch, ~~Variety~~ etc.); some are more in depth than others, but overall enough to establish notability. Nil🥝 01:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A full source analysis would be helpful, I am not particular convinced those albums received critiques. IgelRM (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above and in the previous AfD that together show a pass of WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage of his albums is not the same as coverage of the artist himself. Notability is not inherited, but his albums are also not notable enough for him to pass WP:NARTIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:02, 11 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!} 21:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've checked the sources listed above as supposedly meeting the WP:GNG standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent." These sources listed above are "Kotaku, 1UP.com, Offworld, GameSetWatch, Variety." I did not find "Variety" in the article and a google search for "Octoroc" on variety.com found absolutely nothing as did a search on Variety's website itself. All of the other suggested sources are either extremely short insignificant coverage, or an interview that is not independent of the subject. Source assessment table is below. Fails WP:GNG completely. Asparagusstar (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Asparagusstar
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://web.archive.org/web/20081225110027/https://kotaku.com/5116106/8+bit-jesus-the-second-coming-of-the-first-album		Just six short sentences	✘ No
http://web.archive.org/web/20081222160408/https://kotaku.com/5114542/listen-in-on-a-very-8+bit-christmas-album		Just four short sentences and a track listing	✘ No
http://web.archive.org/web/20101119070640/https://kotaku.com/5691555/the-console-war-fought-final-fantasy-style/		Just five short sentences	✘ No
http://web.archive.org/web/20110701065121/https://kotaku.com/5816732/of-course-a-bear-grylls-rpg-would-include-copious-piss-drinking		Just three sentences	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120803121014/http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9030497	An interview of the subject is not independent of the subject		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110427214110/http://www.offworld.com/2008/12/8-bit-jesus-the-nes-themed-chi.html		Just two sentences	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110310174429/http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2010/12/after_these_messages_doctor_oc.php		Just five sentences	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110310174408/http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2011/03/shamroctoroc_chiptunes_for_st.php		Just three sentences	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment Apologies I'm not sure where I got Variety from in my previous comment. Thank you for doing the source analysis above, its useful. However, I do disagree with your interpretation of WP:SIGCOV, which does not focus on the length of sources. Rather, you should be assessing whether the sources have details relating to the artist, and that the mentions are non-trivial. Whilst they are short, the Kotaku and Gamesetwatch articles both contain details relating directly to the subject, and are non-trivial in nature. If we take all the Kotaku coverage as a whole, it would easily meet sigcov; ditto with gamesetwatch. Both meet RS per WP:VG/RS.

Would be good to have a source analysis of all the article's sources, as it includes some listed at WP:RSPSOURCES like Wired.

Separately to the above, adding some further sources to this discussion I've been able to find:

This article [17] from music journalist Alex Rawls (who has bylines in Spin, Rolling Stone, Offbeat among others)
Some newspaper articles about one of his art projects [18] & [19]

Nil🥝 02:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has already wasted enough of our time with ridiculous claims about nonexistent coverage in Variety and how a two sentence blog post provides the Wikipedia standard of significant coverage to write an encyclopedia article about a living person. There is no need to waste further time reiterating these sorts of ridiculous ideas. Asparagusstar (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a genuine mistake which I already apologised for; that shouldn't be grounds for dropping AGF.

Had you done a full source analysis of the article's references, you may have realised I probably got Variety and Vulture mixed up. Yes, that's on me.

But I'm not here to waste anyone's time, and I'm not against the article being deleted – I just want to ensure that any such decision is done so robustly. Nil🥝 22:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created a table analyzing every source this editor wasted our time with by falsely claiming met WP:GNG, including time I spent searching for a source they claimed was in Variety which there is no evidence even exists. I have no idea why I am still getting responses from them. There is no need for them to waste further time reiterating these sorts of ridiculous ideas. Asparagusstar (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your point, now you're just being WP:UNCIVIL. Yes, I made a mistake, and I apologise for it.

If that's ridiculous to you, you're welcome to walk away. Nil🥝 23:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why I am still getting responses from them. There is no need for them to waste further time reiterating these sorts of ridiculous ideas. Asparagusstar (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out, there is an article on Variety if you search under his real name... Just not enough to count as sigcov, however. Nil🥝 06:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the table above does not evaluate the reliable column. But the sourcing here is at maximum relevant to write about a music album, not a biography. Also the last two sources are local coverage. IgelRM (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD doesn't exclude them as counting if At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is used. Whether they pass WP:NWORK may be more of an issue... Nil🥝 06:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a source analysis of every reference currently in the article here, and it's... not great. The best source towards meeting GNG is the profile I introduced above. In addition to what's in the article, I found the following which appears to meet sigcov:

https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/youtube-game-of-thrones-und-breaking-bad-im-pixel-look-a-1025927.html

The biggest issue here is when we apply WP:NWORK to the existing sigcov. Ideally, there'd be one more source in order to comfortably pass GNG. Nil🥝 06:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the effort searching for sources. But the Spiegel article is filed under Angeklickt and the last paragraphs are purely showcasing videos. Whether the author of My Spilt Milk is a journalist or not, it is still a blog. I don't think both can meet GNG. IgelRM (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Spilt Milk should fit the definition of subject-matter expert under WP:BLOGS, as Rawls is an established music journalist and academic. Rawls aside, I totally accept that overall GNG is pretty weak / difficult to establish here though. Nil🥝 21:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for non-notability. The above comments of ZXCVBNM match my views which, as Nil mentions, I have tried to capture in WP:NOTWORK, although this is not formal policy. The article does some helpful and unhelpful things: it provides a lot of reliable secondary coverage about the works of the artist quite amply, but tends to over-source and lean on trivial coverage. Examples of this are using the one sentence in the Clair book about the subject - Chiptune artist Doctor Octoroc raised more than $10,000 on Kickstarter to [create a tribute album] made "using only the five monophonic channels available on the NES RP2A03 sound chip." and then extrapolates what is obviously a quote from the Kickstarter to generalise about the artist's equipment and setup. The only significant coverage about the artist I can see is the Spiegel article and the Alex Rawls blog - accepting that Rawls is an able subject matter expert and this source is valuable. It's almost there. But it isn't enough to reliably furnish a WP:BLP for an article about the subject rather than about the works the subject has created, given the higher standard for BLP articles. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Midway Mall

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

Non-notable mall. All the referencing is WP:ROUTINE coverage of stores opening/closing. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Ohio. JMWt (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't consider multi-column articles about the opening, redevelopment or sale of a mall to be routine coverage. You have to stretch the definition way too far for that, routine coverage is like "annual fashion show at the mall tonight" or maybe the articles about the closure of stores, although with the anchor stores that's relatively big news. The problem with routine coverage is it doesn't really tell us anything encyclopedic about the mall, a Wikipedia article wouldn't really be concerned with the fact that the annual fashion show was on a given night in 2015. But the longer articles about major milestones in the mall's history and its financial status are the kind of things a Wikipedia article should cover. It's not of much interest to people outside of the region, sure, but that's not an issue with Wikipedia. We have space for endless articles on minor malls, if the sourcing is there to write about them encyclopedically. --Here2rewrite (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to see what research I can find to improve the article with more varied resources and expanding the narrative about the history. I don't know what is out there yet, but I'm willing to give it a try. Ophelia.forest (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This leads to a Disambiguation page, was that the original goal or does this AFD need to be restarted for one of the specific articles? Esw01407 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone unhelpfully moved it since the nom. I’m not entirely sure what the best course of action is, maybe a passing admin can advise? JMWt (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original article nominated for deletion was Midway Mall (Ohio). The dab page isn't being considered for deletion even though it's tagged. Yeah it does muddle things, hopefully a AFD closer looks at this soon. --Here2rewrite (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I've reverted the page move to restore order to this; the intent of the nomination is to adjudicate the notability of the Ohio mall. Please wait until this is resolved before worrying about page moves and disambiguations, let's take care of things one at a time, thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Appears to meet the minimums to keep as an article. Does need more work. Esw01407 (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The expected coverage for a mall is events and store openings. The historical aspect of the space's creation seems to be covered in the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. Svartner (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

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

[rich20240520-1] Rich, Katey (2024-05-20). "'Shogun' Starts Some Drama". Los Angeles Magazine.

[manyoners-2] The many "Oners" of prestige television|A Shot

[1]

[2]