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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to United States of America.
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:
Lacks significant coverage, though his company Design Projects is an extremely generic name. No possible redirect as his company does not have an article. He seems to have worked mostly on B movies.
—KaliforniykaHi! 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Design Projects first client was Universal Pictures, and also did advertising, design and packaging for 20th Century Fox, Warner Home Video, Columbia Pictures, as well as international distributors, starting with Best International Films and Producers Sales Organizations, and including Goldcrest and ad campaigns for Sanrio Films while they had a Los Angeles branch office.
It also created ad campaigns for many independent film distributors, such as Group One, New World, Film Ventures International. We also
Prior to 1978, I worked as a freelance designer for Universal Pictures, Filmways, as well as Universal Music.
This article does not meet general notability guidelines and lacks sources. The one source the article does have is dubious as well.
Samoht27 (
talk) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Subject does not meet the
WP:GNG due to a lack of
WP:SIGCOV. Of the current sources, the first was written by the subject himself, and the second is a brief mention quoted from a press release. A BEFORE check revealed some quotes and namedrops but little else.
Let'srun (
talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Micro-denomination of three churches with no reliable sources to establish notability via significant coverage. All existing sources fail to establish notability:
Link - Appears to be a reliable source with coverage on page 15, but note on page 2 that the author of the coverage on page 15 is/was a senior leader within the subject of the article and thus this source is not independent.
Link. Self-published source of questionable reliability, not updated for a decade.
Link - Erroneously cited and fails verification. The citation describes as "Doctrines of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church"; the actual title of the paper is different.
Link - Fails verification for notability; does not reference subject.
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Editors arguing for "Keep" in the 2022 non-consensus AfD discussion depended heavily on 2 and 5; however, as I've shown here, 2 is not an independent source for notability, and 5 fails verification.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Defunct micro-denomination that existed for less than 10 years. It is not included in any of the authoritative encyclopedic sources (e.g.
Melton). Can find no sources to establish notability under GNG or NORG. Existing sources in the article are unreliable or unverifiable. My analysis follows:
Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages
During the 2006 AfD, which resulted in no consensus, those arguing for "keep" tended not to make policy-based arguments. Additionally, they specifically pointed to the British Church Newspaper and Banner of Truth Magazine citations as proving notability. After 18 years, however, these publications remain unavailable online (including in the Internet Archive) and thus cannot be verified.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. Invalid reasoning. A source that is not online remains verifiable by a trip to a library. Dead-tree sources are perfectly legitimate. And a denomination being defunct really doesn't matter. If it was notable once, it remains notabvle. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Per the
2006 discussion, this is the full text in one of the dead-tree sources: "On January 13-14, 2006, a new Presbyterian denomination was formed. During delegate meetings in Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted the name Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS). The founding churches came together because of perceived equivocation towards important biblical doctines and because of tolerance of excesses in contemporary worship in other Presbyterian denominations." Sounds like
WP:TRIVIALMENTION to me. I've made every effort to verify its existence; however, the comprehensive Banner of Truth magazine archive does not include this citation (
see page 99, where no such article is referenced in the April 2006 issue). The
WP:BURDEN is on the editor who added the material to add a verifiable, reliable source, and this isn't.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: subject lacks GNG as most of the sources available online are press releases, passing mentions, etc.
Tumbuka Arch (
talk) 14:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per source analysis by Jeraxmoira. To satisfy GNG articles need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources which the subject of the article does not have.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5450:3A3:46CC:17EC (
talk) 16:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Sources are just about his company, that too mostly about fundings. No independent sources about the subject. Lacks GNG
𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 19:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The individual doesn't meet
WP:GNG, and the sources provided aren't independent reliable secondary sources. Blogs, opinions, and primary sources can't establish notability.
Grabup (
talk) 15:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Kind of close, but not close enough. I think the Dil Mil app could be notable, so this can be redirected there if an article for Dil Mil is made. Cleo Cooper (
talk) 01:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable model, fails
WP:NMODEL. Both references are from 2013 (one is broken). Doesn't seem to have his models.com profile updated since 2017. Does not meet
wp:ANYBIO or
wp:GNG.
Classicwiki (
talk) If you reply here, please
ping me. 22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Per @
Ltbdl stance. It lacks notability and it is not yet ready for inclusion on Wikimedia. Let's give it a year and see.
Fugabus (
talk) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think this meets
WP:NFILM /
WP:GNG. Kept at 2006 AfD, but standards were considerably lower then.
Boleyn (
talk) 08:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
An unsourced article, and there is nothing that I could find online that would allow David McGarry to meet notability requirements for musicians.
Cleo Cooper (
talk) 01:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I simply created the list because I was unable to find any website that allowed me to compare my self to a US president. Also if we are arguing that this is trivial then I feel that
US presidential nicknames would qualify in that category more than this would. I would also like a specific reason for deletion because I feel that it is currently based off of their being a similar article (
Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States). I think this article is a valuable supplement as the
Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States article dives deep into comparison of heights amongst candidates this article over the broader scope of the presidents general body size.
Pickup Andropov (
talk) 01:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How are
US presidential nicknames trivial? They are often important aspects of the presidents campaigning, or important aspects of how the presidents are viewed in popular culture. Furthermore, there being a similar article is a valid cause for deletion, since such articles serve as a
Redundant Fork.
Samoht27 (
talk) 19:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete We already have a list for height and the weight is a trivial aspect. The weight being included in the title makes it a bad redirect to a list of only heights, so just delete it.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for the reasons above.
Ben Azura (
talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Found zero evidence of notability myself. Mushy Yank added a Variety article which mentions the film, but only very briefly, so I don't take it for much. And even then, if that's all there is then I don't see why this should've been dePRODded in the first place.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 13:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak delete doesn't seem to meet
WP:NF. It was missing from two of the cast's filmography tables so I added it in, noticed that Elizabeth Moss and Torah Feldshuh have both made more recent films that don't have articles so unless anyone can find better independent sources I don't think this needs an entry.
Orange sticker (
talk) 15:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Very minor candidate who appeared on two primary ballots. Received less than 4000 votes out of nearly 20 million cast. Lacking significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per
WP:GNG.
AusLondonder (
talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete None of the content or sources is substantively biographical. Just some dude who took advantage of easy ballot access.
Reywas92Talk 16:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Clearly fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NPOL. I think a redirect would give an undue indication of notability. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 12:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. (No prejudice against the recreation of a redirect from the redlink if desired, but delete first as I see no value in holding onto the edit history behind a redirect.) Fringe candidates for president are not "inherently" notable per
WP:NPOL just for existing, and have to show some evidence of actually passing
WP:GNG on their sourceability — but this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with no GNG-worthy sourcing shown whatsoever.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is a harmless list of achievements rather than an indiscriminate collection of stats. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs) 01:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I think parts of this article do qualify as an "indiscriminate collection of information". Take the "NBA highs since 1983-84" section. Why is that season chosen as the cutoff? Who is the audience for statistics with that level of granularity? Who is going to take the time to confirm that all of that content is still up to date? The more important achievements should already be listed in the
Dwight Howard article.
Zagalejo (
talk) 22:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete There's no good reason for this entire category of articles to exist. A person's notable accomplishments should be found in the article about that person. A person's non-notable accomplishments should be found nowhere. There will always be disputes whether a certain accomplishment is notable or not, and such disputes are valid and necessary. This type of article is essentially claiming that there's a whole new category "Sort-Of-Notable-Ish Accomplishments". There is no such category. If it turns out that articles about brilliant outliers with huge lists of notable accomplishments become too long to read, deal with those individually.
TooManyFingers (
talk) 23:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete indiscriminate list of stats with no added encyclopedic value.
Broc (
talk) 09:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep but prune (e.g. game winners aren't particularly noteworthy). Bird is one of the all-time greats of basketball, with many notable achievements. (No offense to the others whose lists have been deleted, but Bird is in a different league.)Clarityfiend (
talk) 11:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Bird is a Hall of Famer, but these achievements are a bit of a stretch (e.g. 49 points, 14 rebounds, 12 assists and one blocked shot in a game). Not a lot there that warrants a standalone list.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 11:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, I agree. But I will continue mentioning it every time since
WP:OSE (Howard, Anthony, Paul, Wade) is being shared above on the deletion side of things. -
BeFriendlyGoodSir (
talk) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Except the other listed AfDs are just links, are to the same sport and league, and dont explictly mention their outcome. —
Bagumba (
talk) 01:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable actor whose career has been a string of tiny roles and insignificant voice acting gigs. Fails
WP:BIO.
Capt. Milokan (
talk) 21:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Consular office that fails
WP:GNG and
WP:ORGCRIT. Lacking in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Sources at the article are mostly irrelevant, such as an opinion piece in a newspaper about Taiwan and China and a transcript of President Carter's address about recognition of China.
AusLondonder (
talk) 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Filed on behalf of IP 194.223.33.176 per
their request. Their reasoning is as follows. This is procedural and I am neutral in this nomination.
"Three sources have failed verification the More Footnotes Needed notice was up since January 2017 and nothing has changed. Even one external link has failed verification. Therefore, all these issues combined make this article fail GNG." The notice "This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations." on that article has been there since January 2017. And nothing has changed for it to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. This article is being taken to AFD due to failure to meeting requrements of a wikipedia article and coupled with that it was originally proposed for deletion, but someone had removed the PROD thinking that they could get away with it. Therefore, AFD is a solution."StarMississippi 00:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I think the original nominator says all the sources fail verification because the links are dead, but they can be accessed via the Wayback Machine. References 1, 4, and the external link seem to check out. Reference 2 makes no note of trains and reference 3 doesn’t appear to mention a 120 ton engine (does mention a 118 ton engine for CN with a generator and motor from other models, though). References 3 and 4 are a geocities-style site so I’m not sure if they would be an acceptable
WP:RS. StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 04:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
A consortium consisting of ALCO, GE and Ingersoll Rand started series production of the ALCO Boxcabs in 1925. ALCO dropped out of the arrangement in 1928, after acquiring their own diesel engine manufacturer in McIntosh & Seymour and went on to start its own line of diesel switchers. GE and Ingersoll Rand went on with the production of the former ALCO boxcabs, but without ALCO. The locomotives were built in the GE plant in Erie, Pennsylvania, except the unit for Canadian National Railway (CN), which was built by the railroad itself in their workshop. Seventeen examples were built in all.
a 60-Ton locomotive with a six-cylinder four-stroke in-line engine of 300 hp
a 100-Ton locomotive with two of the same engines as the 60-Ton model)
a 120-Ton locomotive with a single six-cylinder 800 hp unit (1 prototype built for Erie Railroad)
Don't have any references connected to them. I would suggest that this article:
Comment: I looked through the
wayback machine, specifically
http://sbiii.com/boxc1101.html and its self-published meaning the creator of this article has also sourced this article to some dude's self-published website. Look at the bottom of the article and you will see I'm spitting out the truth.
Keep. but someone had removed the PROD thinking that they could get away with it. I'm that someone, per the edit history and the {{
oldprod}} template I left on
Talk:GE boxcab. What I said at the time is that poor sourcing and notability are separate issues.
Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup is only an essay, but a well-regarded one for all that. I'm not a fan of draftifying articles in these cases because it tends to mean fewer eyes on the article. The article needs to be improved, but it's not doing active harm where it is, and no one's alleging that it's grossly inaccurate. IP, just so we're clear, no one, least of all me, disagrees that the sourcing is bad. I just disagree on the remedy.
Mackensen(talk) 12:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Generally in agreement with Mackensen. There is coverage of these locomotives in secondary sources, and I've added one such source to the article. I will add coverage from a second source today as well. What I've found does not contradict the existing article.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 18:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. After adding archives and checking some of the passages with failed verification tags, I don't see the issue as one of notability. For example, the line "The only surviving GE boxcab is the 100-ton unit built in December 1929 and delivered to the contractor Foley Brothers in January 1930." is very close to the article which says it's the "only surviving 100-ton (nominal - actually 108-ton) oil-electric boxcab". The other hard facts are all present, so changing that sentence to "The only surviving 100-ton GE boxcab is the unit built in December 1929 and delivered to the contractor Foley Brothers in January 1930." would nudge it in line with the cited source. That's a pretty minor change, and indicates a need for cleanup rather than deletion.
Rjjiii (
talk) 23:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Has coverage in reliable sources and the article has been improved. StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 01:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Unsubstantiated deletion request by an IP. The community would be better served by improving articles and searching for sources, rather than submitting deletion requests.--
Pechristener (
talk) 02:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That only holds true if the subject is notable. In this case, it clearly is. But saying that deletion requests are always bad is patently incorrect.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 17:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This list of every town in American that has Comcast cable does not belong on wikipedia per
WP:NOTDIR, Furthermore, the list is incorrect and outdated and even if updated accurate information could be found, this still serves no encyclopedic purpose.
Rusf10 (
talk) 04:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Many many many companies on Wikipedia list their service area(s). Perhaps not to the level of the city/town licenses which is what actually grants Comcast its service area. i.e. One canneot get XFINITY outside of city/town licensed to allow offer it. But should a company's service area be listed on Wikipedia is the better question? Many banks list the states they're in as they're licensed on the state level. Verizon lists their FiOS area markets. Charter Communications lists its markets. The satellite providers which are all in the same sky list their service areas. Radio/TV stations list the area/markets they're licensed to serve. Mobile companies list the states they are licensed to operate in. There's LOTS of DIR on Wikipedia. For example:
List of countries with Burger King franchises. To that logic wouldn't people just goto BK.com and look up what Burger Kings are nearby?
CaribDigita (
talk) 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTDIR and
WP:NOTDB. No analysis or summary is offered; the article is just a long bulleted list. Anyone searching for this information would just get it from Comcast, who would have a more up-to-date list anyway. Consensus has been that standalone lists of airline destinations are not encyclopedic enough for WP, and I think this article is very similar in concept to that.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk) 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per NOTDIR and minimal coverage of the topic (
this is about as good as secondary coverage gets).
RunningTiger123 (
talk) 01:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Article about a band, not
properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims here are (a) being booked to play a major festival tour but then not doing it because their stage was cancelled, which is not a free pass over the touring criterion as they obviously can't have gotten coverage for a tour that didn't happen; (b) releasing one album on a major label, where NMUSIC requires two albums before the mere existence of albums becomes a notability clinch in and of itself; and (c) placing songs in video games and compilation albums, which is the one criterion in NMUSIC that explicitly undermines itself with a "not enough if it's the only criterion they pass" stopper clause. But this is referenced solely to an AllMusic profile, which is a valid starter source but not enough all by itself, and since all of this happened 15-20 years ago a Google search is only landing me directory entries and
primary sources rather than
WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage. So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access than I've got to archived US music media coverage from the naughts can find enough proper sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy footnote.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This was nominated a year ago and the result was no consensus, because an organization that is the main feeder competition for the IOI has to have sources. I agree, but really, there is nothing, I've tried. I propose redirection to
International Olympiad in Informatics.
Snowmanonahoe (
talk·contribs·typos) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominating this article for deletion because it does not meet the notability guidelines. No reliable sources are referenced or can be found online.
Alexwiki0496 (
talk) 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Subject spectacularly fails
WP:GNG despite the effort to
inundate the text with pseudo-sources. The fact that the text has been created, curated, and posted up by a
kamikaze account, the same one that provided the (perhaps, self-) portrait, is typically a warning sign. A pachyderm from the land of
Prom. -
The Gnome (
talk) 20:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The last entry in the now-depopulated
Category:The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends episodes (other episodes and story arcs proved to be non-notable and got redirected after prods and AfDs). This one, being the first story arc, is... well, longer than many others but still does not show why it is notable. We have a gigantic plot summary with poor references and my BEFORE fails to find much of use. I suggest redirecting this one as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk) 16:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Appears to be OR. I can't find much of anything for sourcing, but this much info had to come from somewhere, so I'm lost for how it got so much detail. Regardless, no sourcing is no sourcing and a delete.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is not the
Federal Register. There are a large number of articles like this one which should also be evaluated for notability, I encountered this article through New Page Patrol. No secondary coverage present.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
delete per nom.
Mangoe (
talk) 02:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Tire-pressure monitoring system, which is what the safety standard regulates. There is some secondary coverage in Google Books, the Internet Archive, Google News and Google Scholar. There is at least one full article on the standard:
[6]. We do not have a policy or guideline that says we are "not the Federal Register". Also called FMVSS 138.
James500 (
talk) 23:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I am persuaded that this topic satisfies GNG.
James500 (
talk) 08:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retain This is one of many article on an automotive safety standard. Like many stub articles, it could benefit from being expanded but I see no reason to delete or merge.
Expandinglight5 (
talk) 03:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 15:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
He doesn't seem to meet
WP:ENT /
WP:GNG. Working actors, but not the significance of roles needed. Also currently an unref BLP.
Boleyn (
talk) 15:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Articles that have been proposed for deletion are ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 15:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: With roles as "guy at cafe" and "angry cop" as examples, he's very much not notable. Character actors usually aren't notable unless you have extensive biographical articles about them that we can use for sourcing.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Barely intelligible. From what I've gathered, a Hurricane Hunters flight had an engine failure in flight during a mission, but was still able to return to base and land safely, see
Hurricane hunters#Other incidents. This does not merit a separate article.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect to
Hurricane Hugo. The subsection of
NOAA Flight 42 already explains in detail what happened. I don't really think a separate article is needed.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This article on a USA-based record label, created in 2010, is unreferenced. Per
WP:Before no sigcov found including in searches in both the wikipedia library and standard search engine, except a passing mention in Billboard (
[7]). Subject fails to meet notability guidelines. As there aren't guidelines in place for record labels - I expect
WP:NORG applies. Resonant
Distortion 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It exists but there is limited coverage (article currently unreferenced, with some possible sources which could be added). I couldn't see that it meets
WP:ORG /
WP:GNG in its own right, or a suitable merge target.
Boleyn (
talk) 14:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 14:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing in the article or my BEFORE suggests this meets
WP:GNG (or
WP:NFILM). Nothing in GBooks or GScholar (well, one mention in a German book?). Maybe there is some coverage in
National Lampoon (magazine) ( September/October 1994), but it is a parody magazine, so not sure if it is reliable, and even if there is something there, GNG requires multiple sources (so at least one more). Can anyone find anything to rescue this - or failing that, suggest a valid redirect target? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello Piotrus, I should think that even if the National Lampoon is a satirical magazine, it is significant coverage. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Forget what I said, it's obviously a primary source....-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Added a few things. A redirect (many targets can be considered) is also possible. Opposed to Deletion. Thanks. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful. What would the redirect target article be? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete There are just two significant articles on this movie (that I can find). One is a full paragraph in TV Guide from 8/20/1994. The other is the LA Times article, which is genuinely substantial. This movie gets continued brief mentions in video guides, but almost nothing else. Hard to see this coming even close to meeting
WP:NFILMOblivy (
talk) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Piotrus sorry I just did. The Entertainment Tonight article is lengthy, but I don't know if it counts towards the nationally known critics factor. The TV guide article is paywalled above but another TV guide article from the same date is here
[9]. The video guides are available at archive.org.
Oblivy (
talk) 04:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Oblivy Playing the devil's advocate (since I am the nom), I think that we have enough sources to show this meets GNG with SIGCOV, although I did not access your sources (but coverage in LA Time, which you call substantial, is pretty good). I'll ping
User:Cunard in case he can locate it and quote it/link it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
FYI, LA times is source #3.
Oblivy (
talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment – Source searches are demonstrating that this may meet notability requirements. I have copy edited the article to denote that it is an educational program, rather than an organization. Additionally, regarding the nomination, the degree to which a program is used has no bearing on notability for topics. Below are a few sources to consider:
Park, J.S.; United States. Office of Education (1978).
Education in Action: 50 Ideas that Work. DHEW publication ; no. (OE) 77-01018. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
United States. Office of Education (1974).
Innovative Education Practices: 1974. Innovative Education Practices. The Office. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar.
[10], for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer. There are a lot of other sources.
James500 (
talk) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Changing from my earlier !vote of delete per
WP:HEY. Sources provided above by Northamerica1000 and James500 make a convincing case for passing
WP:GNG.
Sal2100 (
talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This BLP, created by a SPA
Jarisful (
talk·contribs), appears to have been authored by the subject themselves, as he's an experienced editor. This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but
it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG. —
Saqib (
talk |
contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
KEEP but the article needs to be improved by removing unsourced and primary sources. --
Twinkle1990 (
talk) 16:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But as I said the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:JOURNALIST so what's the point of cleaning up BLP ? --—
Saqib (
talk |
contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and improve - This is an exchange program through the US State Department. Granted, the article needs work, and needs better sourcing. But this is a very impressive program. It would be a shame to write this off.
— Maile (
talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I've added some valuable links to YouTube info created by the Fellowship program.
— Maile (
talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm currently working on whe wording and sourcing.
— Maile (
talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Note - Do Not Delete - Work in Progress: This was inadvertently and prematurely deleted yesterday for copyright errors. I am currently reworking this article in my personal user space, to avoid misunderstandings over sourcing, etc. This is an important article that needs work. Please have patience, and I'll get the article in better shape.
— Maile (
talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am surprised to see you say that I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either. —
Diannaa (
talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Though the article could benefit from a through revision, the subject itself is notable enough.
TH1980 (
talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Micro-denomination with perhaps nine churches as of 2014, per a self-published source (citing other self-published sources) that is no longer available online. Citations are exclusively to primary sources, to self-published sources, or to outdated sources of questionable independence and reliability. Participants in the
2022 AfD discussion did not delve deeply into the validity of the sources cited as applied to
WP:NORG, which I will do here:
[1]. Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.
[2]. Self-published book; does not illuminate notability of subject, just reference one of its views and its existence.
[3]. Blog/opinion post; does not meet reliable source criteria for establishing notability.
[5]. Book published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.
[6]. Portuguese-language source; cannot tell if it is self-published. Regardless, it is not significant coverage and merely notes the existence of the subject.
[7]. OPC General Assembly minutes and thus disqualified as primary source.
[9] Newsletter published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.
I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: An editor has updated the link in footnote 4 to a live link.
It's here -- it appears self-published but has no author listed. It appears impossible to validate its reliability, and moreover it only mentions the subject of the article in a single trivial mention on page 96.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 22:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:BLP of a writer and organizational founder, not
properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, neither writers nor founders of organizations are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about their work -- but this is referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about other things or people, which is not what it takes: we're not looking for sources in which she speaks about someone or something else, we're looking for sources that are about her. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to show much, much better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. A BEFORE search turns up no sources that pass GNG.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
Keep. This person is notable. Upon seeing a few sources like
The Denver Post, one of the major news publishers. You can see a full detailed paragraph is covered.
"Shauna King, president of International Medical Relief, said about 20 people will go on this mission, including doctors, nurses, medical students, a disaster and refugee trained psychologist and Kelly. Several more have applied, King said, such as oral surgeons and other medical providers.
International Medical Relief dispatched a crew to Lesvos over a month ago to organize lodgings, a clinic station, transportation and line up interpreters.
Roughly 1,500 refugees arrive in Lesvos on overloaded boats on a daily basis, King said, and most are there temporarily."
Larvatiled (
talk) 05:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
King is referenced in a single paragraph of a much longer local
human-interest story (
here's the link; actually published in the weekly local Broomfield Enterprise, a sub-brand of the Post but not the Post itself) focused on a local resident going on an International Medical Relief trip. All it says about King is that she is president of IMF; it quotes her speaking to other topics but contains no additional details that would help us know why she is notable. It is by definition a
WP:TRIVIALMENTION and thus not appropriate to establish notability.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
People don't become notable on the basis of sources in which they're speaking or writing about other things, they become notable on the basis of sources in which they're the subject that other people are speaking or writing about. That is, not sources which quote her statement on a mission: sources in which other people are talking about her.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - I wasn't able to find much information about him, beyond the fact that he's a theatre director. There is a
passing mention in a brief
Playbill article, which states that he is directing the play, but that was the only source I could find about the Casey Childs that matched the article's description. The other sources were about various different people named Casey Childs.
Bandit Heeler (
talk) 03:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I object to the fact that the majority of the nom relates to the fact that one of the edits to this article was by
User:USAstinks ("most recently edited by someone with an offensive username"). That is an
argument to avoid. The user did not create this article, and in fact they made only one of the 65 edits to this article over the last 16+ years. --
Metropolitan90(talk) 03:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with that. While I do believe that the article fails notability, I don't think the fact that one of the (not main) contributors to the article has an offensive name is a relevant point in a deletion discussion.
Bandit Heeler (
talk) 03:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Perhaps it is not very relevant, but i do agree with the point that there is not enough information about him.
Kasphero (
talk) 06:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Primary Stages. There appears to be a painter called Casey Childs who is more notable per the online coverage. --
Ssilvers (
talk) 20:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×☎ 20:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing notable in the article, it merely lists the band members. Its singer is a notable actor but this band only has a brief mention on his article and notability is not inherited. A web search for the band brings up nothing the exclusively covers the band. There are other bands with the same name including covers band but I couldn't find anything on the blues band.
InDimensional (
talk) 22:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – Several source searches are only providing name mentions and one-sentence passing mentions. Does not meet
WP:BAND or
WP:GNG. North America1000 06:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Unreferenced article. I couldn't find any significant coverage on the web; it's tough to search for them as their name is shared with a few other groups, but by including band members I found only a very brief Q&A on sfgate.com and an album review on aural-innovations.com, neither of these seem like
WP:SIGCOV and nothing in the article suggests notability per
WP:BANDInDimensional (
talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio
here which states that they had a nationwide tour which is one of the criteria at
WP:NMUSIC. Haven't done a full search yet,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm unable to find any coverage of this band on the web. They have a generic name which makes it difficult, but even including the band members name brings up nothing. The sole claim to fame is winning an "American Synthpop Award", which does not seem like a notable or legitimate award. Most of the article is dedicated to the career of its solo member outside of the band. Additionally there might be a COI here.
InDimensional (
talk) 21:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The only piece of significant coverage I can find on these guys is a [
Pitchfork.com review] for their only album. While a Pitchfork review is pretty impressive, I can't find anything else on them, so it seems they don't pass the "subject of multiple published works" criteria required for for
WP:BAND.
InDimensional (
talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep in view of the sources identified above by Chubbles such as Pitchfork, AllMusic, Tiny Mix Tapes that together show a pass of
WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 19:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: For a lost 1940s TV show, we at least have a claim to significance, record on where it aired and some of what it contained, and a review. StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No evidence of notability, no indepth references about the team, apparently unknown whether they even played a full season, and claims about becoming the Dayton Jets unsourced and unverifiable
[11].
Fram (
talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I've added references to the page. The claim of them becoming the Dayton Jets comes from the main page
Continental Hockey League (1972–1986) though where that was sourced from, or if its even accurate, I don't know.
PensRule11385 (
talk) 12:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect: The added references don't support the notability of the subject, and it is very hard even to argue in favor of notability if there aren't even sources verifying the team's record. This should be redirected to the main Continental league article.
Ravenswing 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - team record was in the Decatur paper. Received decent amount of coverage in it. I’ve looked at it before, but can’t now as newspapers.com is temporarily inaccessible through the Wikipedia Library. --Hockeyben(talk -contribs) 22:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I would be happy to shift my view to keeping if actual sources providing significant coverage are cited.
Ravenswing 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 15:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with the previous nomination, which closed as "soft delete" and was contested. This organization does not appear to meet
WP:NORG. Most sources are
WP:PRIMARY and do not convey notability. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Virtually every mention I can find is cursory or trivial, not substantial. I cannot find any qualifying sources to establish
WP:NORG.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already subject to an AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option again. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 00:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Article about a documentary film, not
properly referenced as passing
WP:NFILM. The main notability claim on offer here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself without evidence of
WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about it -- but the only references here are a directory entry and a book review which fails to mention this film at all for the purposes of helping to support the notability of the film. The film's subject was certainly notable enough that his article isn't going anywhere, so a redirect to his biographical article would be reasonable, but this article as written isn't properly establishing the film as independently notable enough for its own separate article at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, the recording and Johnson were important at the time this was filmed. As a former advisor to the CIA and government about Asian affairs, he was outspoken in books, TV interviews, and newspaper articles warning of the coming 9/11 attack, seeing it as "Blowback" to US policy - the name of his first book in the trilogy published before the terrorist attack. He was also just as outspoken about the mistake it was for GW Bush to go into Iraq. Johnson was prophetic - but that was then. This talk was the culmination of his American Empire Project which reviewed the points in his three books on the topic, However, the talk itself is now available on YouTube, so, I agree to delete it - unless just being a page for a commercially released DVD is worthy of a page.
Ellis408 (
talk) 23:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Despite being a large article, it appears to have been mostly edited by COI editors and contains
original research that isn't backed up by sources. The far majority of references are simply from the university's website, and as such notability isn't proven due to the lack of outside sourcing. ~
Eejit43 (
talk) 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect - and selectively merge any content with reliable independent sources to
University of Colorado School of Medicine. As the nominating editor stated, article seems promo and lacks secondary sources.
4.37.252.50 (
talk) 01:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello Eejit43, thank you for the valuable feedback! I am presently retrieving outside sources to backup the information presented in this article. I am aware of the problem of promotion of interests on WP and how many hide their identity. My hope is that being transparent will help, along with the pending external citations that will demonstrate impact and notability both locally and nationally.
Mikepascoe (
talk) 13:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello all,
An initial draft of the article had 31 cuanschutz.edu (internal) sources + 23 external (independent) sources = 54 total.
The present version now has 19 internal + 42 external source = 61 total.
The percentage of sources from the university website (Eejit43's original comment) has decreased from 57% to 31%.
Further improvements can be made, thank you for your continued review
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not really seeing any SIGCOV from secondary sources. A selective merge might still be the best way forward.-
KH-1 (
talk) 04:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, could you please explain what a selective merge is and how this is a good way forward?
I'm also not sure how to satisfy the SIGCOV (significant coverage?) requirement. There are several external sources discussing the Program now from refutable sources. Do you have an example of a source that meets SIGCOV from other Wikipedia articles?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. It would also help if an editor(s) would address
User:Mikepascoe's valid questions here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 01:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This article has no sources and no indication of notability. It was nominated for deletion nearly 20 years ago and has not been improved since it was created in 2005. The subject does not meet any of the guidelines listed in
WP:NMUSIC nor
WP:NBIO.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Aneirinn (
talk •
contribs) 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete - It is important to note that the
WP:NMUSICIAN requirements have gotten much tougher since 2006, when this article survived an AfD discussion pretty much because the gentleman was visible on the Internet. Meanwhile, the current version of the article could possibly be speedy deleted under
WP:A7 because it makes no attempt to say how/if he is notable. At any rate, the gentleman is a perennial sideman and local performer who is surely good at what he does, but he has not received the in-depth media coverage that is necessary here, and is only visible in typical streaming and promotional services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 14:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Byron Berline: I searched but could not find in-depth coverage about Moore. It's not an easy search because of his name and he's played at many bluegrass festivals so a lot hot hits to wade through but I did add a couple sources at least for verification. He was in Berline's band California which won International Bluegrass Music Association Instrumental Group of the Year three years in a row and Moore is mentioned in article. He also taught mandolin to
Nickel Creek's
Chris Thile and
Sean Watkins which might qualify for
WP:NMUSICOTHER #3 or #5 but I think that's a weak claim.
S0091 (
talk) 16:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 19:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I voted to delete above, but if this keeps getting relisted with no further progress then we will probably end up with a pointless "no consensus". Therefore I would support the Redirect suggestion above if nobody else votes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 12:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Article with a promotional history; this version started out simply as a copy of a promotional version deleted as spam, and it hasn't gotten any better. There's no proof or even indication that this was ever a notable organization by our standards, and the lack of references reflects that.
Drmies (
talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete A closed org with no significant coverage in a long time. Clear failure of
WP:10YTSimonm223 (
talk) 18:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Since its closure in 2014, there has not been a single reliable source covering the organization. It fails
WP:NCORP's inclusion criteria.
Nitish shetty (
talk) 11:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The relevant standard is
WP:ORG as it was a nonprofit, and there are many reliable sources covering the organization since its closure in 2014 cited within the article per my comments below.
Cielquiparle (
talk) 09:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Done. See below, !vote changed to "keep". Thanks for pinging me.
Sal2100 (
talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:GNG and
WP:ORG and
WP:HEY. The article about this nonpartisan non-profit organization has now gone through a complete
WP:TNT, with all the promotional, unsourced content removed. (Drmies and Graywalls rightly got the ball rolling with removing content that should have been removed years ago.) There are numerous articles covering AmericaSpeaks in independent, reliable secondary sources including academic journal articles and books, demonstrating
WP:SUSTAINED interest over time. Among the most in-depth analysis is Francesca Polletta's chapter,
"Publics, Partners, and the Ties That Bind" which appeared in Inventing Ties That Bind, a book published by the University of Chicago Press in 2020 and published by Chicago Scholarship Online in 2021. Another article is "Balancing the Books: Analyzing the Impact of a Federal Budget Deliberative Simulation on Student Learning and Opinion" by Dena Levy and Susan Orr, which was
published in the Journal of Political Science Education in 2014. Another is the chapter
"A Political Life Transformed" by John Gastil and Katherine R. Knobloch, which appeared in their book Hope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back Into Politics, which was published by Oxford University Press in 2020. (All articles are accessible via Wikipedia Library or its partner publishers.) There are many other sources now cited in the article besides.
Cielquiparle (
talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Cielquiparle and
WP:HEY. With recent modifications, the article now passes
WP:ORG and
WP:GNG.
Sal2100 (
talk) 17:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Although at the time of the nom it didn't look very promising but rn I can vouch for it to be kept.
X (
talk) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Per discussion on the talk page, I believe this article on Ben Dreyfuss should be deleted. I have searched for meaningful second-party references to his career or body of work and am coming up short -- he does not seem to be notable as either a creative professional or writer. As far as I can tell, his most significant mentions are minor social media disputes. This article has, as far as I can tell, never included appropriate references and has at times leaned on inappropriate references (ie, personal LinkedIn or Facebook pages). The only current reference is an article about Richard Dreyfuss, not his son Ben.
Since being related to a famous person by itself confers no notability (
WP:BIOFAMILY), I think Ben Dreyfuss fails the notability check on his own.
Geethree (
talk) 13:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft keep There are a handful of reliable sources with significant coverage of Ben (not just his father). See
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here. I'd say it's just over the threshold for notability but I can see how someone would make a different judgment call. P.S. If the AfD consensus is to delete this article,
Emily Dreyfuss should probably go through AfD as well on similar grounds.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 17:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - He was the editorial director of Mother Jones (magazine) which would possibly not be enough in itself, but is not chopped liver,
here he is being interviewed strictly about that. Between that and the various things DClemens mentions above, it should be enough. --
GRuban (
talk) 03:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article about an individual that doesn't meet the
general notability guidelines for a journalist and actor. For
WP:JOURNALIST, the article were less/not supported by any reliable source. Primarily, covering news is not same as you covered in news. The question is, has his writing influenced any style, time, etc like a normal writer? has his journalism been covered per
WP:SIGCOV or for a particular incident. The answer per
WP:BEFORE is "no". Appearing on few films not as lead doesn't mean the person is notable per
WP:NACTOR, there are more or less sources to verify he was cast if not databases like IMDb, etc. While I have analysed this article doesn't meet our notability guidelines for an entry. Likewise the imitator, there is a case of
WP:BIOFAMILY, as the article percent were sources from his family, his father, who was a notable actor. In my researches, almost if not all the sources were about his father lining a bit of the son, so, this is a case of
WP:INHERITED. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 07:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – At this stage, I would delete and add whatever to Richard's page. If over time, he becomes more notable, he may justify his own article. This isn't now.
MaskedSinger (
talk) 06:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
To me, slightly fleshing out Richard's page (and deleting this one) seems like the clear solution here. Most of the links provided above are all about Ben in relation to his father, not about Ben per se. If that is the eventual consensus, I'm happy to make those updates myself.
Geethree (
talk) 16:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Article about a television film, not
properly referenced as passing either
WP:NFILM or
WP:TVSHOW. As always, television films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of
WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them -- but this is referenced entirely to
primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of third-party media coverage shown at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Added a presentation in Southern Living, and a review in Decider (see
this).-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 18:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The Southern Living article is "Checking out an exclusive clip". This is about the extent of all coverage I find, where to watch the thing. The TV Guide sourcing in the article is bare, so isn't a valid source. I don't mind any reviews other than what's given already, that's not enough.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This
[12], still doesn't add enough to the discussion to !keep.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
The review notes: "I’m happy to report that Fourth Down and Love offers no real surprises plot-wise and pretty much adheres to every trope you expect from both a Hallmark romance and a kid-centric sports movie. You bet Mike’s brother and sister-in-law try to set him up with Erin every chance they can get. You bet there’s a sweet and sassy grandma. There’s a fundraiser, a winning touchdown, hurt feelings and boosted morale, all that good stuff. I’m happy that Fourth Down and Love has all of that, because all of those plot points are fun to see and because it means I can focus this take on what the movie really excels at: character."
The review notes: "While we're unsure if this film was a one-off or part of a movie series, I'm crossing my fingers for more. I found the entire Hanson family to be charming, and I'd love to see Mike coach another season of the Whalers flag football team with assistance from Jimmy, Danielle, and Erin. Since this was the first adult male that gave Kiara any attention, I think we need more time to see how the family dynamics evolve now that Mike is her mom's boyfriend and her coach."
The article notes: "In Hallmark Channel's latest Fall into Love movie, a single mom runs into her old college sweetheart who is now a professional football player. ... Fourth Down and Love premieres on Saturday, Sept. 9 at 8 p.m. ET on Hallmark Channel."
The article notes: "Hallmark is giving all fans a big treat with their newest flick in their Fall into Love programing, Fourth Down and Love starring Pascale Hutton and Ryan Paevey. Paevey plays professional football star Mike Hansen who suffers an injury that sidelines him for a month. Mike’s brother Jimmy (Dan Payne, Outrunners) convinces Mike to come home while he’s recovering."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly found sources would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still hoping for an assessment of newly found sources and whether or not they make a difference as the deletion rationale states the article is not properly referenced. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply