Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

WP:AFD/USA

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

General

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

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

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

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

Ryan LaPlante

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

Non-notable poker player. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and Minnesota. UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of USAF Fighter Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

AfDs for this article:

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

I really struggled to find decent reliable sources for this list as a whole during my WP:BEFORE searches. http://www.strategic-air-command.com/wings/fighter_wings.htm is unfortunately blank, and I think the site is community-generated anyway. That said, it is likely that only offline sources exist. There are two mentioned in the parent page Strategic Air Command wings, neither of which I have access to, and I am slightly dubious of their quality, just going on the information that's there - no ISBN for either (I did check on Google Books), and the Battermix Publishing Company of America is not known to me as a publisher. So I didn't feel that I could just copy them across. As an alternative to deletion, I suggest that the article be draftified so that WP:MILHIST can work on it in slower time. I note that it has been bereft of sources for some 15 years, and that the previous AfD did not seem to lead to significant improvement in sourcing. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Fighter wings of the United States Air Force. The list was created in 2006 and does not appear to have had sourcing. The category was created in 2010, and achieves the original intended list. The required sourcing can be found in the individual articles of the category.— Maile (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Here

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

Non notable YouTuber with noting close to notability requirement. Majority of the sources are primary to his YouTube videos and websites announcing events. Wanted to put it up for CSD A7 but thought that bringing it here for general discussion will be better Mekomo (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United States of America. Mekomo (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, California, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in RS that I can find, most of the sources used in the article are primary or in non-RS. Don't quite seem to have notability for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Quickly fails on WP:A7 citing YouTube are not reliable sources. Royiswariii Talk! 22:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Hill

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

No signifigant coverage in any reliable and secondary sources. There are only sources briefly mentioning awards that Hill has been nominated for. No biographical details. Sebbog13 (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Visual arts. Sebbog13 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets 4C of WP:CREATIVE "won significant critical attention" as an Oscar nominee, for his notable work on Top Gun: Maverick, starring Tom Cruise. He was also nominated for a BAFTA Award for Top Gun: Maverick and a Primetime Emmy Award for his work on Stranger Things. He definitely has reliable and secondary sources on him [1]. His oscar nomination sources [2][3][4][5]. His emmy nomination sources [6]. There are biographical details where he leads Method Studios along with two other people [7][8]. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per the information and links provided above by User:MoviesandTelevisionFan. — Maile (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless I'm mistaken an Oscar nominee attains notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was told to AfD it on the discord. - Sebbog13 (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lowery

AfDs for this article:

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

See previous AFD. Still not notable. UtherSRG (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and Arizona. UtherSRG (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV outside poker sites. Many of the references were clearly reference stuffing. The author seems to be on a crusade to write an article for every poker player who has ever won a tournament, but really, these people aren't WP:NOTABLE outside a very narrow field. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Begich (author)

AfDs for this article:

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

All of the sources I tried to verifty appear dead links, and this has only just been created. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and Alaska. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment It wasn't actually just created. It was created in 2011; "kept" in 2011 AfD; merged to HAARP in 2013; the merge/redirect was undone 26 Nov 2024 (probably why so many links are dead). Schazjmd (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odd as it had the new article tags. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems to be his notability seems to stem from 2 books. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to merge since everything relevant about him is already at the HAARP page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked over the article when my watchlist notified me the old merge/redirect had been undone (26 Nov 2024). I don't see reliable sources that demonstrate notability to meet WP:BIO. Seems like a WP:ONEEVENT situation, and everything relevant to that is already covered at HAARP conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reverted the redirection because it took place unilaterally after a "keep" result at AfD, and one person on the talk page objected to it being redirected with no discussion or consensus so it should have been reverted at the time. I'm fine with the redirect to HAARP being reinstated, but figured that this should happen after a discussion rather than on the whims of one editor. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I ran IAbot on this, with the results "Rescuing 2 sources and tagging 0 as dead." Running IAbot to rescue broken links as part of the AfD process is usually a good idea. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- whilst I didn't originally have a position here and only restored the article for procedural reasons, having had a search it appears that there are several sources independently covering Begich and particularly his business ventures with his son (I have added some to the article), which is probably sufficient notability to be worthy of an article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of which appear to be in the article. IN fact (according to the article) all he has ever done is published 2 fringe books, appeared on some Frine media shows and stood as a fringe candidate in elections. Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see that among the cited sources, most are actually about Begich's father or his son. If he only gets passing mention in stories about other people and things, that is a pretty good indication he's not notable on his own. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be only notable for his relationship to well-known Alaskan politicians and for his promotion of HAARP. If he's already covered in the HAARP article (and presumably mentioned in his brother/father's articles), then that seems adequate to me. EasyAsPai (talk)

Dear Santa (2005 film)

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

In my WP:BEFORE I failed to find anything of substance, in reliable sources, to meet WP:NFILM. All I could find was run-of-the-mill database entries and newspaper TV listings. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United States of America. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: hardly anything for this version, most sources mention the Jack Black film of the same name. This is about all I could find [9] and it's hardly enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll take a look - offhand the article is a bit confusing, considering that they talk about it like it's a movie and a TV show. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Netural comment (for now) This seems to actually be an hour-long TV special rather than a film (note the Clay Aiken appearance likely tied into his Idol run at the time). Nate • (chatter) 17:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it's a reality show where celebrities give children stuff, from what I can see. So it's not a movie. I'm also uncertain if the "season 2" is actually a sequel or if it's an unrelated show with the same idea. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this was heavily tied into the Operation Santa Claus initiative, so we could probably do a selective merge into that article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Operation Santa Claus. There wasn't really much fanfare about this show. It was announced along with the CD, but no one really reported on it beyond announcements that it would air. There are no reviews and no info about how it fared in ratings, nor any info about the production process, all of which would be needed for it to pass the notability guidelines for TV shows. I've done some selective merging of the info into the main article for OSC since the children were chosen from the initiative and a related CD was sold at the USPS. As far as the 2006 version goes, I can't find any mention of this beyond air times and a handful of celebrity names. There's no confirmation that it was a sequel or even that it was related to OSC. The summary at IMDb mentions the USPS (but not OSC), but that's not a RS. It's most likely related, but I'm leery about adding it without at least some mention somewhere that would be seen as reliable on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Resistance Strategies Project

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 22:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Law, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncharted (EP)

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

A contested redirection. The restoring editor claimed that "plenty of coverage exists", but I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing mentions that the EP was released and coverage of the singles released from it, but no in-depth coverage in news articles and more importantly, no reviews from noteworthy sources. While I acknowledge that the release is recent, it also did not chart on any US Billboard charts this week and what it did achieve in the UK chart-wise is fairly insubstantial. Ss112 01:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: WP:NALBUM notes that an album may be notable when it is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works". The reviews from Kerrang! and Distorted Sound Magazine should suffice for this, given that both are deemed reliable per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. While I can't seem to find any other sources at the moment, and while it is true that none of the other album notability criteria currently apply to this EP, I believe it's still enough for a presumption of notability. Leafy46 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MotorMouf aka Khia Shamone

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

Contested redirect. Poorly sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Albums and songs, and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is one solid review in The Guardian. Other than this, I couldn't locate an RS. Possibly there is other coverage behind paywalls, and, given the age, WP:LINKROT may be at work. A possible WP:ATD would be a redirect to Khia discography. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khia discography. Should not have been restored—Khia is really not notable beyond one song. In regards to the above, one review is not enough to sustain an article. Ss112 00:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of genocides committed by the United States

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

The article should be deleted because the author is a sockpuppet NotSoTough (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G5.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, History, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:G5. Also this is just a linking of various existing Wikipedia articles on select conflicts. The 2003 American Indian Wars covers the same issue, but is a much better coverage. It's not something that lends itself to a simple list. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All of the examples listed are examples of genocide/attempts of ethnic cleansing committed by the United States. The fact that it was created by a sockpuppet should be irrelevant; many articles have been created by sockpuppets.ApolloPhoebus (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not protect - WP:G5, to my knowledge at least, only applies to articles made by users in defiance of their ban, so it wouldn't apply here. However, this list serves little purpose, as everything it mentions is covered better elsewhere, and in its current unprotected state, could easily become a WP:SOAPBOX.

Heck, in its initial state, it included black genocide, trans genocide, and workers genocide (an article the sock was drafting at the time), hence why the WP:NPOV tag was added (before getting removed by the commenter above me).

If it isn't deleted, it should at the very least be WP:BLUE LOCKed and actually converted to a list. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that the article "serves little purpose" is a WP:USELESS argument; the content is clearly encyclopedic material, as the United States has verifiably committed several genocides. This list is just that; a list of genocides that the US has committed. Yes, things can be better covered elsewhere, but the purpose of this list is navigation; this list's removal would damage a reader's ability to navigate between those genocides. I do agree that the article should be protected, however, as it is clearly a contentious topic and prone to biased edits and sockpuppetry. ApolloPhoebus (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very curious how a new account, just created a few days ago, stumbled upon this deletion discussion and that WP:USELESS essay. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems irrelevant to me. You need to assess what is said rather than who said it and how much seniority they have. Athel cb (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Don't know about the situation of the article creator. However, the topic seems to be a reasonable aid to navigation. The list could / should be significantly improved, but I don't see why it would be deleted. Shazback (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the sockpuppet investigation for reference: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax ZionniThePeruser (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an interesting one. This was most certainly created by a sockpuppet with an axe to grind. But it does seem like a reasonable navigational tool. Maybe move to Accusations of genocide by the United States for WP:NPOV concerns? Also noteworthy is that List of genocides committed by the Soviet Union was also created in direct response to this. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I strongly oppose speedy deletion. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps said article should've been included in this AfD, considering they're both so similar in content and format. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm bewildered by this nomination. It's an important page and useful navigational tool. It can be improved, but there is no reason to delete it. There have been several contributors to the page. The vast majority of contributions did not come from sockpuppet accounts. Firecat93 (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps ironically, NotSoTough, the user that nominated the page for deletion, has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet account!

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of BaharatlıCheetos2.0 (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Firecat93 (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't matter who created the topic, its a valid list article. Category:Native American genocide exist, and a list is more helpful than a category, allowing more information to be shown. Could add rows to list information such as year that it happened, number killed, etc. Dream Focus 10:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Dream Focus, Shazback and ApolloPhoebus that there is no valid reason to delete this article. Whether one likes it or not it is well worthy of including in Wikipedia. Athel cb (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep would be very useful (though probably needs to be developed or made into a disambiguation), made by a socketpuppet or not. Mason7512 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list article is perfectly fine; it should be kept and maintained. Even when article creators are malicious users, if the topics are substantiated topics, they shouldn't be deleted without more thorough reasoning. --Bhjbggoonnv (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request that we remove 'nominated for deletion' AfD from top of article The individual who initially nominated this article for deletion is ironically also a sockpuppet. No content-relevant reasoning has been provided for deletion. There is no need for the template at the top to remain. --Bhjbggoonnv (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will be removed once the discussion is closed. Firecat93 (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It currently serves no purpose other than being an article that should be made into a category. Another editor pointed out that Native American genocide in the United States exists but the difference between these two articles is that one (the native american article) has content and the other (this one in question) is only a list of entries. Now if it was made into a table, had citations to go along with it, and explanations about it than it would be a different story. The lack of sources also doesn't help WP:GNG even though it should be on Wikipedia, the lack of sources doesn't help notability. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a glorified category. Could be something more at this title, but as is there is nothing here to save. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Industry characters

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

A contested redirect, an unreferenced list, and technically too old to draftify. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom, and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim if needed. 1) The topic is Industry (TV series) so notability is established. 2) as a SIZE OR WP:SS split of a notable topic, primary sources are just fine for meeting V and NPOV policies. 3) LISTN is satisfied by WP:CSC point 2, every entry is non-notable. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earmilk

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

All 9 sources cited in the creation of this page lack credibility and fail to establish notability, as they barely address the topic in any meaningful way. Upon closer inspection, there is little to no reliable information available online. Additionally, the publication in question appears to be self-proclaimed and lacks established recognition. The article was created without prior discussion, and if such a discussion had occurred, it is unlikely the article would have been approved or passed moderation standards. This seems to reflect a pattern of using Wikipedia as a platform to lend credibility to fake or paid news. Moondust534 (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Music. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking further into this, so no comment on the notability, something lacking popularity does not make it "fake news" and almost all articles on Wikipedia are created without discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I agree an initial search is showing that it's probably not notable, I don't see the malice of things being "fake" or overtly promotional mentioned by the nominator. This looks like a run-of-the-mill article creation by an inexperienced editor who didn't understand our notability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw multiple fake news, so I reported it, with article prices on upwork. A blog cannot be labeled a reliable magazine tho. The platform has mixed reviews, with some raising concerns about its reliability and payout practices. Moondust534 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really following, but your nomination should be focusing more on how it fails notability criteria like the WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, not all this "fake news" stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That was a side comment I made. My main point is that it fails notability, coverage about it does not exist. - WP:GNG WP:WEBCRIT. Moondust534 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Simon (entrepreneur)

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

Accepted at AFC in 2015, but standards were somewhat less exacting then. Simon is presented with many references, but appears to be a WP:ROTM businessman dabbling in psychedelic drugs. Much of the rest appears to be wealthy persons hobbies. The references, especially the more authoritative ones, seem to be what Simon says, not what is said about him. Sample checking the others shows them to be of a similar nature. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ripley Rader

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

The article fails to meet general notability guidelines. It lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources and appears an attempt to promote their brand. The article was previously draftified and later recreated with unnecessary disambiguation. This change does not appear to address the notability concerns, and instead, it seems to circumvent previous review processes. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, United States of America, and California. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there are two reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV with are the Beckley Register-Herald and Los Angeles (magazine). The Forbes articles are by contributors so those don't count. Nnev66 (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nnev66. In addition to Beckley Register-Herald and Los Angeles, there is also in-depth coverage in magazines such as The Zoe Report and Racked, both already cited in the article. Korteim (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our enemy is here, they are lying that it is America

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

Violator of WP:RECENTISM. No sustained notability of protests ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran and United States of America. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS — Maile (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTABILITY and Ten-Year Rule. Borgenland (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and others. Non-notable. Sal2100 (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beck (EP)

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

EP has zero coverage found in a WP:BEFORE. As for the citations present, 2 are database sites (no notability inherited from them), and the third is basically a press release announcing the release. Other language pages do not have any citations other than databases either.

I had previously redirected the page, but it was reverted. Reason give for the reversal was "This is a release by a major artist and therefore notable. Changing it to a redirect broke a bunch of links includlng the Beck chronology." We know that notability isn't inherited, so it doesn't matter how famous Beck is, if this release cannot stand on its own then it does not need to exist and can be mentioned in the Beck article. As for the reason that redirecting it "broke links", that is not a reason for keeping an article. Links can be fixed. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beck discography per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. See my additions today including brief but significant coverage in Radio & Records, New Straits Times, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the Wisconsin State Journal and Under the Radar. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly fine with it being redirected to Beck discography, but it was redirected to Beck (musician) which was very confusing and felt like an error. And yes, broken links can be fixed, but it's not nice to just casually break obvious ones.

Ixat totep (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it might not be obvious to all, I'm the one who un-redirected it, so if that makes this a disputed deletion, I'm happy to un-dispute it as long as it goes to Beck discography and not Beck (musician). [EDIT: But now someone added much better and more notable citations so I think it should be kept]

Ixat totep (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just fixed the redirect to go to the discography and not the musician, just saying. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 I honestly thought there would be a lot more about it to cite. It's mentioned in a bunch of places like it's an important release (or at least as important as other EPs that aren't in danger of deletion). I was surprised I couldn't find more - that's why I left the "notability guidelines" flag up. If we're going to do "you could have..."... Albums are always in chronology carousels, and it's obvious that redirecting one will completely mess up the carousel and make them impossible to use to navigate the discography properly. That's the other reason I un-deleted it. I was clicking through releases and found myself back on the artist page trying to figure out wtf happened and it ticked me off enough to not fully research the page. I wanted the chronology to work and found zero talk page discussion about deletion so it seemed strange. Ixat totep (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 I just went to look at the page to see what to move elsewhere and volunteer to sort it out, but it looks like someone came along and added a bunch of much better citations, including print sources. So now I'd say keep it. Ixat totep (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vonabell Sherman

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

BLP of a television personality, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for television personalities. The claim here is that she's been an "on-air guest" on a shopping channel, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about her work -- but the article is completely unreferenced, and has been tagged as unreferenced since 2011 without ever having any sources added in the 13 years since. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:BEFORE search found someone else with the same name (who also isn't notable anyway), and her blog. That's it. Procyon117 (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A quick Google search reveals that there are no reliable sources (WP:RS) available about the subject. In fact, there is absolutely zero significant coverage on the topic. Baqi:) (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Ivanoff

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

While my main concern with the page is its lack of notability as per WP:BIO, I noticed the page is outdated and needs copy editing, among other problems.

Even if it meets the notability guideline for biographies, it'll need cleanup as per WP:BLP. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 16:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, and United States of America. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 16:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ammann & Whitney per WP:ATD. The sources are pretty much all press releases and lack independence. I could find no WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ammann & Whitney. Being outdated and needing copy editing are not a concern as they are easily addressed, but notability independent of the firm is. MarcGarver (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Park, Virginia

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

GNIS stub for insignificant subdivision in Fairfax County, VA. WP:BEFORE yields unrelated results and links to sites like Zillow and Nextdoor. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Virginia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND or at least find a suitable WP:ATD. It's a populated place just looking at images in google maps. There are houses and businesses.4meter4 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: There are no businesses here aside from any random home businesses. This is a small residential subdivision within another populated place that is the CDP of Braddock, Virginia. If that doesn't indicate that lack of notability of this place, per WP:GEOLAND, residential subdivisions could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources, but there are no independent reliable sources covering this topic that I could find, which would prove the notability of this development. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Housing development/subdivision, not a notable community. I don't see any businesses, it's just a small suburban neighborhood. Merely being a populated place with houses does not entitle it to an article or even mention elsewhere – GEOLAND2 applies, not 1. Reywas92^Talk 19:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on whether this should be merged or redirected somewhere, but this area is a few minutes from where I live, and the entire region is dotted with otherwise indistinguishable neighborhoods with commercially cute names. There is really nothing to be kept as an article. It is a few streets, not a distinctive neighborhood. BD2412 T 20:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete There continues to be a lot of legalism about the wording of WP:GEOLAND but the usual rule has been that subdivisions need to satisfy GNG, which they almost never do. And this isn't an exception. I also would like to point out that the topo maps are highly inconsistent about whether or not to label subdivisions. Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Le Fave

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

Subject is not notable; fails WP:GNG. I did a WP:BEFORE search, as well as searched through the Internet Archive book search and ProQuest, and found nothing but trivial mentions of her name, and her own works. The only thing I've found that could be considered "significant" coverage is the short bio page from Image (journal) that is already in the External links section [10] (And the same page live on the web [11]) However, according to that page, she published her poems in that publication, making that source not independent of the subject. GranCavallo (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. GranCavallo (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find absolutely nothing aside from the links you've put, and Amazon. Procyon117 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also unable to find references here. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -sorry, doesn’t pass due to lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎ as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trump Economic Miracle

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

Book's been out for a month, no independent reviews or coverage beyond summarizing what the book says. I would suggest redirection to the author but there are two, so that's out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is draftify not an option? There may be opportunities to improve this article in the future if independent reviews are forthcoming. Reconrabbit 02:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, with books like this if it hasn't gotten reviews by now I would be surprised if it did, so at that point it just just seems like a backdoor deletion. But sure if that's the route people want to go. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - not separately notable or not detailed enough. There might be another article suitable to merge it in to though.
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have said "draftify", but I can see a back and forth on perspectives of this book. It's been talked about by news talking heads, as far back as September. In fact, the closer to the election, the more we heard about how Trump's pro-growth policies "fueled unprecedented growth and prosperity". The news media viewed this book according to however they already viewed Trump. That aspect is unlikely to change. But I'm not sure Wikipedia needs an article on it. — Maile (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I try to save it by "draftifying" it? Or is it better to put the small amount of text into the Publications section of one (or both) of the authors? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wrote it I think you could add it to one or both of the authors. If reviews happen then it would be notable, but otherwise, I'm not sure if draftifying would do much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. No objection to someone working on this in draft space provided it go through draft review successfully before being moved back to main space. Reviews in business journals (by that I mean academic ones we can use not trade journals) might still happen, as those kind of reviews often appear later. It may end up dying in draft space if refs can’t be located and that is ok.4meter4 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Economics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gary M. Hymes

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

The sources Fail General Notability Guide and specific Notability Guidelines for WP:ANYBIO Ibjaja055 (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coverage from current sources does not seem signficant. One nomination for Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Stunt Coordination does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO. A cursory Google search turned up an LA Times article involving Hymes [12], but the coverage of Hymes himself is not significant. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 05:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable stunt coordinator and meets WP:GNG, his Primetime Emmy Award nomination is notable [13][14]. He has coverage in Newspapers.com, Movie stunt men at Hardy Bridge, and The Los Angeles Times article is still a good source [15] but the article is actually more longer in Newspapers.com, Just call him 'The Publisher'. Those two Newspapers.com sources help show that he does meet WP:GNG and that he's notable. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan White (DJ)

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

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio DJ and a spinoff article about his purported "television show" that may or may not ever have actually existed, with neither article properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media personalities or their shows.
As always, broadcasters are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage and analysis about them to establish that they've been externally validated as significant by somebody other than their own public relations agent -- but the BLP is "referenced" to one deadlinked unreliable source, one discogs.com directory entry about somebody else who isn't Alan White and one glancing namecheck of Alan White's existence in a newspaper obituary of somebody else who also isn't Alan White, absolutely none of which constitutes support for the notability of Alan White.
And meanwhile, the "television show" article is actually serving primarily as a coatrack for a largely reduplicated summary of the BLP, and not actually saying even one word at all about a "television show" until the very end, when it finally reveals that the "television show" that's posing as the article's nominal subject is "currently in pre-production" -- except it's said that since the day the article was created in 2011, and the article has never been updated since then with any evidence that the show ever actually started airing. And it's also based entirely on unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no GNG-worthy coverage about either Alan White or the "show" present there either.
Nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm getting a headache on this one trying to locate sources. Too many people named "Alan White", and several active in music.4meter4 (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Connecticut, Georgia (U.S. state), Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The extreme lack of sourcing isn't helping... I tried looking for book reviews, no luck... For someone who seems to be so well-known, I'd expect some coverage in the Atlanta newspapers, which it doesn't seem to have either. Delete unless we can get some sort of sourcing in place that proves this is a notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking, Oaktree b, is that your opinion for both articles nominated here in this AFD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I've only reviewed the one about the person, not the TV show, I can look at it in a bit. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music & the Spoken Word broadcasts

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

Unreferenced list of unclear utility. This is an episode list of a radio and television music performance show in which the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (always the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, never anybody else) performs religious music along with an inspirational/religious sermon -- but this list just goes "broadcast number, date, recording location, title of sermon, production code, the end", with many entries not even containing all of those details, and right across the board even the recording location is always one or the other of two facilities in Salt Lake City, and never anywhere else.
There's no information at all that would actually be useful, such as the titles of any specific songs that were performed in the episode or a detailed summary of the sermon's theme — so there's effectively nothing of any serious substance said about any of the episodes to differentiate one from another. All of which renders it into a list of meaningless and trivial information, and it's also completely unreferenced for the purposes of actually verifying even what little information is here.
There's just no value to this without a lot more information about each episode and actual referencing for it. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Lists, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Fernandez

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

The book she was the co-author of appears to be close to being notable, but given it's only one she does not quite pass NAUTHOR as there aren't any independent sources on her. If someone wants to flip the article around to being on the book (provided there are more sources for that) then that might be an option but I'm not sure there are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Fashion, United States of America, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Helvenston

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

Delete and redirect to 2004 Fallujah ambush, the redirect target for the other 3 victims of the ambush. Coverage of Helvenston is in relation to the ambush or subsequent events. Otherwise he was one of thousands of individuals killed during the Iraq War. His notability is due only to the ambush, therefore delete per WP:BIO1E. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Terrorism, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is known for more than just one event – he was on a reality TV show and was a credited Hollywood consultant, and was the subject of a dedicated LA Times obituary [16]. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as above. I don't see notability outside of the event. 20 years later and there is no sourcing to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No sourcing?" The LA Times source has been added to the article, and there is notability outside of this one event. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how he's more notable than any one else killed in the attack. There were too many deaths in the war, most aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BIO1E, a few sentences/short para there is all that's warranted. Mztourist (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fuzheado. The journalist/editorial staff written obituary in the Los Angeles Times makes it clear the subject was known for his appearances on television, and as a personal trainer to celebrities in addition to the 2004 Fallujah ambush. WP:BIO1E therefore does not apply as the subject was known for more than one thing. This is further supported by coverage of him in a scholarly book on the History of Reality TV] published by Random House. There is coverage in google books of his work on television and his career as a soldier. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not enough SIGCOV, agree totally on WP:BIO1E and redirect. Last time I looked, personal trainer to the stars didn't shoe you in past WP:GNG. As an interesting footnote, Helvenston v. Blackwater Security. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Home Town Hero

(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, other than a biography ([17]) and an album review ([18]) by AllMusic, which isn't a lot. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Under the Influence of Giants, since three of the members were in both bands. toweli (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group meets WP:MUSIC with two releases on Maverick Records, and the Allmusic entries are serviceable references; they also toured nationally with Stone Temple Pilots and Linkin Park. I managed to dig up [19] this review as well, even though it's gotten very difficult to find album reviews from 20+ years ago on the Internet. Chubbles (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to a member of Under the Influence of Giants, Bitch City was never released ([20]; according to Discogs it was apparently self-released [21]). Regardless, notability is not inherited, and I don't see Linkin Park mentioned anyway. I don't know if ink19 is a reliable source, but even if it is, there's just not enough coverage to establish notability. toweli (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning ~~Keep~~ as presuming MUSICBIO notability per above coverage, and given the age presuming that further coverage is likely. Further evidence is an album review available in Hits 2002; critical coverage Hits 2001; and the CMJ new music reports indicate extensive airplay, including for example: [22]. There's a lot of hits on worldradiohistory that will take time to sift. ResonantDis_tortion 18:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've identified further coverage on ProQuest - not major sigcov, but better than passing mentions: Detroit Free Press - they "often bore", two paragraph gig review supporting Incubus in News Gazette, album review in Morning Call, and paragraph of coverage in Billboard. ResonantDis_tortion 21:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aaron Bruno#Home Town Hero. First, they did not release two albums on Maverick, only one. Second, I think the reviews and other coverage falls just short of the depth that would be required. I also found more reviews, [23] [24] but as you can see these are not reliable or significant enough. Last but not least, we lack independent sources for nearly all the band history. A merger would preserve the edit history and it can be revived later if more sources are scanned/made available. Geschichte (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. I can get behind this as an WP:ATD, and strike my previous !vote to keep. There is certainly sufficient reliable coverage to demonstrate a level of notability, and therefore the subject does warrant a presence on Wikipedia, but we are, at current standing, one in-depth article away from coverage to support a distinct seperate article. ResonantDis_tortion 18:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Under the Influence of Giants as an ATD, per nom. Although I do have SOME reservations based on the lack of sourcing and notability in that target: it's a hot wee mess, that article... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Merge/Redirect suggested target article and it would be nice to see which one has a consensus behind it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanawha people

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

WP:TNT, this doesn't appear to be about a notable topic, and I can't find any scholarly literature discussing the subject. The idea that the Kanawha people are the ancestor's of Native Americans appears to be fictitious, or at least incredibly fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Piscataway people per sources like [25], which indicate that "Kanawha" is used at least in part as a synonym for the Piscataway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the original Special:PermaLink/229303722 shows this was an essay titled "Kanawha Valley's Prehistoric people", that has been mojibaked into its current form. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I'm suprised an article as bad as this one has stuck around for this long. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a real people group mentioned in history journals and books. [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. I'm not saying the current text is accurate, but I have a big problem with deleting an article on a Native American people group. That would be participating in erasure which is morally problematic in light of the history of Native American genocide in the United States. The answer is to trim out unsupported content and validate what we can with the sources we can locate. Stubifying it would be better than deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When people are writing "Kanawha people" are they referring to a distinct ethnic group, or a general term for Native Americans inhabiting the Kanawha area? If the latter, I hardly see how this warrants a standalone article. The sources you mention are passing references that are completely inadequate to construct any kind of meaningful article about the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sources better than this are needed. However, it is clearly a people group as they are being referenced as living in New England in one source, and Kentucky in another at various points in history. It's not attached just to the Kanawha Valley. I'll see if I can find anything in JSTOR or EBSCOE that gives a better defined definition.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first four of those sources appear to be referring to white settlers in the Kanawha Valley. The only mention in the Cotterill source, in a passage about a surveying party in Kentucky, is in the sentence, So many of the Kanawha people had joined the expedition that there were now thirty-three men in the party, although four of the original members had returned home for fear of the Indians. The Stealy source is talking about the cost of hiring slaves in Kanawha County, and the only mention of Kanawha people is in the phrase, I discover that the people of this country don't like to hire to the Kanawha people, it is a long distance & near the state of Ohio. The Davisson source is about the Union army in Kentucky during the Civil War, long after Native Americans had been forced out of Kentucky, and the only mention of 'Kanawha people' is in the sentence, I propose ... to induce the Kanawha people to take a more decided course. The Engineering and Mining Journal source, from 1910, says, The New River and Kanawha people have been busy in New England territory this spring, offering coal at very low prices. I think it is quite clear that those sources are referring to white settlers/residents of the Kanawha Valley, and not to any group Native American people. Donald Albury 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but the Scoggins source below clearly is referring to a Native people group that the Kanawha Valley is named after (not the other way around). That people group lived in several places according to that source. That source is enough to establish that deletion is not the answer here and WP:ATD at the very least is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that the Scoggins source does not support any content in the article other than the possibility that "Kanawha" was the name of a Native American group that moved to the valley. I do not think that there is anything in the present article that can be salvaged. Donald Albury 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? I said I didn’t think current text was accurate and the article should be stubified to the reliable sources we find. Clearly we could write a short paragraph based on Scoggins and the journal article provided above by the nominator. That would take all of five minutes to do.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it would be a sub-stub, unlikely to ever be substantially expanded. Better to be a redirect to an article that can provide context. I understand that you are concerned with Native American history being covered in Wikipedia. I am too. But, if there is next to nothing reliably sourced to say about a group, it is better to put what little can be sourced as a section or sub-section in a larger article, or even as an entry in a Boldlist. Donald Albury 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is referring to St. Albans Site. Haven't looked through all the "Kanawha people" links above but the appear to have been misread. fiveby(zero) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This old article on the history of Kanawha County from West Virginia University political science department says that the Kanawha were a people who lived in the area during the early British colonial Period, but this honestly this isn't a great source and I haven't been able to find anything better, so maybe a redirect to Kanawha_River#History would be better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing article there wood be Adena culture. oops colonial period, will look for more. fiveby(zero) 19:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This tribe, a branch of the Algonquin family, was closely related to the Nanticokes and Delawares who resided in what are now the states of Delaware and Maryland. During the seventeenth century, the name of this tribe was variously recorded by early English settlers as “Conoys,” “Conoise,” “Canawese,” “Cohnawas,” “Canaways,” and ultimately, “Kanawhas.”
— KANAWHA Michael C. Scoggins

Conoys redirects to Piscataway people

looks like a museum bulletin but by a published author. fiveby(zero) 19:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's definitely an improvement. Looking at other sources, they seem to agree on the synonymy between Conoys and Piscataway, so I would support redirecting to that article (though I am unclear if as to whether the term "Kanawha" has been applied to multiple distinct Native American groups). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much forward we are here. Scoggins looks to be from Hale, John P. (1891). History of the great Kanawha Valley. p. 63. That's this John P. Hale. I'd like to find something more recent and more affirmative than the author's "probably derived by evolution from..." fiveby(zero) 21:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There does appear to be some confusion about the issue in the literature. The Lenape and Their Legends (1885} states: [31]

The fourth member of the Wapanachki was that nation variously called in the old records Conoys, Ganawese or Canaways, the proper form of which Mr. Heckewelder states to be Canai. Considerable obscurity has rested on the early location and affiliation of this people. Mr. Heckewelder vaguely places them "at a distance on the Potomac," and supposes them to have been the Kanawhas of West Virginia. This is a loose guess. They were, in fact, none other than the Piscataways of Southern Maryland, who occupied the area between Chesapeake Bay and the lower Potomac, about St. Mary's, and along the Piscataway creek and Patuxent river.

The Indian wars of Pennsylvania (1929) p. 53 states [32]: The Conoy, also called the Ganawese and the Piscataway, inhabited parts of Pennsylvania during the historic period. They were an Algonquin tribe, closely related to the Delawares, whom they called "grandfathers," and from whose ancestral stem they no doubt sprang. Heckewelder, an authority on the history of the Delawares and kindred tribes, believed them to be identical with the Kanawha, for whom the chief river of West Virginia is named ; and it seems that the names, Conoy and Ganawese, are simply different forms of the name Kanawha, though it is difficult to explain the application of the same name to the Piscataway tribe of Maryland, except on the theory that this tribe once lived on the Kanawha.

The 2022 book chapter "Tribal Collaborations and Indigenous Representation in Higher Education: Challenges, Successes, and Suggestions for Attaining the SDGs" states: The Piscataway Rico Newman, Piscataway elder and MIHEA participant, relays some history of the Piscataway people: The Piscataway-Kanawha (Piscataway) are the “People Who Live Where Waters Blend Below Rapids.” Prior to colonization, the Piscataway developed well-orchestrated lifeways that sustained them for centuries.

Reading the literature. "Kanawha" also appears to be used for a stone projectile point type produced in the early Holocene, long before the colonial period. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on Scoggins, it seems like it would be possible to keep the article if it were substantially rewritten. However, it would be equally plausible to incorporate that content into the Piscataway people article and redirect it to that page. Either would be fine, but I do think closing this AFD is going to require someone to step in do the work of either recrafting the current page, or writing a bit in the Piscataway people article so that a redirect is appropriate. That article currently doesn't even mention the Kanawha people.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is really anything to say in any article yet. Appreciate your view on erasure but in my opinion worse would be getting this wrong and creating some fiction about a people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough evidence between the journal article presented by the nominator above (who is advocating for a redirect) and the Scoggins source to put something into the Piscataway people article at the very least. Scoggins is after all a published historian. At some point, we just have to trust subject matter experts and their judgement. Worse in my view would be to ignore these sources as a form of WP:Systemic bias; something wikipedia struggles with when it comes to marginalized people groups (which has been researched).4meter4 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. oncamera _{(talk page)} 10:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate article. - Donald Albury 13:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for input from WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America or Keep and start a renaming or merge discussion on the article talkpage. The article was originally titled Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) then moved to Kanawha valley people and then to Kanawha people. The intent here was clearly to describe a prehistoric people known from St. Albans Site and probably others. I don't think the content is very good and may be including description of the later Adena culture. The article is misnamed, probably has the wrong scope, and not very high quality but i think the original intent of the content is completely appropriate for WP.

The confusing name has led us down the path of looking at the colonial era Conoy tribe and whether or not Kanawha is a synonym. There was some dispute about the name in sources since John Heckewelder's suggestion that Kanawha was from Conoy but i think in our recent sources that has been accepted and not really questioned. Redirects from Kanawha to Piscataway are appropriate but then we have some additional confusion to work out. That is the difference between a 'tribe' and a 'people'. I think there is widespread confusion as to peoples and subdivision such as 'tribe' or 'band' and how they are recorded and named throughout history and how they might be organized or recognized today. There were both a Conoy tribe (the Conoy proper or Piscataway) and it seems a Conoy people.pp 125-6 I think this is represented on WP as Piscataway people (Conoy people) and Piscataway-Conoy Tribe of Maryland (Conoy tribe)?

I don't really have a whole lot of confidence for much of this, so i think input from some more knowledgeable editors is necessary. fiveby(zero) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i do not think it would be easy or practical to have an article that only covers the prehistoric people. The content should probably be merged somewhere but i have no real idea to where. It should definitely not be merged to any Piscataway or Conoy people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 16:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content is frankly so lacklustre that it would need to be entirely rewritten to include anywhere. I think Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) and Kanawha valley people can be redirected to Kanawha River#History as these clearly relate more to the geographical location. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better content, and now i see you suggested that as a target above and i missed it distracted by the Conoy. My confusion is probably more due to distaste as to how WP titles and scopes people and tribe articles in general. The closer might have a tough time with all the confusion and redirects involved but i think you have the best plan here so Note to closer: consider my vote what Hemiauchenia says. fiveby(zero) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Piscataway people: per the reasoning given by Hemiauchenia. TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Piscataway people per Hemiauchenia.Bcbc24 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page, because no single redirect target is satisfactory. Most of the article as written (really more of a school essay than anything) covers the whole experience of the colonization of the Americas by settlers from Asia thousands of years ago. But the object, and the last couple of sections, seems to have been to describe the native people who lived in the Kanawha Valley before it was settled by Europeans. Those were decidedly not Piscataway, even though the word "Kanawha" may have been used at one point synonymously with "Piscataway" and perhaps derived from "Conoy". Our article about the Piscataway seems to exclude any possibility that they ever lived in the Kanawha Valley, and that alone would confuse readers who come across this title.

At the same time, I cannot determine whether there is any other article on a group of American Indians who would be described this way, and be the definitive redirect target: the last major groups who might have inhabited the Kanawha Valley would be the Fort Ancient culture and the Shawnee, who may or may not have been identical (evidently that has not yet been determined). But the degree to which the Kanawha Valley was inhabited, rather than merely transited during this period is also unclear; most archaeological sites are older and probably date to the time of the Mound Builders, a vague term which in this case really refers to the Adena and Hopewell cultures. All of these would correctly be described as "Kanawha people", and it is not unlikely that some readers would also expect this title to describe the later, European settlers of the valley, including but not limited to modern-day Kanawha County, another possible redirect target.

Since all of these are plausible targets, and the article contains almost nothing that is not already in one or more of them, the best way to resolve the issue is to convert this into a disambiguation page—either one that strictly follows the normal disambiguation page criteria, or perhaps a more narrative one that explains how the phrase might apply to different but related groups—including the Piscataway, of course, but certainly not redirecting to them, since that would likely astonish most readers. P Aculeius (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no disagreement with this proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a closer might redirect this article to Piscataway people because of the bolded statements, it's not clear to me that this is the consensus or would be appropriate. First, there are doubts where this "people" is a Native American tribe or just referring to "people who live in Kanawha". Secondly, there is no mention of Kanawha people at this suggested target article. Finally, there are alternative suggestions including Keep, Delete or redirection to a different target article based on the location of Kanawha, West Virginia. So, since I don't see a firm consensus and lots of different arguments floating around here as recently as yesterday, I'm going to relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the arguments that "Kanawha" is an alternate spelling of "Conoy" have some merit. But (largely for the reasons expressed by Liz) I can't endorse the redirect to Piscataway people. Perhaps a DAB page would be an option. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the assertion that there is no "Kanawha people" is fundamentally not true as Scoggins was absolutely clear that the "Kanawha Valley" was named after the "Kanawha people" who lived elsewhere prior to being the first people to settle in the Kanawha Valley. The valley was named after the people group, not the other way around. The sources are also pretty clear that Kanawha were/are a branch of the Piscataway people (ie. Conoy). The best solution here is to add a sentence to the Piscataway people article and then redirect to that page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A viable second option would be to turn this into a dab bage with a reference to the Conoy/Piscataway people. And a possible second meaning of people living or from the "Kanawha Valley". That might be the best so we cover all bases.4meter4 (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be better than a redirect? Any group known to have lived in the valley should be mentioned in the history section of the Kanawha County article. I see that the Kanawha River article does list various cultures and peoples that have occupied the valley, although nothing is sourced. But I don't think people will be looking for "Kanawha people" when they are interested in the Adena or Fort Ancient cultures. And if they are interested in earlier occupants of the valley, how would they look for "Kanawha people" rather "History of Kanawha County" or "History of the Kanawha River"? Donald Albury 02:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly opposed to any solution which doesn't include either a redirect or a navigational link at a DAB page to Piscataway people per the journal article cited towards the top and the Scoggins source. Not doing that erases that this is indeed a real Native American people group and not just natives who happened to live in the Kanawha Valley. Scoggins is clear the Kanawha were the Kanawha before they ever arrived in the Kanawha Valley, and the valley was named for them.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a redirect is my preference. I don't think there is any case for calling any other group that has lived in the valley "Kanawha people" in an encyclopedic sense. Donald Albury 02:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some people commenting who oppose redirecting to Piscataway people arguing that the term "Kanawha people" has been applied more generically to people living the "Kanawha Valley" in some cases. (This is true according to Scoggins who points out the term has been used inconsistently) A dab page would allow us to articulate the discrepancy by saying "Kanawha people" could refer to 1: an alternative spelling of the Conoy people which is a subset of the Piscataway people or 2. people who reside or originated from the Kanawha Valley. This would allow for the various uses of the term as described by Scoggins. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted/redirected at AfD. Recreated by a new user and honestly the coverage doesn't look any better than it did at the first AfD, so I can't see it warranting a standalone article. Serious issues with WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (EDIT: I am also fine redirecting back to Family of Donald Trump) as per the consensus of the last AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, People and Women. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as done previously and lock it to prevent repeated disruption. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Golf, Internet, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per last AfD. This shouldn't even go to AfD, it should be up to those few who think it should be a standalone article to demonstrate what has changed and why that would change the previous AfD consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG with multiple references focusing on her:

These references have all been published after the last AfD, and/or were not in the article during the last AfD. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this coverage suggests that she is notable separate from her relationship to the broader Trump family, and is pretty insubstantial. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is covered in-depth in multiple WP:RS that are independent of her, which satisfies the requirements in WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly post that could be made about any subject whatsoever.

None of the sources at the article Julius Caesar suggest that he is notable separate from his relationship to his broader military and political achievements -- do you here suggest a redirect to Roman Empire per WP:NOPAGE? jp×g 🗯️ 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the valid reason would be that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a point that is often misunderstood on Wikipedia, presumably because of WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts like WP:NOTINHERITED. If you actually read WP:NOTINHERITED, you'll see that it says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. What it actually means is that people are not automatically notable just because they're related to someone – they can still meet GNG, even if that is all they are "known" for. C F A 💬 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has she done that is actually noteworthy? These articles are basically puff pieces. We know she plays golf and that she was invited to give a speech at an RNC convention where she says Donald Trump a normal grandfather and that she has no interest in pursuing politics. The social media stuff in the article is irrelevant puffery. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The social media stuff is obviously not independent of her. But the 5 references above (and there are more in the article, I just listed the top 5) are all in-depth (not a casual mention), independent of her, and independent of each other. That's all that is needed for WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? This isn't a policy-based argument. jp×g 🗯️ 14:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom., Iggy pop goes the weasel, Traumnovelle, and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets GNG. See my comment above. C F A 💬 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do feel that those opting for redirect are really failing to see the huge differences between this AFD and the previous one in July.

1.Firstly, Trump has made a YouTube channel as of October that has already received 220,000 subscribers (and more than 50k of those in the last 24 hours), has a video with over 2 million views in two days which has significant political interest and coverage in major news outlets (and a second video with over a million views).

2. Kai Trump has more than a million followers on TikTok and 500,000 followers on Instagram, which has all changed since the last AfD where she had 100,000 followers on Instagram for example.

3. The election of 9 days ago also casts her in a different light- she is a content creator who will have significant proximity to an in-power president between the ages of 17-21, and already has a huge audience and is receiving notable coverage. Do you really think that Kai Trump is going to fade into obscurity and never again achieve notability? Deleting this article is only going to delay publication for six months or less, and she is already receiving 9,000 plus article visits per day (not that this means anything for notability purposes, but the article clearly has demand and she clearly has significant attention).

In my opinion, the previous AFD fell the right way because of the fact she was only notable for her RNC speech- by all accounts she is now achieving notability for other reasons at this point, and she will continue to do so. There are now [sources] claiming that she is Trump's most important social media ally, etc. I would expect coverage on this subject to increase dramatically in the coming months with the inauguration and as she produces more content. Let us compare with her uncle Barron Trump (as she has been compared with before), who has been deleted via AFD before: this would suggest that Barron has attained nowhere close to the notable achievements or coverage that Kai has now received, with no sections of independent notability as far as I can tell. Kai's article Passes WP:GNG. I edited her article extensively yesterday though, so I would expect some degree of bias from me in trying to keep the article retained.Spiralwidget (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a poorly-written article about a person whose accomplishments I find unimpressive. Sources obviously pass GNG. Is there a BLP issue, or some other urgent concern that makes GNG unsuitable here? Or is it just a politics thing? jp×g 🗯️ 02:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Not seeing any sources that are notable outside of Donald Trump, until she becomes notable by herself I can't vote keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump (1st choice) or back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (2nd choice). (I think the family article is better than the father's article for the same anti-patriarchal reasons I detailed in the first AFD and won't repeat here.)

In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [33] [34] [35] [36], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.

The 5 new sources posted above don't really move the needle for me. #1 WP:DAILYBEAST is yellow at RSP, and anyway it's an opinion piece. #2 I'm not sure that EssentiallySports is an RS. #3 is not technically not independent of the other ABC News article, and anyway is more about the subject's election night vlog than about the subject herself. #4 is a routine signing report which usually don't count as sigcov of an athlete, and #5 NYT is about the RNC speech, like the earlier ABC News article, not in depth of the subject herself. What's missing is like two solid biographies of the subject; then I'd be convinced that there is so much material about the subject that it should be on its own page.

But for now, I think everything that meets WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT in all of those sources that is actually about the subject is only enough to fill up a section in an article, e.g. Family of Donald Trump. Even if the subject meets GNG, for WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons (readers will understand the subject better in the context of her family rather than as a stand-alone article, particularly since most of her notability is derived from her family, with her golf career constituting a minority of the overall RS coverage), I think it's better to cover this topic as part of another article rather than as its own article.

Also, I note that the prior AFD resulted in consensus to redirect, and it was edit-warred back into an article, which led to this second AFD (1, 2, 3). A trout to those editors for editing against consensus. The new information should have been added to the target article, and if a stand-alone was sought, a split should have been proposed on the target article's talk page per WP:PROSPLIT. Levivich (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the distinction between "significant coverage of something a person did" and "significant coverage of the person"? I am confused by this claim. jp×g 🗯️ 14:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, probably easiest to show you examples, all from the same RS:

The #1 stories have some biographical information about the subjects, but they're really focused on specific events/statements/actions/etc. #2 are actual full-length biographies of the subject. You see a lot of differences in these types of stories: #1 is focused on a particular time and place, #2 spans the subject's entire lifetime. #1 includes a lot of quotes from the subject (what the subject said about the event/action/whatever), whereas #2 has much more in the BBC's own voice. (You can scroll through and just see that #2 has fewer quotation marks than #1.) #1 is usually shorter than #2, sometimes by half.

For our purposes -- writing a stand-alone biography article about a subject -- we can kinda/sorta do it with RSes like #1's, but you really need #2's to cover the subject's whole life, as opposed to just some action/event that happened during their life.

For this article subject (Kai Trump), we only have #1's, no #2's. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above discussion. I’m against any minor child of a political person or celebrity having an article, even if they have spoken in public about their parent or grandparent. (Redacted) Bearian (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have two comments to make here on this AfD after already giving my "keep" opinion a little further up.

1. Firstly, I would be concerned that a merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump would destroy a lot of potentially important encyclopedic information in the article, such as Trump's RNC speech and her recent coverage of election night, as well as information about her name being related to her grandfather and such. The current Family of Donald Trump article has only a short section on grandchildren, and it would be difficult for me to see how a redirect/merge would fit in with the format of that article. I think that merging to "Donald Trump Jr." would be preferable, but the problem there is that Kai Trump does not actually have any significant activity directly related to her father; appearing at the RNC and her social media and golf activities all seem very unrelated to her father, especially considering the fact her parents are divorced and she actually lives with her mother. It also seems to perpetuate stereotypes relating to patriarchy to redirect to father. I therefore find a redirect or merge to be less than ideal in this circumstance.

2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[37]] and [[38]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "a crying shame," I call the entire point of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Fame and popularity are not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not about her age, or profession (many influencers with huge followings are nevertheless not notable), it's about this: Wikipedia summarizes sources. For a Wikipedia biography article, the sources are other biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish someone's biography. So to vote keep on a biography, I'm looking for at least 2, preferably 3, totally independent (of each other and of the subject) full-length biographies. That's what gives us enough source material to write a Wikipedia biography article that meets NPOV. Kai Trump doesn't appear to have been the subject of any full biographies, much less two or three. (The RSes I've seen so far have some biographical information, but very little, and I wouldn't call any of them in-depth biographies.) As it so happens, there are many famous people who aren't the subject of biographies (athletes, influencers, famous people's kids); they don't qualify for Wikipedia articles IMO. And everything we have to say about Kai Trump--all the info in RSes that's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT--can be said in a paragraph or two that can be part of the family article (which could have multiple mini-biographies about various not-quite-notable members of the family). The RNC speech, for example, is one sentence, that says she gave a speech at the RNC. That's all there is to say about it. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the family of Donald Trump. It doesn't need an independent article. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Notability is not inherited. This is, at best WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per some of the keep discussion above. It clearly passes WP:GNG and this is way different from the previous deletion discussion in July with more references. Kaizenify (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. The new coverage is still entirely connected to her grandfather. Notability is not inherited. I don't doubt at some point this may change, but so far it hasn't. It's WP:TOOSOON for an independent article. FYI, telling us how many followers someone has on social media is a clear sign that someone is scraping desperately at the bottom of the non-notability barrel.4meter4 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Likely TOOSOON. Playing golf isn't notable, there is coverage of a speech given, but being social media star in 2024 isn't notable alone. We've had a flood of coverage since the event, but nothing before. I'm not sure this person is notable for what they've done; outside of the Trump name, what have they done to be notable. She's a "potentially notable" influencer, so nothing notable at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You see the name, you want to know who it is. It's as simple as that. Cyber rigger (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC) — Cyber rigger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: If we keep it, it's logical that Barron Trump should have his own article. Lucafrehley (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's a public figure and meets Wikipedia notability requirements to have her own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.77.187 (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. We don't write about the grandchildren of Nicolas Sarkozy, Olaf Scholz, or even Vladimir Putin. --Tataral (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per the articles focused on her by Daily Beast, Essentially Sport, ABC News, Golf Week, New York Times.XavierItzm (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Also should be even more prominent during the next four years. Her fame is global. She is covered in The Times of India for instance. Hektor (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India is not an unquestionably reliable source, see WP:RSP and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_447#RfC:_The_Times_of_India. In my own experience, its coverage tends towards the sensational. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources with sigcov – such as this Cut piece and especially this solid Telegraph profile published after the start of this AfD – demonstrate notability. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would appear that Kai has done little else to gather press coverage other than be the granddaughter of the incoming President (unlike her aunt Ivanka who is notable), only thing going for her in terms of notability is the instagram posting and social media influencer career paragraph, and thats not much. Considering we have First Daughters that are far more notable than her (Malia Obama comes to mind who is in filmmaking) don't have Wikipedia pages I struggle to understand why she does. Naomi Biden's wikipedia page got deleted for this same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfriendnow (talk • contribs) 18:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Gelasin (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. The content of this article could be shortened to a sentence or two that would fit well in the full family article. This individual's internet popularity is on the increase but right now it's WP:TOOSOON to tell if that will hold. Might warrant a standalone article eventually. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Underground

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

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[39][40] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --wooden superman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is notable enough (though the article could use some sources that help establish this fact, like the ones my colleague above found).TH1980 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to meet NCORP, but could do a redirect to William Lustig as a compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Lustig as a viable ATD per nom. and KH-1. Fails WP:NCORP. WP:NOPAGE applies. Sal2100 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

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