Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

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. Points of interest related to United States on Wikipedia:
Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/archive 2
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/archive 3

watch

General

John Adames

John Adames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence this actor passes WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Adames is a WP:BLP1E for his Razzie award. The article's earlier assertion (removed by me) that he is the youngest person to receive a Razzie is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH based on WP:SYNTH (none of the sources actually state that he was the youngest). There's no other claim to fame or notability; inclusion in other sources is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. There was a stable redirect to Gloria (1980 film) until recently; I would be OK with restoring the redirect per consensus or outright deleting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Looking at the rules you were right to remove the “youngest winner” assertion… thanks for pointing that out. As for the article I figured winning a Razzie, especially one of the first ever, qualified as a “significant event”. Kind of like how we have many stub articles for everyone who ever competed at the Olympics. So that was why I made it at the time JSwift49 01:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

U.S. carrier strike group tactics

U.S. carrier strike group tactics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There's a claim on the talk page that the article is based on a computer game guide that preceeds the history of the page, hence there is a potential copyright infringement. I can't access the source, but perhaps others will be better able to assess the claim. I note other unresolved maintainence issues. Klbrain (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America. Klbrain (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Sources used are for submarines... Being sourced to a game manual isn't quite what were looking for. This is amply discussed in other articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Very Important People (2023 TV series)

Very Important People (2023 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't find it passes WP:GNG. Literary no review at all. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and United States of America. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep: Sourcing from the CBC is an interview with the host, but talks about the show. The Variety article shows this is up for an Emmy award and briefly talks about the show, also showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Week Keep? So you aren't sure for Keep? All interview is primary, not mounting to WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Interviee is with the person, but it supports an article about the tv show. The Emmy nomination makes it notable rrgardless.Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Slight correction: The show has only been submitted for Emmy consideration; the official nominations won't be out until next week. That's why I didn't mention it anywhere in the article yet. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  We can wait until next week I suppose to see if it makes the final list for the award. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Article creator here. Honestly didn't expect it to get to get promoted out of the draft space; I wasn't sure if it had enough, so I submitted it to get insight on areas for improvement, maybe see if coverage increases substantially should that Emmy nod go through. I'm not going to weigh in on whether the article should be kept since I'm obviously a little biased (though I will say starting a delete discussion minutes after someone accepts the draft doesn't seem kosher), but if it does get the axe, I'd prefer it get moved back to the draft space so I can continue source-hunting and working on improving it. Thanks much. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Coverage cited shows it meets the requirement for GNG. I cannot understand the nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify: The show doesn't currently (article or elsewhere) have significant reliable independent coverage sufficient to meet GNG:

1. The CBC interview would be non-independent by default but some of it has additional significant independent qualitative coverage. (Y)
2. The Variety article only has passing coverage N
3. The Deadline interview is non-independent N
4. The Observer is a student newspaper and I believe while independent/reliable should have low weight (xref WP:UNIGUIDE) (Y)
5. The Polygon article is non-independent N
6. The Webby's award is a public web-vote and not the expert-voted Webby award, and is thus insufficient/unreliable for consideration of acclaim/impact. Even if it were the expert-voted Webby award I think it would be low weight given how many Webby awards there are (see the popup menus from the category sidebar at https://winners.webbyawards.com/winners) N

That said, I think it has a reasonable chance of an Emmy nomination given that its category is such an oddball one and there will be 5 nominees from only 22 on the longlist even before considerations of the 24000 eligible voter pool potentially skewing slightly in favour of Dropout, and Dropout fans really liking Dropout shows. If it is, then between the nomination and the second season and the awards we may actually get sufficient independent qualitative coverage, but unfortunately it's not there yet for me.

(BTW, for anyone unfamiliar with the show, youtube has the first episode - enjoy)

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Donald Heng

Donald Heng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested WP:PROD, there has been two WP:BLAR and reverts, now I'm bringing it to AfD to gather consensus. The actor only had minor roles in multiple works, plus a slightly more significant role in Girl vs. Monster. Does not fulfill WP:NACTOR, I suggest a Redirect to Girl vs. Monster#Cast Broc (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Cambodia, and United States of America. Broc (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Not opposed to the redirect mentioned by Broc; nor to Keep (if one considers his role in The Kung Fu significant too, for example) or that the number of his roles can make him meet WP:NACTOR (31 credits=prolific?).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Heng was not even part of the starring cast in any movies nor TV series, not even on Girl vs. Monster nor Kung Fu. All of his roles are minor roles both in film and TV series. No significant coverage of him as an actor. This is considered to be WP:TOOSOON. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 Northern Marianas Open

2024 Northern Marianas Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Yet another low level bwf tournament with little to no coverage in the news. Similar to the previous afd of 2024 Austrian open. zoglophie^•talk• 06:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: the winners are mentioned in the parent article Northern Marianas Open. zoglophie^•talk• 06:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Badminton, and United States of America. zoglophie^•talk• 06:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign

Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is not a notable topic. This is an extended news cycle. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply. It's also too likely to devolve into a WP:POVFORK. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Even if Biden does eventually drop out, what use would the article be..? Prcc27 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This, by itself, isn't an encyclopedic topic. It's just one development in the 2024 United States presidential election. Presenting the material outside of a context like that is POVFORK-ish. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  ● Wait Currently, it is a really notable topic spiraling right now, once things drop, then discussion can be made on deleting this page. InterDoesWiki (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's not how notability works. It's either notable or it's not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Notablity is not static. Maurnxiao (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Subjects that are not notable can become notable, but things that are notable cannot become not notable. And This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect, but I think that's where the problem lies. This topic obviously deserves some coverage on Wikipedia. The problem is that there is no clear answer of where. I think a discussion needs to be had. Seems like 2024 United States presidential debates or Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign would make the most sense. But 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2024 United States presidential election or 2024 Democratic National Convention could also work too. The fractured coverage doesn't benefit our readers. (I was just going to redirect this boldly, but never got around to it.) Esolo5002 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely a problem. I'm voting to keep, partly because the information covered here is notable and not covered anywhere else and can't really be covered in the required detail anywhere else. Could a page be made for the first debate itself? MarkiPoli (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy blank and redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside, which already contains all that needs to be discussed on this topic. Wikipedia is not a source of breaking news and is poorly suited to be, because we're an encyclopedia, not a news blog. If history shows that this was so significant an aspect of this year's election that it needs to be discussed in a separate article, we can write that article at that time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• BLAR as suggested in the comment above this one is the best possible outcome. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside: per WP:NOTNEWS. This does not need its own article; it is best-suited as a section in the main election article. I don't think anything needs to be merged because, as said above, the main article already covers it well enough. C F A 💬 02:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. The page on the 2024 United States presidential election can amply cover this debate re: Presdient Biden. TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect: per CFA comment. There is coverage but can be included in other articles.FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside per the above. --MuZemike 13:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Fait accompli, but I'd like to register my vote as keep anyway before it's deleted. It is very notable that 119 days before a US presidential election, many of the party are outright calling for an incumbent president to relinquish the nomination. To be honest, you could probably create a whole article for the first debate (where there normally isn't articles for individual debates) due to the notability of it and the polticial firestorm it has caused, much more than I would say any other televised presidential debate in US history. MarkiPoli (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  If Biden becomes the nominee, and wins re-election, would you still argue that calls for him to step aside were “notable” enough for an entire separate article? Or what if Biden does step down; wouldn’t it be weird to have an article about “calls for Biden to step down”, rather than a more broad article about him suspending his campaign altogether? A “notable” political firestorm in July, may not be notable at all in November. Prcc27 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Even if he doesn't get replaced and goes on to the general, I'd argue it still is notable that so close to the election, after all primaries are done, that so many of the candidate's same party are calling for him to step down, has this ever happened before? If he does step down, this article is simply renamed to "Suspension of Joe Biden's 2024 presidential campaign". MarkiPoli (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with MarkiPoli Fodient (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  You don't remember the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape coming out in October 2016? Thank you for the demonstration of recency bias that underpins WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

BLAR - Likewise agree with @Ivanvector. W9793 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to main article on the 2024 American presidential election, which has a section on this topic. I have only skimmed the article in its current form, but it feels like using Wikipedia to influence outside events to me. Can we WP:SNOWPRO this one? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside per WP:NOTNEWS, in agreement with rationale put forth by several others above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

KeepThe sheer number of reliable sources talking about it indicate that it is notable. It is more than just a single news cycle considering it has been a week and a half from the debate and it is still so prominently talked about. If it were just an extended news cycle, the publications about it would be diminishing, not growing. JMM12345 (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The main article, "Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign", already says "It has been suggested that this article should be split into multiple articles." So, a split into sub-articles is suggested to be necessary. And, this is definitely a sub-article of the article "Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign". GoldWitness (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  It has been suggested, but the current WP:CONSENSUS at that article’s talk page seems to be against splitting the article up. Prcc27 (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, which is substantially the same. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep WP:LASTING Influential members of the president's party calling for him to step down after he has secured delegates is unprecedented, and will be discussed for decades, even if he doesn't step down. Tons of reliable sources. The article is too large to be part of another article.Fodient (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Are people still talking about Calls for Donald Trump to suspend his 2016 United States presidential campaign after the Access Hollywood tape came out to the extent that it needs its own article? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Donald Trump wasn't the incumbent president with nearly 99% of the delegates to acquire his party's nomination.Fodient (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  What does that have to do with the fact that calls for Donald Trump to drop out in 2016 are contained at Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape#Calls to drop campaign and the Trump 2016 article not a separate article? Much like calls for Biden to drop out should remain on the 2024 debate and Biden 2024 pages? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe someone should make the article. Just because an article doesn't exist for something that's kinda similar is not an argument that another article should not exist.Fodient (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think the 2016 articles show well how to handle a situation like this once we're past the burst of WP:RECENTISM that we are stuck right in the middle of in 2024. If Biden stays in, this will fade. If he doesn't, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  If Biden stays in or steps down this will remain notable and discussed for decades.Fodient (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  So you think, due to recency bias, but calls for Trump to drop out in 2016 have failed the WP:10YT. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  No recency bias here. A sitting president being called upon by prominent members of his own party as well as notable previous supporters, plus a senator, who is former VP nominee, is looking for other senators to join him in asking for the president to step down. This is something that will be discussed in history classes. Fodient (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  I doubt your WP:CRYSTAL ball works that well. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Enough reporting and opinion writing about it is there. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2024 United States presidential debates#Calls for President Biden to drop out. A similar section already exists at 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside, as well. It feels unnecessary to have three different articles about the same thing and it makes maintenance more difficult. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

● Wait because 2024 United States presidential debates#Calls for President Biden to drop out section was edited out of that article Lordofthefood1 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There are other articles to redirect it to: the debate article, List of Democrats who oppose Biden, or otherwise. No need to keep this article active much longer. Prcc27 (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to the aforementioned sub-section. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep widely reported in the media and has a long-lasting impact. EpicAdventurer (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Can we set an egg timer to revisit all of the American politics mumbo-jumbo on November 6, when we are (closer to) capable of being normal about it? jp×g🗯️ 08:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It's honestly more telling that no significant figures are listed here. If he doesn't drop, it's a who-cares list of has-beens and never-will-bes. A lot of these guys are speaking up because it's the only way anyone would ever see their name in the news! If he does drop, its a side note on the main article. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Nuckle Brothers

Nuckle Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There's the 50 words in the OC Weekly article that's linked already, and there are mentions in student newspapers like the Daily Titan ([1], [2], [3]), but they can't establish notability. toweli (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• 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) 15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NBAND including #7 - not one of the more prominent purveyors of Orange County ska. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

D. Christopher Evans

D. Christopher Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found no significant coverage after multiple searches. The current three sources in the article are an Access Denied page to the subject's non-independent biography, an article by the subject, and a local article about him being appointed. SL93 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:GNG per these sources found and added to the article [4][5]. These sources give sigcov and seem credible to pass for notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The first source was already in the article, and both sources are routine coverage. Both sources are just announcements of what the subject did in in his career - being hired and forming his team. SL93 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Being denied access to a source in not a proper reason for deleting an article. The source is still available in an archive (now added]. I find the coverage to be significant and dealing with more than routine about his career progression. Thincat (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thincat The access denied thing isn’t why it is a bad source, but rather that it isn’t independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Well, in itself it doesn't contribute much, if anything, towards notability but it provides some sufficiently verified information. Taken as a whole there is enough adequate information for a stub BLP. Personally, I prefer AFD discussions to include only matters that are relevant to article deletion but I realise that some people are not so well aware of our standards or they regard discussions as adversarial rather than inquisitorial. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Haliey Welch

Haliey Welch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Latest viral meme, very WP:BIO1E. WP:TOOSOON to tell if this is lasting. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Language, Entertainment, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Draft: I guess, this is likely TOOSOON, but it's got decent enough sourcing. Time will tell if it's notable or not. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am amenable to this WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Why did you copy my draft? I created this page first User:UtherSRG Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry confused you with User:BullDawg2021 Comintell (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I created the draft first Comintell (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry about that. I had no idea that you also created a draft. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or Draftify per nom - WP:BIO1E, but possible WP:TOOSOON. KylieTastic (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I created this article first and it's already in drafts and was submitted to AfC. Edit history proves I created the draft first. It's current in draft space. user basically copied my draft Comintell (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  As Comintell did create first at the article is now a copy-paste of that draft Draftify no longer makes any sense. Also I agree if kept it should be as "Hawk Tuah" not Hailey/Haliey Welch, and as BullDawg2021 has accepted Comintell as the creator it would be best to delete this as move Draft:Hailey Welch to Hawk Tuah to keep creator attribution. KylieTastic (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Her name is Hailey Welch, and I created this page fitst and submitted through AfC. Draft:Hailey Welch

The user paraphrased much of my draft, and changed the name because my draft already existed. THIS is incredibly disingenuous.

To clarify. If you read my draft, I think you will see that Welch DOES qualify for notability, specifically because of sustained significant coverage over the last month, and her pivioting into a career and getting mentored by Shaq. I can't believe this UtherSRG basically copied my draft and moved it to mainspace with a spelling error in the name Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Super suspicious that this article says "Often misspelled as Hailey Welch" When All reliable sources cite her name to be Hailey Welch Comintell (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Please go to her social medias. Her name is Haliey Welch. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Rdirect or merge: Draft:Hailey_Welch: I created this page first. Technically this qualifies as speedy delete under WP:A10 Comintell (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  As can be seen by the edit history on this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haliey_Welch&action=history the page was created 13 minutes after I created the inital draft:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hailey_Welch&action=history Comintell (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Please assume good faith. I had no idea you created a draft. Also, you spelt her name wrong. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Where is your source for this? My article was much more detailed. You literally copied the same flow of facts as I did. What source spells her name this way. Every single reliable source says her name is Hailey. Sure I will assume good faith, but you shouldn't have been permitted to create this article Comintell (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Please calm down. Her name is Haliey Welch. You are blowing this way out of proportion. I did not copy you. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  To the both of you: there are established procedures in place to preserve the page histories and authorial credits. If this article is kept and you continue the article improvement process, both of you should receive the appropriate credits for things like DYK, etc. I suggest you put aside your differences and work together, not against each other. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  • @Comintell and BullDawg2021: Both of you need to stop edit-warring on this article. jp×g🗯️ 06:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Absurd as it may seem, the phenomenon has started to gather coverage in reliable sources and move from mere Tiktok gag into a Let's Go Brandon-style cultural moment. Here's eg Slate, 7News, Rolling Stone. That said, this likely belongs under Hawk Tuah, not under Ms Welch's name. Jpatokal (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Keep - Keep per Jpatokal, or redirect to either Zach Bryan or Shaquille O'Neal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Please see my comment in the discussion Comintell (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply - @Comintell:, come again? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - Even if the meme is receiving media coverage, one single TikTok meme is hardly enough to provide notability for a person. WP:1E comes to mind as this person really has no other claims to notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or Draftify: There is not only the fact that the nominator is correct, there are two "competing" drafts, both containing overlapping information. Since it is WP:TOOSOON both draft creators should work together in Draft space to create one draft which may become appropriate to accept when the subject meets WP:BIO which I am not persuaded thsat it does currently 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't be opposed to that. BullDawg2021 (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yea, @BullDawg2021 I'm sorry that I got so protective and frustrated. Even assuming good faith, this was a frustrating experience for me and I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive or un collaborative. Comintell (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment on the purely clerical issue here: there seem to be two pages here, Draft:Hailey Welch (created 2024-07-02T20:47:03) and Haliey Welch (created 2024-07-02T21:54:54‎). The overlap between both articles is fairly significant. I don't know to what extent one was copied from the other, but it seems like this may be worthy of later consideration in some other venue (assuming this is kept, otherwise there is no point). jp×g🗯️ 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Notable for making a joke on a street interview? This is the epitome of people notable for only one event. It's possible the event (the joke itself (Hawk Tuah)) is notable, though even that is too soon to tell imo. ato—mic 06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Reminder: There are two issues at play here, whether the "Hawk Tuah" event meets WP:GNG (based on the amount of reliable sources garnered, probably yes) and whether Ms. Welch herself is notable (probably no, it's hard to dispute that this is WP:BIO1E). If you're suggesting that this article be deleted entirely, please clarify your stance on both these points. Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO1E Celjski Grad (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Creating an article for the notable controversy or Hawk Tuah event will solve this problem. Clearly, this is a problem of WP:TOOSOON for the subject, as well as WP:BIO1E. In such a situation, there is only one way out–having an article about the popular word, "Hawk Tuah", and the influencer (not yet meeting WP:ENT) will redirect to the article. We don't need to argue on an article and a existing draft; it isn't necessary here. Who can/will create the event's article, and save us this stress? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this. The person herself obviously falls under WP:TOOSOON (WP:1E), but an article about the phenomenon/trend is much more suitable. There's definitely enough coverage in WP:RS for this. I think a lot of people voting delete here are simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many TikTok trends (no exception here) do receive lots of reliable media coverage and do meet WP:NEVENT/GNG. I hope editors start to realize this — it's not 2010 anymore. C F A 💬 01:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  2010? Hilarious. "Every generation thinks they invented sex". I created the article on Pinky the Cat a viral video from 1992. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Comintell, why not create the event with this energy of dragging having your draft and a post mainspace move by another editor? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Of course it is notable. Publish the story, under EITHER title to eventually be personalized if she becomes more famous. Thank you, either way likely a Hawk Tuah page is indeed coming to Wikipedia, especially if this story expands further. Thanks again, can't wait to see the page that IS coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.137.161 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is well-cited, subject is notable. I get that memes are not the most encyclopedic topic, but this one definitely meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV. 162 etc. (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. There is nothing notable about this subject. I watched the original video, the interview, and read the sources. There is literally nothing there. Her entire claim to fame consists of expressing her enthusiasm for fellatio. That's it, nothing else. I watched her entire interview that was published the other day, hoping for something, anything, that I could glom onto and say, that's something we should have an article about. There's nothing. She likes to use saliva as lubrication during oral sex. That's the entirety of her notability. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, and she seems like a very sweet young lady, but how do we write a biography about this? We can't. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  The criteria for deciding notability is WP:GNG, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jpatokal (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't say I didn't like it. I said there's nothing encyclopedic about the subject. The entire article is a promotional advertising campaign for Welch by her management team who are trying to capitalize on a five second joke she told on social media. This has the longevity of a mayfly. She isn't notable for doing anything. Yes, the video went viral, but Welch was only one of a dozen random subjects interviewed by Tim & Dee TV, which itself isn't even notable. There's nothing here. Nobody will know who she is next week. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  The articles written about her by The Guardian, Vanity Fair, People, Forbes, etc. etc., will certainly still be there next week. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 162 etc. (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Warhol was right: "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." Welch even alludes to that in the Guardian article. There's nothing here to write about. "Haliey Welch is a young woman who was randomly interviewed in the middle of the street and made a joke about fellatio. A video of her went viral, and she was soon approached by an agent who sought to capitalize upon her sexual-themed joke by making clothing with her name on it." That's what we're doing now? Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  All of this coverage calls her 'Hawk Tuah Girl'. Unless she starts a show, becomes a musician, etc, and receives coverage unrelated to Hawk Tuah, this is WP:1E ato—mic 23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Viriditas's prediction "Nobody will know who she is next week" (above) is commendably free of hedging, obscurantism, waffle. Let this AfD run on until next week, and then reconsider. The article will then live or die; either way, this AfD (with its miscellaneous expressions of indignation) will survive "for ever". -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I want a "like" button, @Hoary!!! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  The early filmmakers of the 20th century and the former journalists of MTV News would like a word. The topic of media preservation is one of the most depressing ever. Nothing lasts, everything fades away. Consider, if you will, the Silurian hypothesis. In the far future, nobody will ever know you or I existed. People like to think they are making their lasting mark on the world, but it's a bedtime story we tell ourselves to keep the terror of the dark at bay. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. We've kind of got two subjects there: 1) Haliey Welch and 2) the Hawk Tuah meme. There's already a lot of good coverage and it's highly likely coverage of one or both will be lasting. There's something notable here. Similar memes and figures that come to mind are The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger and Jenn Sterger. Tiffany Gomes, aka the "Crazy Plane Lady", is still getting coverage a year after her initial internet meme moment. Surprised there isn't an article about her. Probably should be. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Jenn Sterger's article is a biographical page discussing her successful careers in television, modeling, and writing. Where is the comparison?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Read the article.

  "Sterger and Catherine Perry (who later gained fame in WWE under the ringname Lana) were among a group of friends called the FSU Cowgirls, known for wearing skimpy clothing and cowboy hats to football games. She first came to attention when she was shown during a 2005 Florida State–Miami football game televised on ABC Sports. On seeing the shot, announcer Brent Musburger commented on-air that "1,500 red-blooded Americans just decided to apply to Florida State.""

  She gained fame in a similar manner to Haliey Welch. RTredwell (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Point being? Jenn Sterger actually went on to become a notable person in her own right. If she and her friend were only known as "the FSU cowgirls", a subject that has no article on the encyclopedia, neither she nor her friend would have articles either. Sterger has an article because she gained further notability as a journalist, television personality, and model, enough to justify a BLP page. This article is just the short story of how someone's impromptu joke became a viral moment and she quickly cashed in and got to hang out with a few celebrities as a result.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  You asked what the comparison is, I explained it to you. RTredwell (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Too soon; for now, likely fleeting WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify and move to the incident rather then the person to comply with WP:BIO1E -1ctinus📝🗨 21:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and adding that if this page is kept in any form, it should be exclusively about the meme, not the person. The person is not a suitable subject for a biographical article. This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. The meme itself is highly unlikely to have any enduring notability.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• also feel like it's worth noting this may be a rare example of a situation where WP:NOTNEWS (WP:ENDURING) is actually potentially applicable in a deletion discussion. A significant percent of what's here is just a description of the subject's fifteen minutes of fame, just listing out every time the subject has appeared near another celebrity in the last few weeks. There's not exactly a lot of encyclopedic material to salvage here. Should also mention that not all of the sources in the article are quality sources. There's a handful of reliable ones, but TMZ, Times of India, Dexerto, and Distractify are not. I'm not convinced a page about the meme itself is justified.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think the meme is unlikely to have any enduring notability? What makes you think you can predict what will be popular in the future? It's impossible to predict the future. RTredwell (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's WP:TOOSOON to properly assess if it meets the criteria on enduring notability, too soon for this to be a mainspace article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That said, I agree with LilianaUwU's comments below that draftifying can be an acceptable outcome, too. I don't think this page is ready to be in mainspace. But it is not impossible that the meme/catchphrase could be article-worthy at some point in the future, and there's no harm in incubating it in draftspace as a work-in-progress. The page will need a lot of reworking, anyways; there seems to be little disagreement that the page should just be about the "hawk tuah" phrase — this cannot exist as a BLP page about Haliey Welch. Consider this a delete as first preference, draftify as second preference !vote.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. or merge into an article about the meme itself if it does not meet notability guidelines for a biography. The meme has gained massive coverage and notability, and this article cites numerous reliable secondary sources. Thousands of people are looking up Hawk Tuah Girl daily looking for a Wikipedia article on the subject, they should be provided with one. RTredwell (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete : Definitely the case of WP:BLP1E and may be WP:TOOSOON at best. So I'd suggest to delete this and see this notability is sustained, but definitely delete for now. Coderzombie (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - Whether we like it or not, she is notable per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Extensive and continued media coverage as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete (or draftify, see below) per common sense, and the ten-year test. No one will remember this in 10 years. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  With that said... I'd be down with the idea of having an article on the meme rather than the woman behind it, considering BLP1E and all that. The meme has gotten loads of coverage and will be remembered. So... perhaps draftify, maybe? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - We are not here to judge worthiness; we are here to judge whether a topic has been the object of multiple, independently-published, instances of significant coverage in sources which are presumably reliable. This fits the bill. GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Extensive media coverage. Too soon to delete; nominator's argument that this will not have lasting notability is WP:CRYSTALBALL. —Lowellian (reply) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Hawk-Tuah I think it's pretty clear that WP:BLP1E applies to Hailey Welch's article since well they are famous for one thing and one thing only as of the present day, most of the coverage is in the context of the meme not the person itself and I think we should have a article about the meme rather than the person themselves. Sohom (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Anyone considering whether to keep or delete this page, should look at the original draft, Draft:Hailey Welch which has been expanded is formatted properly.

Comintell (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Come on. The problem isn't with the formatting, it's with the article being about the person rather than the event. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

As my draft was updated to note, she is in talks to get a reality TV show about her life, and further, the Hawk Tuah phrase origins are disputed, with many sources citing that Welch is garnering interest as an individual and public figure. I was just saying. Comintell (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Zygote Media Group

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Zygote Media Group
• Articles for deletion/Zygote Media Group, Inc.
• Articles for deletion/Zygote Media Group (2nd nomination)

Zygote Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm unsure why the last AfD nom was speedy closed by a non-admin, but there is a distinct lack of sourcing for this item. It's been tagged since 2006 and has not improved. I find nothing about this group other than the Google Body app that was taken over by them when Google discontinued it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I closed my own AfD as speedy keep as I found [[6]] and [[7]] just after submitting it but I'm not super convinced that there is enough here. Let'srun (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Medicine, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I don't think the sources listed above by Let'srun are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Unable to find the sources needed to meet WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm having trouble finding strong sources to back up the info in this article. Maybe letting this one go might be the best course of action. Waqar💬 18:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Jeremy Miner

Jeremy Miner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Prior efforts to remove a large volume of promotional materials reveal how much of a nothing-burger this page on an American sales speaker is. There is no significant coverage and much promotional material, and it almost merits speedy deletion. It turned up on my radar because it received 7,000 views in June despite being an orphan. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: I suppose having a best-selling book in the sales category could be notable, but other than the listing, there is no coverage... None, other than places to listen to his speeches or sales mantras. I don't find reviews of his books or mentions of this individual in RS, this appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: This article seems heavy on promotional info about the speaker's books and events, and there isn't much beyond links to the speaker's own materials. Waqar💬 19:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Kosmic Free Music Foundation

Kosmic Free Music Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I was only able to find mentions and brief descriptions (<100 words) of the subject in reliable sources (such as by searching "filetype:pdf "Kosmic Free Music Foundation" " on Google). The article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. toweli (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Internet, Websites, and United States of America. toweli (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You must not have been on the internet in the mid 1990s. Back then, "reliable sources" would not be covering what they individuals were doing in the online music community. 75.3.240.177 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Divedapper

Divedapper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Draftification was undone so I'm bringing it to AfD. Both the sources used in the article and the sources found online as part of WP:BEFORE are uniquely interviews with the founder, with no sign of independent notability. In particular, WP:ORGCRITE is not met because of the lack of secondary sources. I suggest a Merge or Redirect to Kaveh Akbar as WP:ATD. Broc (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and United States of America. Broc (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  It is not correct that "sources found online as part of WP:BEFORE are uniquely interviews with the founder." Only three out of the eight sources are, and those are interviews with NPR, The Indianapolis Star, and a student newspaper of Butler University, each focused on a festival organized by Divedapper.

  It is also incorrect that "WP:ORGCRITE is not met because of the lack of secondary sources." In fact, all of the sources used are independent and third-party sources. None run afoul of WP:NIS. For them to be "primary sources," that would indicate that Divedapper owns or has financial or legal interests or ties to these sources. Nothing I find in my research suggests so.

  Can the page Divedapper be improved upon? Absolutely. As can any other page. What has no basis in facts is the notion that it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

  If it does fail to meet any criteria, one would expect a proper notification to that effect. Instead, Broc commented out the magazine's logo and did not state that he did so in the Edit Summary, which I found suspect and led me to conclude some bad faith at work. I took a look at their Talk page and found that they had used such "unorthodox" --- their own words --- methods before and a User had complained about it. In that case, Broc moved an article to AfD; but when there was no consensus, Broc voted "Keep," and then draftified the article. A User described the move as "misleading." In response, Broc wrote: "I understand I might have bent the rules of the process a bit." If all editors bent Wikipedia rules at will, then the purpose of the site is defeated.

  "Misleading" and "bending the rules of the process a bit" are descriptions I'd use for Broc as it concerns Divedapper. I'd very much prefer for things to be done in the right manner. I'd say "Keep." LityNerdyNerd (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Dear Santa (upcoming film)

Dear Santa (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NFILM as release date not announced. Existing sources are nowhere than procedural announcements only. WP:DRAFTIFY should be the better option. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: has been accepted through AfC. Filming has started. Even if this is never released, cast and director are extremely notable and most of all, coverage presented in the page or existing online is sufficient to satisfy the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films says:

  Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. ...

  Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.

  The sources verify that the film commenced principal photography in March 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. The production is notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources.

  Sources

  1. Ho, Rodney (2023-03-16). "Jack Black, Farrelly Brothers reunite for 'Dear Santa' comedy shooting in metro Atlanta". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     The article notes: "Jack Black is back in metro Atlanta to shoot the Farrelly Brothers Christmas-themed comedy “Dear Santa.” ... Black was seen in downtown Decatur last week shooting the film and he posted an Instagram photo from the set teasing the movie’s thematics in what appeared to be a Christmas village. ... Others in the cast include Robert Timothy Smith, Keegan-Michael Key, Brianne Howey, Hayes MacArthur, PJ Byrne, Jaden Carson Baker, Kai Cech and Austin Post."

  2. Kroll, Justin (2023-03-15). "Jack Black & The Farrelly Brothers Reunite For Christmas Comedy 'Dear Santa' At Paramount". Deadline Hollywood. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     The article notes: "The movie centers on a young boy who, in writing his yearly note to Santa, mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Black recently teased the project on social media when he posted a photo of him posing with Christmas decorations with no context — it got everyone talking about what it could be."

  3. Couch, Aaron (2023-03-15). "Jack Black, Farrelly Brothers Team for Paramount's 'Dear Santa'". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     Thea article notes: "After more than 20 years, Jack Black is reteaming with his Shallow Hal filmmakers the Farrelly Brothers for the Paramount comedy Dear Santa. The feature centers on a child who intends to write a letter to Santa Claus, but mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Bobby Farrelly will direct and produce, with brother Peter Farrelly producing along with Jeremy Kramer. The Farrelly brothers penned the script with Ricky Blitt, the writer behind the 2005 Johnny Knoxville feature The Ringer. The story came from an original idea from Dan Ewen, known for the John Cena comedy Playing With Fire."

  4. Bedard, Mike (2024-06-03). "Jack Black Is Unrecognizable As Satan For A New Christmas Movie". Looper. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     The article notes: "Following his previous Christmas movie, 2006's "The Holiday" — where he was half of one of the most memorable holiday movie couples ever as Miles — Jack Black is dipping back into the Christmas spirit with a decidedly different project and character. Now fans can see him become unrecognizable as Satan on the set of the upcoming flick, "Dear Santa.""

  5. Hedash, Kara (2024-04-03). "Post Malone's Next Movie Is More Promising After Road House's $85 Million Success". Screen Rant. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     The article notes: "Next up, Post Malone will star in the upcoming Christmas comedy Dear Santa alongside Jack Black and Keegan-Michael Key. It's unclear who Post Malone will be playing in Dear Santa, but the movie's premise will undoubtedly catch attention, considering it follows a young kid who accidentally writes a letter to Satan (Black) instead of Santa ahead of the Christmas holiday. The movie also reunites Black with the Farrelly Brothers, who collaborated together on 2001's Shallow Hal. Dear Santa will be another chance for Post Malone to showcase his comedic chops while also trying his hand at a Christmas movie for the first time in his acting career."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dear Santa to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: both keep votes appear to have missed the films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines part of NFILM. Is the production itself notable? I don't see any evidence that there is, which would make this an improper AfC acceptance and lead to redraftification until we have a release date. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  ??? I don't think Cunard nor myself have missed that part, no. Cunard even quoted it VERBATIM in his !vote. Rather, maybe you missed the part in our !votes when we found it is notable, explained why and/or the evidence presented by Cunard above, present in the page or existing online Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Cunard quoted it verbatim, yes, but his sources don't address it at all? All of these quotes he's pulled are basically "this movie is coming up! it's started shooting! here are some guys who are in it!" That's not the production of the movie being notable. That's simply people saying that the movie is currently being produced. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It might have enoough to pass GNG, but it's simply a news story at this point. Might never get released. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC

• Draft until it's a bit further in the production cycle. TO9SOON. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The production itself meets WP:GNG. See above sources by Cunard. C F A 💬 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Dobley missile strike

Dobley missile strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present). One of hundreds of airstrikes conducted in Somalia. Fails WP:GNG to stand on its own. Sourcing is routine news coverage and not WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Somalia, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - This is the only Tommahawk missile strike to have occurred during the Somali civil war, it therefore is clearly notable enough to stand on its own.XavierGreen (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present): per nom. Coverage is not WP:SUSTAINED and no evidence of a WP:LASTING impact. An (unfortunately) WP:RUNOFTHEMILL airstrike; content can be merged into the timeline article. It's more likely to actually be read there than in a separate article anyways. C F A 💬 02:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge per CFA. The argument for the only instance of something happening is, while an indication of importance, not an argument of notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Laboratory Response Network

Laboratory Response Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:RS. Redirect to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of which it is a part. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Behavioural science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "No reliable sources"? There is one reliable source. None of the included material would be found in the CDC article. My vote: Retain. Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

    Per WP:GNG, the topic should receive SIGCOV in multiple RS, which having only one source does not satisfy. In addition, the coverage is simply WP:DICT, not WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps a merge. Longhornsg (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• 'Redirect as above as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Keep, Redirect or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

FASCIA (database)

FASCIA (database) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete or merge into National Security Agency. One of many databases used by the security agency. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and independent notability as a database separate from its use by the NSA and its inclusion in the global surveillance disclosures. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Needs expansion, but here is a source from 2016. jp×g🗯️ 08:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIALMENTION, not WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstfruits

Firstfruits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sustained, independent coverage in one article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Invasion of the United States

Invasion of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article has substantial issues including general copy-editing, severe lack of sources for much of what is stated, and is a general mishmash of actual "invasions", speculative ideas about potential invasions, and (until recent edits) covering completely non-related topics such as nuclear and cyberattacks.

Believe article should be moved to draft given the significant levels of issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify Even with the nom's rightful removal of sci-fi cryptofacist fanfiction that took the article completely off the rails, this article is in need of serious help and sourcing, maybe even an entirely new title. As is, 'invasion' is doing very heavy lifting here, as only Pearl Harbor and Imperial Army attempts to get to the mainland during WWII could really be considered as such. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. A reasonable person could absolutely make the case that putting all these disparate events into one article isn't WP:OR, but it feels like OR to me. The burning of DC during the War of 1812 and Pearl Harbor and the start of the Mexican-American War are all important events that should (and do) have their own coverage, but putting them all together without directly addressing that they are in most respects very different events seems like the passive suggestion of a connection that may not be merited in fact or sourcing. I think it's possible to write an article that is not subject to this problem, but it would look very different from this one. Off the top of my head, it's that "invasion" suggests that one party was the aggressor, and the relationships between America-Britain, America-Mexico, and America-Japan right before the invasion events were all very different. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I can see no purpose in draftifying; this article is a mess of pure WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fine as a category. In theory "Invasions of the United States" could be something, but better to start from scratch. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• As currently written, this is probably a WP:COATRACK. Nevertheless, I would be inclined to keep, but make it as a List page. As of note, we have a disambig. page Invasion USA. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete Serves no real purpose. Way too much SYNTH. Also, the redirect has nothing to do with this page. It's referencing movie titles and a single album. Intothatdarkness 19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Special Security Office

Special Security Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete or merge into classified information in the United States. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, this is (a) a real functional part of the U.S. federal government (albeit distributed across multiple arms of government), (b) serves a crucial part in the keeping of secrets, and (c) attested to by multiple reliable sources. — The Anome (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Can you provide the multiple reliable sources that establish notability? The ones currently in the article are not secondary sources that we would use to establish notability, nor do they include WP:SIGCOV of the article subject. Longhornsg (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• This is a short article. Thus Merge to Classified information in the United States while also copying the data to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of State and National Security Council. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep if even one Wikipedian volunteers to do the legwork. I took under ten minutes and hit up Google and Google Scholar. I found several sources that look promising and linked to them on the article talk page here: [8]. I have not perused any of these sources in detail, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them aren't usable, but I'm satisfied enough that enough reliable sourcing to justify an article on this topic exists. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  The sources provided are either additional recitations of the same definition that do not address WP:NOTDICT or are WP:TRIVIALMENTION that do not address WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer's Network

National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer's Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG from lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

National Security Operations Center

National Security Operations Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to National Security Agency. Watch center not inherently notable on its own per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Longhornsg (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Al Qaeda Network Exord

Al Qaeda Network Exord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject of a New York Times article in 2008, one of thousands of unremarkable exords that the U.S. military executes every years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to War on Terror, possibly also Al Qaeda. Useful information which has now been turned into Wikiformat and should not be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge with War on terror.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Covered in foreign media [9] and some journals [10], [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Cliff Chenfeld

Cliff Chenfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Clearly unnotable. All but one of the sources are about his record company or Kidz Bop. The sole source documenting him is an interview. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, United States of America, and Ohio. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• weak delete: Should be notable with articles such as [12], but I don't find enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Coverage now in the article is mostly about his business ventures, not about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Clappers Records

Clappers Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I just attempted to find sourcing for this article in effort to conduct wp:before and no significant citations exist that demonstrate wp:n. I would like to propose either a move to a larger article on reggae or outright deletion. This article has clearly been lingering for a very long time without any significant improvements. Variety312 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as lacking indepth sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I think we should be careful about deleting this. It seems to have a significant cultural impact on rap and reggae. It has an entry here which is interesting, and at African American Research Perspectives [13], of which I can only see a small part. The label had one release which seems to be of particular significance [14]. I'm not finding enough coverage for a standalone article. Perhaps redirect to How We Gonna Make the Black Nation Rise?? It seems to be significant enough to WP:PRESERVE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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 redirect‎ to Square dance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Western promenade dance

Western promenade dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I could find very little coverage about this dance. The article was PRODed in 2022 with the rationale being it is indistinct from square dance, but this is not clear due to the lack of coverage. Was later dePRODed with the suggestion to redirect to square dance or country–western dance. I would slightly prefer deletion but I'm okay with redirecting. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and United States of America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It's discussed in square dance books here [15] in a bit of detail and here [16] in no detail. It really doesn't seem to be used much as a term. I think redirect to Square dance is best considering the article's long life, although even this is a stretch as it seems to be linked only by lists of dances (including one that redirects to this one). Oblivy (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to square dance seems the most appropriate choice given the page history and sourcing discussed above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Alex (Supergirl)

Alex (Supergirl) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only one entry, Alex Danvers, has a standalone article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Disambiguations, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete dab not needed per WP:ONEOTHER. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect to Alex Danvers. It's hard to add a disambig hatnote to a table (list of episodes, as the other meaning is an tv show episode). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. There are clearly two topics that could be this entry. Having this lead to a disambiguation page prevents accidental links from happening as bots notify users when adding these. There is zero upsides to deleting or redirecting this. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep this is not a case of WP:ONEOTHER as there is no clear main topic. Broc (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I feel as there is as the episodes title is clearly referencing the character. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, two topics. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Disambiguation page only links to one article, the other is just an article where the second subject is mentioned. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The standalone article should be primary, with a hatnote being used to direct readers to the other Alex, who is only mentioned in the article body. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Alex Danvers and add hatnote to season page per WP:TWODABS/WP:SIMILAR/WP:ONEOTHER. Primary topic with only one other topic that isn't stand-alone article-worthy. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Alex Danvers. I've added coverage of the first topic (the episode "Alex") to the second topic (Alex Danvers).[17] There is a redirect (Alex (Supergirl episode)) that could be used for a hatnote on Alex Danvers#Season 2. I wasn't sure if it was okay to do a see also for a redirect, but it makes sense here. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Alex Danvers. The article now has information about the episode "Alex." This two-item disambiguation page serves no useful purpose. If not redirect, then simply delete. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Alex Danvers. The only two topics are the character (who has a standalone article) and a TV show episode named after that character (which does not have a standalone article). A hatnote is definitely sufficient for dealing with the small number of people who would want to go to the list entry about the episode. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, again. Arguments are almost evenly divided between those wanting to Keep the page and those advocating a Redirect (with a few Delete opinions mixed in). So, we need some more policy-based arguments or some participants reconsidering their "votes". No consensus closures tend to make all sides dissatisfied so that is the last resort if nothing changes here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Alex Danvers with hatnote per Quicole above. As has been mentioned, the episode is stand-alone and is referencing the character regardless.

JoeJShmo^💌 08:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Islamic Association of Palestine

Islamic Association of Palestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very obvious WP:POVFORK of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, spends much of the article talking about the trial and the same people from a very biased POV. Not certain if there are notable differences from the HLF article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Some Info:

Initial Merge Discussion

I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.

Information about the trial

The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.

Information about what the IAP

I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.

I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.

The HLF article makes more sense and seems more objective without having to go full "Civilization Jihad." User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Not seeing how it's a purported POVFORK. Per sources, the Islamic Association of Palestine is a separate organization from the Holy Land Foundation, so they should not be in the same article. An editor's perception of bias is not a reason for AfD, which is determined by coverage in WP:RS. Levvitt is a scholar and reliable source. Affiliation with an organization perceived as bias does not affect whether the source is credible and a reliable source of facts. Lots of coverage in source across the ideological spectrum that clearly establishes WP:GNG:
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• Significant coverage in scholarly work The Muslim Brotherhood and the West by scholar Martyn Frampton and published by Harvard University Press
• [22] in scholarly work by scholars Thomas. M. Pick, Anne Speckhard, and Beatrice Jacuch. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  First article seems fine.

  Second, third, fourth article is about the HLF trial.

  Fifth source mentions IAP for one paragraph, and includes HLF.

  6th source uses a scratch note from one Muslim Brotherhood guy that was never accepted by any other muslim brotherhood. This 1991 note became the basis for the Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory in the 2000s to 2010s.

  matthew Levitt was the key witness for HLF trial, and his work is entirely about proving financial connections between groups. His writings are about the holy land 5.

  i argue that if this article is mostly about the trial to convict the 5, and the IAP is not sufficiently notable by itself except in context of the trial, it should be merged (maybe keep as a subsection in HLF what it did). User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd argue that a passing mention (one word mention) in three of these sources also suggests it is a passing reference as part of discussion for the HLF trial.

  I want to find more sourcing beyond the HLF trial and its repercussions, that there is enough info besides just the HLF trial to suggest it warrants an article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  That Matthew Levitt source is used 11 times throughout this article, when in the Holy Land article, his sourcing is used only once suggests a POV Fork.

  A review of his work on NYTimes

  "Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgements and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies — an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees... None of this would matter if Levitt used the center's analyses critically, but he doesn't appear to. As a result, there will be readers of this book who will see it as fronting for the Israeli intelligence establishment and its views."

  Not arguing he's not academic, just biased (As is every source on Israel/palestine), and that citing him heavily about the trial and the evidence tying the defendents together in one article, and not citing heavily in another suggests a POV fork. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  So add more sources. This is not what a WP:POVFORK is. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The Islamic Association of Palestine is a different organization from the Holy Land Foundation. How is this a POV fork of the Holy Land Foundation - the article does not exclusively rely on Levitt's writings, directly cites an FBI report, and refers to a different organization from the HLF. Both were convicted of providing material support for terrorism and were proven to be fundraising arms for Hamas, alongside the Quranic Literacy Institute. All three organizations are notable as per the general notability guideline as per the sources Longhornsg provided. This article could easily be repaired by bringing in sources from the other two articles about the Holy Land Foundation case, so that the article is not largely reliant on Levitt, given possible concerns of bias. In order for something to be a POV fork, it must be on the same topic as another article. The Holy Land Foundation article is about the Holy Land Foundation, whereas this article is about the Islamic Association of Palestine.
• TL;DR: No, this is not a POV fork because it simply isn't on the same topic as the Holy Land Foundation article and the Islamic Association of Palestine clearly meets WP:GNG. »PKMNLives 🖛 Talk 04:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  It discusses the same trial to the same five men for 95% of the article. The suggestion to bring it into line by including sourcing from the other article would be to keep discussing the trial.

  There is not enough about the organization by itself, outside of the context of the trial, and it is not notable except as part of the HLF trial. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

VanGrunsven RV-2

VanGrunsven RV-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG, no mention in RS besides passing ones. Is not individually notable beyond its series. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, Technology, Aviation, and United States of America. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep -- the EAA video cited in the article has the interviewer ask the designer specifically about this design, and they discuss it in more than passing. The video from Van's about the restoration of another design which uses part of this design is also more than a passing reference, but since it's from the company themselves, it's not truly independent of the subject. In a case like this, where we have a series of 13 out of 14 closely-related articles that are all patently notable, and 1 out of 14 that's iffy, I think it makes sense to WP:IAR if we don't have the magic three sources.

[edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator[23] is one of the worst examples of biting I can recall seeing. And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

When did U5-tagging an unsourced autobiography that promotes the author's resume become "biting"? Are we so scared of scaring off newbies that we allow whatever promotion and spam they insert? Has the blame shifted from spammers and COIS to the new page patrollers and admins who work the speedy deletion process? Air on White (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please take some time to read over this section of the behavioural guideline and reflect a little. With behavioural guidelines, it's less about what you did, and how you did it. I completely believe that you acted in 100% good faith here, but the outcome was still a bad one for the newbie and for the project. I've done patrolling in the past, and I know what a grind it can be (and how valuable it is to the encyclopedia). But if sustaining that fight is taking its toll and leading to actions like this, it might be time for a rest for a while and work on writing about something that brings you joy and recharges you. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you concretely explain what I did wrong? How is this case is different from normal? Are you yourself aware of your patronizing, judgmental tone? Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very happy to dive into this in detail with you; but I'll take it to your talk page. I apologise if you don't like my tone; it's not my intention to come across that way. That said, there's a profound difference between two highly experienced editors communicating in a forum like this vs how a highly experienced editor with tools permissions treated a well-meaning newbie. I would additionally suggest however, that both your responses here confirm my impression that time on the front line might be taking a toll. More shortly in a different place.--Rlandmann (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to promote anything. I am content with my employment (i.e. not looking to get into anything else) and my company makes business-to-business products (i.e. it's not like a Wikipedia reader is going to decide to buy a cargo jet after reading that I work on them). I thought that writing about myself would (A) establish that I'm knowledgeable about my field (including awareness about good public sources to get relevant details from) and (B) show that I'm trying to be honest and to do things in good faith since I'm tying my actions on Wikipedia to my real name and career, not an anonymous pseudonym. But, ok, if there is no advantage to being a real expert rather than a random anonymous stranger on the internet, I can create a pseudonymous screen name instead and use that (other than for uploading images, which I do intend to retain ownership of). Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Now to the actual argument of the keep post. Interviews do not always contribute to notability. The Van's video most definitely does not count as a source as it is not independent at all - all company videos can be assumed to be promotional sources that do not undergo the rigorous fact-checking of RS. It provides 0 sources toward the "magic three." The only other source is the EAA video. Can you provide the timestamp of the interview where the RV-2 is mentioned? It is also equivalent to a serious, reliable documentary? At best, it is 1 source. No amount of invalid sources adds up to notability—0+0+0+...+0 = 0. This keep case stretches and twists policy—the independence of sources and the threshold of GNG—to shoehorn a topic of supposedly inherited notability into Wikipedia. Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So, just verifying my own understanding here: when you opened this AfD and asserted that there were "no mention in RS besides passing ones", you had not actually viewed the sources? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep for now Comment. This article has only been here a few days. I think it's too early to judge what RS might or might not be out there. By all means tag it as short on RS, but deletion is premature. Having said that, Van's Aircraft's own puff about its planes starts with the RV-3, so seeking sufficient RS to support this article could be a fool's errand. Or maybe merging into Van's Aircraft will prove a good middle way. I'd suggest we revisit this in a month or so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  [Update] See comment below following relisting, now that some of that time has passed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm new to Wikipedia and I obviously can't claim to understand the rules and the culture thoroughly. If you guys decide that the article should be deleted, then, that's fine, do what you think is best.

FWIW, my rationale for creating the article was the following: Van's Aircraft is far and away the world leader in experimental airplanes, with over 11000 airplanes flying and countless others being built. When people in the aviation world first learn about Van's - or maybe after investigating RV airplanes for a while - the question naturally comes up: If it's so easy to find out about the RV-1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, then... What about the RV-2, 5, and 11? Now, again, I'm not 100% sure that Wikipedia is the place for (at least a very summarized version of) the answer, but... Firstly: Wikipedia already had an article for the RV-11 (which made it a little further in its construction but was also unfinished). And secondly: Wikipedia has countless articles about concept aircraft that never made it into the air, included in the encyclopedia because they're part of a series where people often wonder about missing numbers (The X-6 and X-54 didn't make it very far at all, and the X-33 and X-57 were cancelled after substantial prototyping and subsystems tests but before completion of the final vehicle), or because the development project was large and/or resulted in relevant technologies or partnerships or R&D later used for other things (National AeroSpace Plane, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, High Speed Civil Transport, Aerion SBJ and AS2...). So I figured, if all those X planes and supersonic transports that never made it off the drawing board all warrant Wikipedia articles (and the RV-11 apparently does too), then the RV-2 probably does too.

But, again, I'm new here, and if my reasoning goes against how you guys think Wikipedia should be run, then, do whatever you think is best. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In short: The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability states, under "Projects and studies", that such aircraft "are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project (...) is a significant project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft". It seems to me that the RV-2 and its article meet this criterion. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am so glad to see you back! I was really worried that we might have scared you off.

Note that that guideline is an unofficial one and does not trump the General Notability Guidelines. (It's also ancient and reflects Wikipedia practices from 10-15 years ago, so needs to be brought into line with current practice...) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the !votes thus far all favor keep, their arguments call for (reasoned) exceptions to policy/guidelines rather than basing themselves on it, so a relist to allow for further discussion seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

On a point of order, my "Keep for now" is based on Articles for deletion where it says; "Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article by conducting additional research." (my bold). I am pointing out above that those attempts need time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment -- I endorse User:Rosguill's summary of the situation. And, after further research and further discussion with the contributor, I'll add that it seems really unlikely that further RS will be forthcoming anytime soon. Based on the sources that we do have, then at worst, this material should be merged elsewhere. However, there's no clear, logical place to do that. In other, similar situations, we merge information about minor aircraft projects (particularly unbuilt or unfinished ones) into the article on a related design. However, in this case, this was a stand-alone design that isn't related to anything else that Richard VanGrunsven designed or built. Which means that his bio is the most obvious destination if we were to do a merge, but would create serious undue weight there. So yes, if we do decide to keep this information in a separate article, it is as an exception, and one based purely on information architecture, not on the Notability of this design per se. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Bio. Thank you for your additional research. I don't think your suggested merge to his bio would be unduly undue, as it were. There are several paras about his planes there and the meat of this one is really quite small. Alternatively, since the canopy was used for the VanGrunsven RV-5, it might be merged there, but I agree that is not very satisfactory. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [add clear !vote — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)]

• Merge (selectively) into Van's Aircraft#RV aircraft series as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a well-developed article. gidonb (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging everyone who wanted this merged: Rlandmann and Steelpillow. Best, gidonb (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks User:gidonb -- the problem here is that the RV-2 and RV-11 are not Van's Aircraft designs or products, and should be removed from that list ASAP. (I've left them there for now pending this discussion) Note how they're missing from the timeline graphic immediately below. Creating a similar list of all Richard VanGrunsven's designs in his bio would be one merge that could work and still avoid unduly unbalancing that article. I'd hate to lose the images of the RV-2 and RV-11 now that we have them though, and also don't want to dominate VanGrunsven's bio with a table of all his designs and pictures. If the outcome of this process is merge, maybe we should create a separate list article for all VanGrunsven's designs, with an image of each. I think that would cover all the concerns that have come up in this discussion. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep for now as the best way forward, given Rlandmann's input. gidonb (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Brower Youth Awards

Brower Youth Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No WP:SIGCOV about the awards themselves to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Environment, and North America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Not an expert on this process but it seems that even a quick online search yields entire news articles about the awards and winners. Just a few I found in 5 minutes:

• Mercury-News
• Grist
• The Nation

What's the process where it's like this article just needs more citations demonstrating WP:SIGCOV?

208.58.205.67 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@208.58.205.56 I am not sure, personally I have no interest in fixing the article Mr Vili talk 06:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of the recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: As a response to @208.58.205.56, The Nation looks like a reliable source and is green on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list and there is no consensus for The Mercury News and Grist.com. However those three articles are about winners of the award, not significant coverage about the award itself. There are other sources such as Yale University ([[[24]]]), University of New Hampshire ([[[25]]]), and Institute of Competition Sciences ([[[26]]]), that discuss the background of the award. I think this at least merits to be kept as a stub and/or a list.Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect - Earth Island Institute - The problem with the Yale, University of New Hampshire and Institute of Competition Sciences pages are that these are all non independent/primary links for people wanting to apply for the award. What I am not seeing is any source that demonstrates this award is notable, by which some secondary source talks about it as a thing in itself, and not as "our student won" or "this is how to apply". It is not a huge award, but it is an award of Earth Island Institute whose notability is indicated in having a page. That page has one line on these awards that could be expanded with one of Prof.PMarini's sources to describe the award (information that is not clearly on the page, so not a merge), and that is then all we really need. Rather than keeping this as a stub, per Prof.PMarini, we can keep that information where it sits in the context of the institute's work. The redirect preserves page history should this become notable by secondary sources taking notice, and the long list of winners can go because Wikipedia is not a database (WP:NOT), and this is all unsourced and outdated. There are 5 years missing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorted by State

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