Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

WP:AFD/USA

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to United States of America.

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

General[edit]

Meritt North[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actress and writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actresses or writers. The main notability claim on the table here is that her work exists, which is not automatic grounds for an article -- the notability test doesn't hinge on doing stuff per se, it hinges on the amount of third-party coverage and analysis that has or hasn't been paid to the stuff she did in WP:GNG-worthy sources like media or books.
But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- audiobook narration and writing credits sourced to the works' presence on online bookstores, acting credits sourced to her own self-published acting résumé, volunteer work sourced to the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, and I've already stripped a good half-dozen citations to IMDb on the grounds of IMDb not being a reliable source -- with not a whit of GNG-building coverage about her in reliable sources shown at all.
You don't make a writer notable by sourcing her books to Amazon as evidence that they exist, you make a writer notable by sourcing her books to reviews of the books by professional literary critics in newspapers or magazines as evidence that they got significant attention. You don't make an actress notable by sourcing her acting roles to IMDb or her own résumé, you make an actress notable by sourcing her acting roles to reviews of the films or television shows that singled her performance out for third-party analysis. And on and so forth.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bearcat,

I appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns raised about the citations supporting the role of Krystle Minkoff as an actress. It is important to ensure that the information on Wikipedia is both accurate and verifiable.

Regarding the citations numbered 12-17, I would like to emphasize that these sources are independently verified and adequately support her credited role as an actress under her given legal name, Krystle Minkoff. These credits are also reflected on IMDb, which follows strict guidelines for crediting individuals in the entertainment industry.

It is important to note that the aim should be to enhance the quality of information on Wikipedia, not to indiscriminately nominate entire articles for deletion due to issues with specific sections or titles. Each piece of information should be evaluated on its own merits and improved where necessary.

There are numerous citations that document her work as an actress, voice actress, and author under both Meritt North and Krystle Minkoff. These sources collectively substantiate her contributions and career, aligning with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and notability.

I hope this clarifies the situation, and I am open to working collaboratively to address any specific concerns you may have to ensure the information remains reliable and well-documented.

Best regards,

ScorpioKLM Mooresklm2016 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is room for improvement or a few items that you absolutely insist must be removed, let's work together to resolve them. I don't think that just because you may take issue with one or a couple items, that the entire page is not useful, informational, and in the public interest.

ScorpioKLM Mooresklm2016 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again: we are not looking for simple verification that she had acting roles. The notability test for an actress is not passed by listing acting roles, it's passed by showing evidence that people without a vested interest in her career (namely journalists and film critics) have assessed her performances as being significant enough to analyze in prose. Such as reviews of the films or television shows which singled her performances out for attention, or journalist-written news articles profiling her. The notability test for a Wikipedia article is not "did stuff", it's "had independent third-party attention and analysis bestowed upon the stuff that she did by people who weren't just being paid to publicize her". So establishing notability as an actress doesn't hinge on her own résumé, or IMDB: it hinges on showing that her work as an actress has made her a subject that journalists cover as newsworthy in sources independent of herself. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Bearcat, how about deleting the title of actress and the acting credits table. Would this suit you? ScorpioKLM

No, that wouldn't "suit" me, because you haven't properly established her notability as a writer or audiobook narrator either. Those work the same way: her notability for either of those things is not established by citing her work to itself as proof that it exists, and still requires literary critics to establish her books as significant by reviewing them in newspapers, magazines or literary journals.
No matter what occupation a person works in, they always still have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it in reliable sources independent of their own public relations materials, and you simply haven't used any GNG-worthy sourcing to support this article at all. So the problem isn't resolved just by taking acting roles out of the article, because you haven't properly sourced her writing or narration work either. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, in order for IMDb to credit officially, it has to be reviewed and approved by IMDb, casting directors, directors, and other actors. It is up for scrutiny by all and goes through a lengthy period of scrutinization before being attributed a final credit. There are 3 titles to which Meritt aka Krystle Minkoff and credited by such, has this blue official IMDb credit. Just a consideration.

Here is the strict incliusion of credits criteria that must be met on IMDb. https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/imdb-credit-eligibility-faq/GXMWNMB8LQCZYFH8?ref_=helpart_nav_10# What do you mean by "eligible"? A. As stated above, the first and most important thing is to have received a credit on the title. There are a few additional requirements -- we normally only list people who were credited in the original version of a title. For films, this means we'll only list people credited in the initial original theatrical release; for TV titles, it means people credited when the show first aired. B. My credit should be there -- why doesn't it show?

The vast majority of credits are submitted by users and/or people connected with the production of a title. If your credit is not there, it probably just means nobody submitted it yet. You are more than welcome to submit it yourself. You do not have to wait for the producers or the director of the film to send it: just find the title in the database, click on the Edit page button at the bottom of that page and follow the on-screen instructions. (Meaning your official IMDb credit cannot be submitted by yourself, but by other producers and directors of the film) My credit used to be listed but now it's gone! Why?

C. When a title is announced or in production and is added to the database, our editors will normally start accepting credits for it. These credits, as per the disclaimer on the page, are always subject to change and can be removed at any time. When the title is actually released (or about to be released) and credits are finalized by the production, our editors routinely compare our listing with the actual on-screen credits and delete any entries that cannot be verified or do not match. If you used to be listed on a title and your credit has disappeared, it means our editors could not verify its accuracy during one of these routine checks.

D. There are 4 credits that have been verified by IMDb.

2017 Reelz Murder Made Me Famous | 2 Episodes Patron & Mother

2017 John Gotti | Season 3, Episode 8 Steak House Patron

2017 David Koresh | Season 3, Episode 7 Mother

2016 Queen of the South (TV series) | 4 episodes Campaign Supporter

Jorge Simes[edit]

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

No indication of notoriety per either WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. I couldn't independently find awards or significant coverage by specialized, independent sources. Rkieferbaum (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Argentina, and United States of America. Rkieferbaum (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off Road with Gul Panag[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divide Pictures[edit]

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

Exists but doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG / WP:ORG. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Here we are, a month after Azzarello's death and there's no evidence of lasting coverage or information about his significance to merit a merger elsewhere. The most recent coverage, also represented in the article, is of the donation of his kidneys. A redirect to List_of_political_self-immolations#2020s where this is mentioned is probably more than sufficient. The AfD was well attended, but explicitly allowed revisiting it, so bringing it back here. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Politics, United States of America, and New York. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political self-immolations#2020s. I was considering nominating this for deletion myself yesterday. No evidence of sustained coverage with the article heavily reliant on primary sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the above per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. No sustained coverage which fails WP:NOTNEWS. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above and WP:NOTNEWS. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait - There are still explicit references to the self-immolation being made as it occurred during the trail kickoff. Wait until after the trial to see if it meets WP:NOTNEWS.GobsPint (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "New Episode Of The Josh Marshall Podcast: Cricket's Revenge". TPM – Talking Points Memo. May 9, 2024.

Mark Bauman[edit]

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

Moved unilaterally to mainspace after prior draftification. I see poor referencing, churnalism, and lists of "stuff" albeit as prose. WP:BIO insists on references for facts subject to challenge, and there is a shortfall, so I see a WP:BIO failure. I also see WP:ADMASQ for a WP:ROTM "cross-platform media executive, filmmaker, print and broadcast journalist, and environmentalist." doing his job. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. The sourcing used is either primary or passing mentions. Nothing we'd use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques").

I can't assess https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/business/grid-news-site-live.html (walled).
https://www.axios.com/2021/07/10/dc-journalists-launch-media-company is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/03/grid-news-the-messenger-startup is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, zero discussion of Bauman.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/tech-exec-invests-in-digital-news-startup-launched-by-veteran-journalists.html is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman; everything seemingly about him is actually claims about the startup attributed to Bauman.
https://digiday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/07/DIGIDAY-MEDIA-AWARDS_Winners-Guide-2023_062923-2.pdf is a non-sequitur.
I can't assess https://www.adweek.com/media/laura-mcgann-has-reimagined-reporting-using-an-intersectional-structurally-focused-approach/ (walled). Given the article is about someone else, I can't imagine this is too useful for an article on Bauman.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181001-is-this-the-last-chance-to-see-the-titanic is useless for notability (too sparse, possibly wrong subject). Shit He Says, no actual discussion of Bauman. I should note that my own search for sources (string: "Mark Bauman") returned primarily non-responsive content, so I would be very concerned about conflating multiple Mark Baumans.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190519214223/https://www.virtualwonders.com/ is useless for notability (website homepage).
https://thinkwellgroup.com/blog/2020/08/21/exploring-the-details-with-virtual-wonders/ is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman.
https://wyse.gmu.edu/mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). I note this bio omits anything involving GRID or any media startups; one would think, given their journalism pedigree is mentioned, that these would be brought up.
https://thepearsoninstitute.org/speaker/mark-bauman is useless for notability (connexion to subject). The image on this page looks like a completely different guy from the WYSE image, disregarding the glasses.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/ng-live-engineering-exploration-technology/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-17-ca-cinefile17_-story.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Shit He Says, no discussion of Bauman.
https://www.documentary.org/column/festival-focus-national-geographic-all-roads-film-festival is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
We don't cite IMDb (no editorial oversight).
https://www.media.mit.edu/events/media-lab-conversations-series-mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Event programme.
https://www.darwinfoundation.org/en/about/our-people2/board-of-directors/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). He's on the BoD for the Darwin Foundation.
https://www.asoc.org/about/our-team/#board is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Again, BoD.
https://conservefish.org/news/marine-fish-conservation-network-welcomes-tom-sadler-new-deputy-director-mark-bauman-board-directors-member/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). Press release from an organisation he was joining.
https://voicesforbiodiversity.org/about/advisory-board is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.
We can't use https://wyse.gmu.edu/ (website homepage).
https://mediaschool.indiana.edu/news-events/news/item.html?n=media-school-visiting-professors-include-award-winning-media-executive-and-npr-tv-critic is useless for notability (connexion to subject). News from a university who's bringing him on as a guest professor.
https://www.cmu.edu/homepage/creativity/2010/fall/gigapixel-show.shtml is useless for notability (too sparse, connexion to subject). Name-drop in an article about an event CMU is holding.
We can't use either YouTube source (unknown provenance). YouTube videos must be (1) produced by an outlet we would consider to be a reliable source and (2) uploaded to that outlet's verified channel to be linked to, let alone cited.
https://thepearsoninstitute.org/globalforum2022 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Expo held by an organisation he's on the BoD of, and where he was scheduled to speak.
We can't use https://www.erskine.edu/2023/02/07/stukes-lecture-set-for-march-1/ (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this? (If this is a press release, it's useless for notability (no editorial oversight).)
https://www.iinteract.org/about-us is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.
https://www.wliw.org/about/awards/ is a non-sequitur.
https://crossingborders.education/people/mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.

None of the sources I can assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Journalism, Environment, Russia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a link for the NY Times article, it isn't about the person discussed here, mostly about the Grid website [1] Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Contreras[edit]

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

I found mentions of the subject in reliable sources, but I didn't find significant coverage. The single reference in the article only verifies that Contreras worked with Current 93 and Baby Dee. toweli (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. toweli (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Amin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP of an activist, deleted at AfD in January and immediately recreated. Notability is not evident to me at all, as the article is a collection of activities which are run of the mill. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Egypt, and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with small potential Wikipedia:CONFLICT) as I said in previous discussion. The recreated article removed non-notable information and sources to address previous reasons for deletion, so "it was deleted before" is insufficient reason: this is a new article that should be judged on its own merits, but I still believe the subject has established notability due especially to articles about her in non-English sources. There is a danger of underrepresentation due to Wikipedia:Systemic bias if we insist on more notable English-language sources without recognising the Egyptian coverage as notable. Also, the previous deletion occurred just 8 hours after a single extra delete vote was placed after 3 relistings, so I believed that immediately recreating the article in a form that addressed the reasons for deletion was justified. With regard to Jana's activities being "run of the mill", correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability is that it's not up to us editors to judge whether or not a subject's activities are extraordinary in their own right, but merely to summarise what sources are saying if the sources meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and notability. Hence the question should not be "did Jana do something worthy of a Wikipedia article" but "are sources giving Jana coverage that is worthy of a Wikipedia article". (My possibly-biased opinion happens to be that the answer to both questions is "yes" but if we're supposed to focus on the second then no need to argue about the first.) Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m not suggesting we need English language sources. We need in depth coverage in independent sources in any language. The piece in Elle is an interview where she talks about herself, as is the piece in Marie Claire. Two other sources are authored by her. Now This News is a passing mention. Some of the others have a strong whiff of PR placements. They tell us she works for an NGO, did a TED talk, and attended a lecture by Malala Yousefzai. She hasn’t received a well-known and significant award or honor, or been nominated for such an award several times; or made a widely recognized contribution in a specific field, and isn’t in a Dictionary of National Biography. So what exactly is notable about her? Mccapra (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is interviewed by a source, then the fact that the source decided to interview the person might in itself confer notability if that source does not interview just anybody. So I don't think we should dismiss interviews just because they are interviews without also asking the question: how difficult is it to get an interview in that publication? I'm imagining it's not that easy to get into Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia for example. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 07:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Redwine[edit]

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

Current sources don't show sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG and film/tv credits don't pass WP:NACTOR. A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up in-depth sources which showed notability. Suonii180 (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Suonii180 (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legrek Parond[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources, and WP:BEFORE did not reveal any. Article was previously sourced with a longer collection of Amazon links to what appear to be his works. Appears to call himself an author, CEO, rapper, and singer. However, I can't find anything to establish notability in any of these fields. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Jamaica, and United States of America. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources found are his website, amazon links, then various social media. This is PROMO, with no RS found. What's now in the article are primary works. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Bernhardt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article recreated Sadads (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, United States of America, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject wasn't notable in 2007, isn't notable now. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't pass notability criteria. Wizardman 12:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UL 365[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources in article are primary, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth from an independent source that meets WP:GNG. I am also nominating the following related pages:

// Timothy :: talk 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Never used talk pages before, is this how we "talk".

I need to google many of the terms in your talk comments?

Reply No need for Google, I have wikilinked the above terms and you might find Wikipedia:Glossary helpful for any other terms you come across. // Timothy :: talk 23:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will be back in about 20 hours, and will reply then.

Some things may be a bit circular at the moment, please bear with me. I am adding the content as I can at work, estimating a week.

Background, I am a security architect, and for work I needed the information I am authoring. I am not affiliated with UL.

I have discovered that the information I and my colleagues needed, is (mostly) not found on the internet. It is many, many closed areas. I feel this information should be in Wikipedia as #3 of the Wikipedia:Five_pillars states. I am privileged to have access to many of the usges of these standards, and the standards themselves. Theses standards are an unseen impact on security, but very large impact they do have. See businesswire.com's "Global Alarm Monitoring Market Report 2021 Market to Reach 57.7 Billion by 2026"[2] for some ideas as to the scope.

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline I see "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article."

Maybe the items I am putting together should go in one page. But "Wikipedia has no firm rules" Jpyeron (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, regarding the secondary sources - there are many non public secondary sources. At the same time a standard is measured not by its citations, but by its usage.

Look at many devices, see the stickers? Here you can see all the companies saying they are compliant with UL 2610: [3]https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22UL+2610%22#ip=1 Jpyeron (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to continue spending my time improving the content, but I would like to get some community consensus on that the articles are kept or merged. I am thinking they should be merged in to one page covering the security standards.

Based on my reading of WP:GNG it is not applicable (passes), and WP:SIRS is uniquely narrow for this case. Again, 5th pillar. Can someone cite specifics?

Will follow up in a day. Jpyeron (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the AFD is now classified as "could not be categorised due to insufficient information in the article". I want to continue putting in the information, but: I do not have responses to my above clarifications, and I am not going to put significant investment if it is just going to be deleted.

If the insufficient information is the reason, isn't incubation the proper remedy? Jpyeron (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will merge the articles tomorrow, the new article will have this AFD at the top and the other pages will redirect to it. I think this addresses the "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community."

The new merged article Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring will also eventually have other non-UL items, such as ISO/IEC 22237-6:2024. I will follow up tomorrow. Jpyeron (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friday got away from me, doing the merge now. creating Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring and then setting the redirects. Jpyeron (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you know, but you left the article deletion tag in the new article. Sadustu Tau (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did put it there on purpose, because "removal is not allowed" until consensus. The new article is a merger of the old 3. Jpyeron (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the merger and redirects - I will follow up Monday Jpyeron (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here besides the content creator and the nominator. It looks like the nominator didn't set up any deletion sorting, can a helpful editor like Wcquidditch take care of that for this discussion? Many thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Engineering, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated articles were merged and changed into a redirects two days ago. It's discussed in the above "thread" but that's just Jpeyron making a series of comments and nobody objecting. I don't think this is how things are supposed to be done even as part of a good faith effort to resolve the deletion rationale.
I think the appropriate thing is for @Jpyeron to revert the changes and then propose a merge with a rationale given. The merge article can be moved to draftspace. Note that there are rules about WP:Copying within Wikipedia that may also be at play. Oblivy (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do so, it is hard to do the right thing in a vacuum.

Regarding the merge, I created the pages separate, but after reading up on the AfD and associated items the merger process seemed to be the best logical organization.

But I am a bit confused on the "copying" thing. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed .

Note, this week is going to very busy for me, had dedicated time last week for putting the content in. More time after 3-Jun. Jpyeron (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the preference is for leaving pages for deletion in place so they can be assessed by participating editors. On the other hand (and I do this a lot), editors are encouraged to work on improving articles to prevent deletion. It was just very confusing to click through to the article and see that it had been changed to a redirect.
I guess copying rule doesn't apply. I hadn't looked through the history to see that you were the only editor of those pages.
I'm happy to vote merge -- it does seem to be a good outcome, and if one of the sub-subjects turns out to be notable someone can create a WP:FORK over your redirect page. In which case the copying rule would apply! Oblivy (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer merge as well.

re: "It was just very confusing to click through to the article and see that it had been changed to a redirect." it is why I added the AFD to the top of the new.

Should I revert? It is much easier to edit in the new doc, and continue to add to it. I am going to hold off on the busy work reversion until there is a clear request/preference to revert. Jpyeron (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge General members of the public rely on alarm system standards to assess the quality, safety, and effectiveness of systems they procure, often looking for certification marks to ensure trust in these products. This article provides an overview of these standards to satisfy the curiosity of those who wish to understand the gist without delving into technical details. For industry stakeholders, it highlights how adherence to these standards facilitates compliance and maintains a competitive edge, serving as a gateway for further detailed exploration of specific standards and best practices. Jpyeron (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please clarify for me, what is the Merge target article here? It can't be one that is also nominated for AFD deletion. Are all articles to be Merged to the same target article? Please be very specific on what outcome you want and do not usurp the discussion and Merge and Redirect before this discussion is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this was discussed above. I am new to this process and trying to do the most meaningful work. Do you want me to revert the redirects at this time? Do you want me to remove the AFD from the new target article? Jpyeron (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz as far as I can see, @Jpyeron created a set of pages for these UL specifications, then when @TimothyBlue nominated them for deletion they in good faith decided to merge them into a single larger article at [Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring]]. When it was relisted, I tried to untangle this and got frustrated by the redirects, which led to my comment above. A comment which could have been more welcoming of the efforts as I can't see why the combined article wouldn't be a better outcome assuming it's properly sourced.
@Jpyeron I can't speak for Liz, but I think the AfD notice should be removed. You pasted it in when you created the merge article. I'm going to be bold and remove it as it doesn't belong to that article. Oblivy (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrell Hines[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:SIGCOV. In the article, sources are greatly lacking, and the ones seems unreliable. Applicable to WP:INTERVIEW. Maybe per WP:ATD, It do be redirected to List of American musicians. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [4], [5], [6], [and [7] doesn't make up WP:NSONG. Apart from one or two being an interview is not a criteria for inclusion. Then musician hasn't meet any of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC, but this few mentions shows there is possibility of being notable in the future. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as well as the above-mentioned sources, there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing Sherlock[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK there is one source linked, beyond that I couldn't find anything. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find even one review for NBOOK. Aeon Magazine would count for half of NBOOK, except if you follow the link, it's not a review in Aeon Magazine -- it's a forum thread they hosted, posted by the author announcing the book. I can't turn up evidence of a published Aeon review. (Though the book sounds like a fun riff on Connie Willis's stuff.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pledgie[edit]

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

I'm unable to deorphan this article and upon closer inspection, the article doesn't seem to pass any of the points of WP:GNG. The sources are mainly self-published sources (WP:RSSELF), and the secondary sources are blog posts (possibly falling under WP:USERG), with the only news coverage being hyperlocal. Sources 1 and 2 are blog posts. Sources 3, 5, 7, and 8 are self-published blog posts (with source 3 being a Tweet). Source 4 is from KC Free Press, which seems to be a hyperlocal news organization (but I would say it's closer to a blog). Source 6 links to the topic's GitHub page. Sources 9 and 10 link to the home page to websites, so are not even sources for anything in the article. My research on this topic results in user-generated blog posts, hyper-local news coverage or original sources (such as their website or their GitHub). BlueSharkLagoon (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find articles about people named Pledgie, nothing for this website. Sources used aren't adequate, blogs or primary sources, download sites and the like. This appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my checking, I searched for reliable sources but couldn’t find any with in-depth coverage. The subject fails WP:GNG as it requires multiple in-depth coverages from multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 12:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEON-LP[edit]

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

Notable only on local level, Fox affiliation notwithstanding. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WVXF: it is mentioned there as the predecessor of WVXF's Fox subchannel, which might be enough to make it a valid alternative to deletion. (It does seem odd to think of a Fox affiliate as "not independently notable", but this appears to be one of those rare cases.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Spoon of Chocolate[edit]

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

Article about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
There's a common, but erroneous, belief that the WP:NFF section of WP:NFILM grants an automatic presumption of notability to every film that enters the production pipeline the moment shooting has started on it, even if that's basically the only notability claim the article contains -- but what NFF actually says is that "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."
That is, "notable once principal photography has commenced" is a special criterion that applies to very high-profile films (such as Marvel or Star Wars films) that get such a depth and range production coverage that they'd probably still remain notable even if they failed to ever see release at all, while the bar that most normal films actually have to clear is that they've actually been released and reviewed by film critics.
But what we have for referencing here is one casting announcement and one glancing mention that the idea was in the works 12 years ago in an article about the director's prior film, which isn't nearly enough coverage to get the NFF treatment.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when the film finally sees release, but simply single-sourcing that production has commenced isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are 2 reliable sources that are not blogs discussing the film, The New York Times a newspaper company that exists since 1851 and The Hollywood Reporter, the biggest Hollywood trade in the business. So no the sources aren't unreliable, so your argument about deleting the page are invalid.KingArti (talk) KingArti (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also I provided a 3rd source that filming is actually happening as we speak. KingArti (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, the base notability bar for films is not that production has started; the base notability bar for films is that they have been released to the public and garnered reviews from film critics. And as I noted above, one of the two footnotes that were in this article at the time of nomination was not coverage about this film, but a glancing mention that the basic idea for this film was in the germination stage 12 years ago in an article about a different film, and thus it does not support the notability of this film at all.

The potential exception to the regular notability criteria is for films that can be shown as special cases of much greater notability than the norm, and just two hits of coverage is not enough to get there. Nobody said anything about the sources being unreliable — what I said was that there isn't enough sourcing to exempt this from the normal notability criteria for films. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Existing significant coverage in reliable sources includes the articles quoted in the article + (1st page of a one-click search.....) :

etc. So this meets the general requirements for notability imv.

A redirect to RZA#Filmmaking should have obviously been considered anyway......-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable, it is stating that they do not show a notable production period, i.e. since April 2024. All sources published before that do not contribute to satisfying WP:NFF as that was development or pre-production. The question comes down to this: If the film were cancelled tomorrow and never released, what can we say about the production of the film? I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. I'm fairly inclusionist, and I consider this one pretty close, but I think we could easily wait for slightly more coverage. Draftification is a better WP:ATD option than a redirect in my opinion because I feel it's easier to add new content there than getting lost in a redirect history. KingArti is also very active in Draft space, so I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion. -2pou (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable? OK. Good, then, let's keep this. Sources published before filming started are absolutely as relevant as those published recently! I don't understand what notable production period means. A film is judged notable or not. And sources back the claim that it is notable, or not. Time has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia happens to consider films whose filming started are more likely to be notable (or simply to exist at all as films) than those whose filming hasn't started. It makes sense but that does not invalidate sources from before the moment filming started, when filming does indeed start!!! I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. Do you consider the cast, genre, premise and production history of a film non-significant? I don't. Finally, I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion, maybe not, but you feel it's a risk worth mentioning here, though. I concur it's as easy for users who know the draft exists, to edit it, as it is to edit a section dedicated to the film, in the article about the director. But not for newcomers. And if facilitating new contributions concerning the film is a concern (and a fair one, in terms of Wikipedia's raison d'être), a Keep seems the best solution (not to mention the possibility of good faith creations of articles such as OSoC (upcoming film) or OSoC (RZA), etc.). Anyway, thank you for your input, and sorry if this was too long and inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The permanent notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline is not established by showing a couple of hits of casting or production announcements — every single film that ever entered the production pipeline at all can always pass that test. Even films that never get completed or released at all, in order to actually pass the primary notability criteria for films, would pass that loose a reading of NFF and have to be kept forever — so no film would ever be subject to the main notability criteria for films at all if just a small handful of production coverage were enough to bump a film from "regular criteria" to "NFF criteria", because no film that enters production ever fails to generate that small handful.

So "the production is itself notable" is not passed by every film that can show one or two hits of casting or production coverage — it's passed only by films that get Marvel/Star Wars volumes of production coverage, to the point that even if the film were to collapse and never come out at all it would probably still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. The Batgirl remake that got shelved last year is an example of that level of production coverage; most films which just get run of the mill coverage are not. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: With all due respect, but if the standard is that only major blockbusters like Disney films can have articles retained, then approximately 80% of current unreleased film articles would need to be deleted. This would be quite confusing for editors, as it raises questions about where exactly the notability bar should be set. Do only Marvel films count as notable? What about DC? What about blockbusters of other big companies like Paramount's Mission Impossible 8 or Universal's Gladiator 2? And what about art house films? Should all of them not be allowed to create independent articles until they are released? These types of questions could go on endlessly. The thing is, not all editors have the same keen judgment when it comes to determining notability. In reality, it can be a highly subjective assessment that varies from person to person. The original purpose of NFF was to provide clear criteria to help prevent these kinds of disputes. As long as a film has checked the boxes, it should be allowed to create an article. I'm concerned that adopting such a restrictive notability standard through this AFD could set a bad precedent. It could lead to many controversial deletions of articles about major film projects, simply because some editors don't find the coverage "significant" enough. Therefore, I think as long as an article meets NFF, it should be retained. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I beg to differ, as I believe the nominator has misinterpreted WP:NFF. The nominator cited the third paragraph in NFF to argue that despite a film having begun shooting, with confirmations from reliable sources, the article should not exist. But if we review the guideline carefully, it states that a film (although it has begun filming) should generally not have an article unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. So this is where the reliable sources' confirmation mentioned in the first paragraph comes into play. If films have been confirmed by sources as having begun filming, it can be considered as fulfilling the notability guidelines (in other words, GNG), and be allowed to have its own article. The sentence the nominator cited is more likely to refer to a film that has already begun filming, but the production isn't covered by any independent, secondary, reliable sources - in such cases, the film should not have an article as it fails the notability guidelines. There could be various reasons for this, such as the film not being notable enough for secondary sources to cover, or the production companies concealing details for marketing purposes. Regardless of the reason, these films no doubt fail to meet the requirements of NFF and should not have an article, even though the commencement of filming has already begun in reality and may be supported by primary sources. As long as a film has been confirmed by multiple RS, having completed pre-production and moved on to shooting, it should be allowed to have an independent article as it has ticked the boxes. I understand the concern about Wikipedia being flooded with pre-mature film articles poorly sourced with media articles that only have passing mentions merely about a film's commencement of filming. But in this case, the film has numerous secondary sources providing SIGCOV on the production details and filming plans (as provided by Mushy Yank), as well as additional coverage about the film being conceptualized by RZA years ago. This makes it not one of the marginal cases we were concerned about, and it is safe to cite WP:NFF exactly as the reason why the film should be kept.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as any film that ever enters production without being able to show at least one or two hits of coverage — casting annoucements can always be found somewhere, at least one hit of verification that photography has started can always be found somewhere, for every single film that has ever entered the production pipeline regardless of whether it ever came out the other end as a finished film or not. So if that were the distinction between regular criteria and NFF, then every film that entered the production pipeline would always pass NFF, and no film would ever actually have to meet the regular criteria at all anymore.

So the test is not passed by a film showing a handful of production coverage, and requires a film to show significantly more production coverage than films in production are routinely expected to get — as in, so much coverage that even if the film collapsed and never came out it would probably remain permanently notable as a failed production anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: That is not necessarily true. A recent example that comes to mind is the Hong Kong film The Dream, the Bubble and the Shadow, for which a trailer was presented at an exhibition of the production company with a projected release date of 2024, so it is most likely that the film has already finished production (if not, at least filming has already started), but every detail was concealed for marketing purposes, not even with the main cast revealed. So in this case, the film should not have its article until it has been officially released. (Despite there being numerous media articles reporting on the trailer, and some primary sources, like the filming plans of the production companies may support the fact that the film has already begun shooting) Also, I have actually voted Redirect in another AFD of an article written by the same editor, because in that case, the film literally only has two sources merely covering the commencement of filming and the composition of cast and crew. In that case, I think it does not demonstrate enough notability. But in this case, from the sources Mushy Yank presented, there are actually quite a lot more coverage on the production other than the original announcement. For instance, RZA has conceptualized the project 13 years ago, covered by Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and Black Film and TV, and there have been additional casting choices recently in May, see Deadline Hollywood and The Hindu. I really share your thoughts on barring pre-mature film articles from flooding Wikipedia, but I have reservations on whether this is really a marginal case that we were concerned about. It can still be filed for deletion if the film was scrapped, it is never too late. I agree to disagree, but I think there is enough to fulfill NFF at this point and this article should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on ABC commentators[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, one being about one of its commentators and announcements, some being more deserving in an article about the coverage but not this list; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found this [[8]] (1/3), [[9]] (2/3), [[10]] (3/3), but it appears to just republishing a press release. Probably should be a delete unless better sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are being added at this very moment. Thus, far sources for the 1976 Summer Olympics, the 1964 Winter Olympics, and the list of hosts that ABC utilized have been added. Also, a lead section has finally been added. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main ABC Olympic broadcasts as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the new source: some of those are about the announcers, some are about the games itself, one is links to YouTube videos. In short, not helping much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there is a book on the subject within the ABC Olympic broadcasts article. Willing to change my !vote if sources from the time period are found. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on ABC on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. All this is, is a list of who presented who, so WP:LISTCRUFT applies. A merger would be better. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 55 sources added since nomination, WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on TNT commentators[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, some being nothing more than a guide; none of these helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unabale to find any sources discussing this as a group, and as such WP:LISTN is not met. Let'srun (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN. Upon a search I couldn't find anything related to TNT's brief time with the Olympics, specifically who the broadcasting was. Conyo14 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A lot of work has been put in to help improve the notability of this particular article. 47 different references have just been added. A lead section has also been added to help clean up and give some better context to TNT's past Olympics coverage and its background/history. Bare in mind that TNT was the very first American cable television network to broadcast the Olympic Games, supplementing CBS' main coverage of the Winter Games during the duration of the 1990s. This article as it is, should be merged with the main TNT Olympics broadcasts article as a secondary option instead of outright junking it. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REFBOMBING. Some of these do not count as WP:RS, most of these focuses on the events itself rather than the boradcasting. Also, they do not focus on TNT's part with the Olympics. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat myself, why is simply deleting this particular article the absolutely first option (regardless of whether or not there are any reliable sources being provided) instead of for instance, merging it to the main TNT Olympic broadcasts article? Also, if you're going to essentially tell somebody that the sources that they provided "aren't good enough" then please be more specific in regards to what's exactly "wrong with them" and how to improve upon that. Personally, an article should be deleted as an absolute last resort or option if there's absolutely little way that the article can be remotely improved or expanded upon. Otherwise, it's not really productive to constantly reply or react to anybody with a contrary point of view or opinion on what do with an article. BornonJune8 (talk), 07:56, 20 May 20 2024

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 47 references have been added and the list has been significantly improved. Deserves further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After a further review of the sourcing, this still fails to meet the WP:NLIST as the commentators aren't discussed as a group and there is evidently some WP:REFBOMBING going on here. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced; besides being minimal, none of the two are extant, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would have to have been from a while ago, so sources could exist on newspapers.com. However, this article stands as WP:LISTCRUFT and mainly consists of WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have agreed with the previous AfDs directed at lists of broadcasters of various college bowl games and conference championship games, but there is room in the encyclopedia for a list when it is about the biggest game of the year. In recent history, that's the Super Bowl, and nobody has questioned the notability of List of Super Bowl broadcasters. The Super Bowl is not only the pinnacle of careers on the field but also in the broadcast booth. The best of the best are tabbed to broadcast the Super Bowl, and a list of its broadcasters serves a valid purpose as a navigational list. In the pre-Super Bowl era, the NFC Championship Game was the pinnacle, and the same rationale applies. Cbl62 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

My take: There is room for these lists in a legitimate encyclopedia if limited to top-level events. E.g., List of Super Bowl broadcasters, List of World Series broadcasters, List of NBA Finals broadcasters, List of Wimbledon broadcasters, List of Indianapolis 500 broadcasters, List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters. Being the broadcaster at such an event is the pinnacle for sports broadcasters, and the lists serve a useful navigational function in tracking sports broacasting history at the highest level. It is when we allow these things to creep to the middle and lower levels that we risk dippig into fancruft. Cbl62 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Super Bowl though. I'd be willing to change my !vote if sources are found regarding these specific game(s)' broadcasting crews. Conyo14 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL Championship Game was the top championship game in pro football during its time. The Super Bowl is that today. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can doubt that. The can't be said for the one about the FA Cup final, Moto GP, Ligue 1, Serie A, Bundesliga and the French Open (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination)) SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cbl62, being what was at the time the biggest American football game of the year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can all agree with that. This is not intended to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I wish people stop using "the biggest sporting event of the year" as an excuse to keep. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: You wish people would stop referencing the fact that a list is based on a notable event, and the notability of said event, as a reason/relevant point when voting to keep something? That's a silly concept and definitely not an "excuse". Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reliable sources discussing the broadcasters for this game as a group seemingly do not exist, and as such, this article fails to meet WP:LISTN. Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. Let'srun (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list can serve valid navigational purpose and not have sources discussing all entries as a group. In any event, here (link) is a piece by the Pro Football Researchers Association that does exactly what you ask. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good start, but I'd need to see at least one more source like that before I'd be inclined to switch my vote. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this functions as a navigational list such that we don't need sources dealing with all entries as a group (even though such a source has been found). This was the top pro football game in the world in the years prior to the Super Bowl (where nobody questions the validity of the List of Super Bowl broadcasters) and has equal historical value. Cbl62 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Cbl62. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Baugh (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP about the self-appointed head of a micronation, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, micronationalists do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #1 as national "heads of state" just because they exist, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the other two are short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to clear the bar if they're all he's got.
In addition, we've already been around this maypole before, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Baugh -- and it also warrants note that this version got quarantined in draftspace a few hours after its creation on the grounds of being inadequately sourced, but was then arbitrarily moved back into mainspace by its creator on the grounds that its title was "misspelled". And since we already have a redirect representing the same person at the plain, undisambiguated title anyway, I don't see any pressing need to retain this as a second redirect.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nevada and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's all for giggles, but here are two articles I found with considerable info about him: Vice, Business Insider. Lamona (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is already in the article, and has already been addressed in the nomination as being too short to clinch GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat Which was considered too short? Because both of the ones I listed are quite long, and I don't see either mentioned in this nomination. Thanks. Lamona (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vice is a short article that's basically a travel piece about the writer taking a trip to Molossia, and just kind of features Kevin Baugh as a minor walk-on character with the writer herself being a much more central subject. That's not a great GNG builder. And it's a source that's already in the article, which means it's one of the four sources that are being talked about when I talked about the four sources in the article in my nomination statement regardless of whether I called it out by name or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. I don't believe the sources from Lamona are enough to get this article over the hump. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly this has headed in the delete direction so far. However, more specific reasons behind the !votes might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Command information newspaper[edit]

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

This really exists (type of internal publication within the US military), but it is questionable if it is notable. While various reliable sources mention it in passing (while discussing something said in some particular issue of one of these), I can't find any significant coverage of the concept in itself. Wikipedia is not a repository of all the internal minutiae of how the US military (or any other military in the world) works. PROD contested by User:Kvng SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, and United States of America. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absence of sources and lack of coverage makes it unready for mainspace. Based Kashmiri ^TALK 10:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 21:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is a soft redirect to Wiktionary an option here? This is just a definition, and there is no evidence that will change. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, there is no Wiktionary entry for "command information newspaper". Of course, you (or anybody else) could always create one. However, that Wiktionary entry might then be subject to Wiktionary's own review processes to determine whether its inclusion is appropriate. I think it is a bit problematic creating a soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry which doesn't currently exist, and I don't know whether under Wiktionary's own inclusion criteria it would accepted. (My undereducated guess is they probably would decide to keep, but I don't think we should presume that here.) SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Article has been expanded and several sources have been added. Most compelling coverage in independent secondary sources include this 2005 opinion piece in Newsday, "Truth is first casualty of war reporting", which describes the command information newspaper Observer during the Vietnam War, and this 1990 article in The Leaf-Chronicle, "101st Media Personnel To Produce Information Newspaper For Troops", which looks at command information newspapers produced by the 101st Airborne Division during three wars (World War II, Vietnam War, Operation Desert Shield). @Kvng: Ping. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and sources added by Cielquiparle. Thank you! ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feli Ferraro[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to passing mentions and professional profiles in non-independent sources. The listed song credits are misleading, as she is not the primary recording artist of any of them; professional songwriters do not typically receive the same level of coverage for their work, and should not be presumed notable on the basis of having collaborated on notable works in the absence of actual RS coverage about their influence on the work. Searching online did not turn up any coverage better than what is already cited. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go with delete. I don't find any reasonable sources beyond what is here, and since the editor who created this works on and creates many articles for modern music I have to assume that what is here is the best that can be found. What I see in the sources here are mainly name checks. The only significant piece about her is on a site that I presume is that of her agents (Arthouse Entertainment). The "Genius" site that includes her in "best" lists is crowd-sourced and therefore not a reliable source. Lamona (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The events are covered in other articles, for example 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series and so forth for every year following that. Those lists are sufficient enough to present what is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1970s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of YouTube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1960s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of YouTube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1990s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, those centrally about the season and mostly YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of Youube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2010s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages and YouTube posts, none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of YouTube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2000s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of mostly dead and redirected pages, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of Youube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emji Spero[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party media -- but this is referenced entirely to sources directly affiliated with the claims, such as the promotional pages of the subject's books on the self-published websites of their own publishers, with not even one hit of proper GNG-building media coverage shown at all.
There is a literary award in the mix here which would be a valid notability claim if the article were properly sourced, but as a specialty award it still isn't "inherently" notable enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of any GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Sexuality and gender, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is listed for consideration under "deletion sorting visual artists". Perhaps a poet could take a look. Should we remove the unreferenced stuff and duplicate sentences and see what is left? --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hanna's Into the Wild[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources. Merge with Jack Hanna. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Animal, Biology, and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bannon, Anne Louise (2022-02-24). "Parents' Guide to Jack Hanna's Into the Wild". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
  The review notes: "While she show offers interesting information (for example, one episode talks about how to tell the difference between black and white rhinos), the overall feeling is that there's something missing. That Hanna is a strong cheerleader for animal conservation and educating kids about animals is without doubt -- but there's a difference between being a cheerleader and being an apologist. Hanna routinely dances around more substantive issues."
2. Willow, Molly (2007-11-03). "Jack Hanna and family go global for new series". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
  The article notes: "With his latest TV foray, the syndicated series Jack Hanna's Into the Wild, Hanna is making use of his traveling companions. In addition to his daughter Kathaleen, who appeared often on her dad's previous series, Animal Adventures, wife Suzi and daughters Suzanne and Julie are part of the new show. ... Guy Nickerson, whose company Spectrum in Tampa, Fla., worked on Animal Adventures with Hanna for 10 years, helped him create the new series, which is shown in 85 percent of the country. ... The series is filmed in high-definition and consists of the Hanna family's travels to learn about animals. ... An early episode included a visit to Rwanda, and episodes scheduled to run in the spring were filmed at the Wilds conservation center in southeastern Ohio and at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium."
3. Morse, Hannah (2018-08-21). "Latest episode Jack Hanna show features Loggerhead Marinelife Center". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
  The article notes: "The latest episode of “Jack Hanna’s Into The Wild” features Loggerhead Marinelife Center. ... The episode, titled “Saving Sea Turtles,” takes viewers on a tour of the center’s work and shows Solana’s release. The Hannas also watch a sea turtle nesting on the beach in the episode, said Rachel Csaszar, who works in Hanna’s office at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. ... The show is in its 11th season."
4. "'Jungle' Jack Hanna Brings 'Into the Wild' to Ithaca". The Ithaca Journal. 2016-03-01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
  The article notes: ""Jack Hanna's Into the Wild," debuted. This unscripted series shows Hanna and his family as they explore the corners of the globe and animals and cultures. "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild" is the recipient of three Emmy Awards, winning in the category of Outstanding Children's Series."
5. Pursell, Chris (2006-12-18). "Hanna Returns From the Wilds". Television Week. Vol. 25, no. 47. p. 3. ISSN 1544-0516. EBSCOhost 510693361.
  The article notes: " Longtime syndication staple Jack Hanna is partnering with Trifecta Media and Entertainment for a new original half-hour weekly series set to launch in fall 2007. The series, "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild," marks Mr. Hanna's first new project since the 1990s and will follow his adventures around the world in search of the ultimate animal experience. Unlike previous series featuring the animal expert, this series will include Mr. Hanna's family on the travels. Among the crew who will participate are Mr. Hanna's wife, Suzi, and daughters Kathaleen, Suzanne and Julie, as well as longtime crew members and confidantes Glenn Nickerson and Dan Devaney. ... Trifecta will offer 22 half-hour installments of "Into the Wild," available for broadcast during the 2007-08 television season on a full barter basis. The company will handle all advertising sales for the program through its New York office, headed by Trifecta partner Michael Daraio."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Maas, Jennifer (2023-12-19). "Jack Hanna's 400-Episode 'Into the Wild' and 'Wild Countdown' Library Acquired by Hearst Media Production Group (Exclusive)". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
    The article notes: "Legendary wildlife host Jack “Jungle Jack” Hanna’s TV franchise library, including 400 episodes of “Jack Hanna’s Into the Wild” and “Jack Hanna’s Wild Countdown” has been acquired by Hearst Media Production Group."
  2. Larsen Stoddard, Aimee (2010-03-11). "Jungle Jack Hanna". Salt Lake City Weekly. ProQuest 363111415. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
    The article notes: "He is currently hosting the TV series Jack Hanna's Into the Wild, which received a 2008 Daytime Emmy for Outstanding Children's Series."
  3. Albiniak, Paige (2009-11-01). "Trifecta Jumping into First-Run Programming". Broadcasting & Cable. ProQuest 225320084. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
    The article notes: "Mystery Hunters will air in Trifecta's one-hour E/I block along with Animal Atlas. The company had been distributing Jack Hanna's Into the Wild in that block, but chose to stop distribution of that show due to low ratings."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jack Hanna's Into the Wild to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's evidence, didn't review all of it but there appears to be enough for GNG. Will review my comment if something significantly changes. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article wasn't up to spec but the show is notable. Niafied (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of MLS Cup broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS; one is a Twitter post, one is a now a dead link and the other is an announcment; neither doing anything to establish notability and the rest is unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Over 120 different sources have just been added, bumping the current total to about 123 references. If that doesn't establish the notability, then I really don't know what else there is that could do it. Also, Major League Soccer, is one of the big five North American professional sports leagues alongside the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, and NHL. It's also the official #1 professional soccer organization in North America, and has been since it launched in 1996. Broadcasting information about the MLS Cup is further detailed in the individual articles for each MLS Cup event. So it isn't like there is little remote interest about this particular subject overall. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will definitely pass in 2009 but c'mon, this is 2024. Sourcing guidelines has changed since. First of all, Twitter does not count as a WP:RS, neither do YouTube. Bornon, Have you ever voted delete in any of my nominations? SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Big 5? LOL No such thing. Of course, there's the big 4. Back to the subject; these all consists of announcment posts, WP:PRIMARY, two are Twitter posts, most others are about the game and less the broadcasting. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN. I reviewed the sources and I can chalk it up to this: TV announcements (WP:NOTTVGUIDE), WP:PRIMARY from mlssoccer.com, and of course WP:ROUTINE announcements about the schedule/broadcasting team. None of which provide justifiability for this article's existence. Conyo14 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Chris1834 Talk 15:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacedFarmer: First of, why do you insist on replying to virtually single counterargument that somebody makes when you make an AFD? That's if you ask me, bordering on WP:BLUDGEONING? Also, like I said, there's broadcasting info in the individual MLS Cup articles themselves, such as the very first one in 1996. They're sourced or as good as the sources could possibly or remotely be. Here's some further articles about the MLS Cup broadcasting coverage, after the fact. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, Major League Soccer actually is considered part of the "Big 5" among North American professional sports franchises. Los Angeles Football Club, according to this article, was in the year 2023, valued at over $900 million. That's more than the Pittsburgh Penguins, Seattle Kraken, and Calgary Flames of the NHL. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Information about the viewership averages for the MLS Cup dating back to 1996 has now been added to the bottom of the article. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Here's a collection of articles about the MLS Cup's television ratings and viewership: MLS Cup draws largest total audience in 25 years, Canada’s TSN drew almost as many MLS Cup viewers as the U.S. broadcast on ABC, despite Canada having 1/10th the people, MLS Cup on ABC down almost 50 percent from 2018 on Fox and close to 2017 on ESPN, with earlier timing likely a factor, Fox’s coverage of MLS Cup final sees highest viewership for final since 1997, MLS Cup 2017 on ESPN draws lower overnight from last year, 2015 MLS Cup Final avoids distinction of being least watched ever, Weekly sports ratings: NFL, NBA, Army-Navy, MLS Cup and more, Ratings: MLS Cup, Lakers and more. And here's an additional article that discusses Bob Ley preforming play-by-play for the 1997 MLS Cup telecast on ABC. BornonJune8 (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further information that includes details about radio coverage, television ratings (including local markets), and international television coverage (such as the networks and commentators) have now been added to hopefully provide some better context. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As of now, there are over 200, almost 300 references in the article. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Argue how you like but I don't understand why is it necessary for have this list? Why not merge it to the one about the league instead? As it being the 'big 5', ask an American how popular it is there, they laugh at you. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this clearly passes WP:GNG, and the nomination statement is clearly flawed. NOTTVGUIDE specifically allows historically important television information, and this is looks at the history of broadcasting. The other WP:NOTs outlined in the deletion rationale - I've been at AfD enough to know that they're a grab bag of WP:IDONTLIKEITs - this isn't a database, the sources aren't routine, and now we're wasting time on this here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also since a couple people have used WP:ROUTINE - that clearly doesn't apply as even though not every source qualifies for GNG, there's plenty of national coverage of the broadcasters and game ratings, including from Canada's National Post. WP:NOTDATABASE is also clearly wrong - this article is mostly prose. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTN is not met as this grouping isn't discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. This seems clearly true? There are many, many references and the broadcast every cup is compared to all of the previous cups, making a list a properly notable topic. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but what WP:THREE would you say do this? Let'srun (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep per BornonJune8 and SportingFlyer. There's nearly 300 references and much well-sourced text describing the history of MLS Cup broadcasters; I don't think it could be merged anywhere. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
300 sources, I'd advise BornonJune8 of WP:REFBOMBING. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacedFarmer: The article "Professional sports leagues in the United States" in itself, lists Major League Soccer as one of the top five major professional sports leagues in North America alongside Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, and the National Hockey League. To put things into perspective, in the United States, the 2022 MLS Cup had more viewers than the 2020 Stanley Cup final. Here's a 2023 article from Forbes on Major League Soccer's growth. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:50, 178 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, according to this article on MLS' attendance, Major League Soccer in the year 2022 had a higher average attendance than the NBA and NHL in 2022–23. MLS that year had an average attendance of 21,033 whereas the NBA had an 18,077 average attendance and the NHL had an 17,101 average attendance in that same time frame. In 2023, MLS set a new season long attendance record. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty idiotic comparing leagues taking place to a stadium vs one in an arena. Like comparing apples to oranges. Still, doesn't make it any bigger considering the size of those stadiums.

I cannot give the figures now as NHL is in a playoff, so cost of tickets will be higher but the average ticket for an NHL game costs $94. according to [11]. A ticket to see DC United will cost $21 according to Ticketmaster. Again, this list is not about how big MLS is to Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the average seating capacity of a Major League Soccer stadium is said to be between 18,000 and 30,000. PayPal Park, which is home of the San Jose Earthquakes, is currently the smallest MLS stadium at about 18,000 seats. Meanwhile, the average NBA arena has a capacity of 18,790. And the average capacity of an NHL arena is around 16,000–20,000. This is not like comparing an NBA or NHL arena to an NFL stadium, which has an average seating capacity of 60,000–80,000. The current smallest NBA arena in terms of capacity is the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, which has a 16,600 maximum capacity BornonJune8 (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the broadcasting teams? Conyo14 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs. I'm not a fan of listcruft, but I can see some value in preserving the history on this one, including all those sources. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm open to a redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs as a WP:ATD. I do think as presently structured that this fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per SportingFlyer. This is extensively referenced and shows clear WP:SIGCOV, while appearing to meet WP:LISTN. ...to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans – What kind of opinionated and completed irrelevant nomination rationale is that? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of CBS Sports college basketball commentators[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, 506sports is a forum and collegehoopsnet is merely an announcment of a list of commentators, the other is a blogspot post; neither doing anything to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Basketball, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to College Basketball on CBS Sports#Commentators with only the most notable announcers on that list. This list does not meet WP:LISTN for this wiki, but for the fandom wiki, it's fine. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources such as newspaper articles dating as far back as the early 1980s can easily be found and later added over a relatively short matter of time with the aid of Google News Archives as well as places like Awful Announcing for more "current" or up to date sources. There's also presumably, official press releases from CBS Sports itself. I would estimate, that sources can be filled up in roughly a day and a half. Also, who would fall under the criteria of being "the most notable announcers" among this particular list? Are we only referring to current announcers for CBS as of 2024, are we referring to announcers who only worked the March Madness tournament? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: There are secondary sources discussing these announcers as a group particularly for March Madness, as seen with [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15] and [[16]] being found relatively quickly. I wouldn't oppose possibly reducing this to just the March Madness crews but sourcing does appear to show that the WP:LISTN is met. Again, this isn't a broadcasters schedule so I'm not sure how this is a WP:NOTTVGUIDE and I'm unsure which part of NOTDATABASE the nom thinks this violates. Let'srun (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuno Miles[edit]

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

as much as i love yuno, the only reliable source that talks about him is this, which makes him not notable Authenyo (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i typed this crying knowing that big wikipedia will delete yuno miles Authenyo (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss. OJSimpsonLover (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(insert reminder of WP:NOTAVOTE and to actually provide links or a reference to someone else's comment here instead of just saying "some notability")
OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalizing articles. That said, @Air on White, I'm not sure that means why their comment should be discarded. Only sockpuppets have a strike-comments policy. Or was there something I've missed? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the striking of the comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalism and his inappropriate username. However, he was not just a blatant vandal, but also a subtler troll: some of his comments appear to be in good faith and were aimed at confusing other users and administrators, making his block less likely. I also believe he was a sockpuppet for his demonstrated familiarity with the customs and policies of Wikipedia and his technical proficiency in areas such as wikitext and referencing. I therefore believe it was reasonable for me to assume that his comment was intended to disrupt the Wikipedia project and should have been struck through. Air on White (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have not made any comments that I find questionable and do not seem to be familiar with Wikipedia at all. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss vandalism or sockpuppetry, so I'll end this discussion here. But I'm willing to continue this discussion (at another page) if anyone is interested, particularly if someone is making an SPI case. Air on White (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) edited Air on White (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete: This is a RS per Project Album [17], but that's all I can find for this person. No interviews or articles about him, was hoping something would show up. A lack of sourcing means !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a few sources - maybe look a little harder 2601:449:4100:DA80:E549:EA16:3F2E:1D57 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So... could you link them here? Tollens (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, they don't exist. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability guidelines. Plus, there’s already a draft article for him at draft:Yuno Miles. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 00:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC) user indef-blocked for disruption on AFD —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/music/news-who-yuno-miles-fans-react-youtuber-releases-hilarious-drake-diss-response-metro-boomin-s-challenge	WP:RSP: user-generated		✘ No
https://www.rapreviews.com/2023/11/yuno-miles-yuno-i-cant-rap/			✔ Yes
https://www.sescoops.com/wwe/rapper-yuno-miles-releases-wwe-diss-track-im-beefing-with-the-wwe	Probably, website has multiple writers and this one has a degree		✔ Yes
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-age-of-shitpost-modernism/		One example with only one mention	✘ No
https://gizmodo.com/saga-bbl-drizzy-drake-kendrick-lamar-metro-boomin-1851470820		Only one mention as "The Meme Diss Track"; in the article's slides.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Here's a table. I don't think two is enough, is it? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most editors would consider two enough. Air on White (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SE Scoops is two videos and two quotes of his, with about 5 lines of text otherwise, might be a RS but that's hardly extensive coverage. Maybe 1/2 a source, being generous. I'd still like to see more than these two sources, neither of which is extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The entire article is about a diss track he released.
I do agree that two sources is a bit far from keeping, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that pythoncoder has provided a video reference with The Tonight Show, I think that tips the scales towards a weak keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he appears in two articles that count towards GNG, but there isn't enough notable articles at the moment for a stronger keep. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 07:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, speedy per what? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AskeeaeWiki, is this even a vote? Per what? dxneo (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like he passes GNG based on the sources so far. Other stuff that may or may not count, some from the draft version:
- [18] from Ones to Watch: Site with music industry backing (Live Nation Entertainment). Not sure about their editorial standards — couldn't find anything about it on RSN or RSP.
- [19] from TheNeedleDrop: may or may not count based on your reading of RSP
- [20]: got played on the nationally-televised The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:THENEEDLEDROP:

... per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party sources about living people.

Granted, what you linked isn't a review, it's an interview. But given the discussion is about what third-party sources could be used to justify keeping an article about Yuno Miles, I think this still fairly doesn't fit. It also doesn't help that Fantano isn't a journalist, let alone the fact that using YouTube links (of which this article currently uses two, both linking to Yuno Miles' own songs) is already considered generally unreliable per WP:RSPYT. Cadenrock1 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs more time so I'm relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage seems weak, fails WP:NMUSIC.-KH-1 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, I personally think Miles is a notable but unreported figure, having a large following but lacking news coverage. This means has and will continue to have his page created many times before being locked. (Discuss Roastedbeanz1 contribs) 17:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Roastedbeanz1, why is your signature bearing @Not0nshoree. Also, I didn't get your argument here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yuno Miles is very much notable. I know there's a stigma against making pages for every insignificant "soundcloud rapper", but rest assured, Yuno Miles is not one of them. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 18:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping Yuno Miles on Wikipedia. He is already a popular rapper no matter if its meme rap such as "4 Wheeler" or the "BBL Drizzy Freestyle." I think it way to late to make that happen. Diamondpro114 (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show evidence using sources that meets WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't believe I have to say this but Wikipedia doesn't care that you personally think this article subject is notable. Our subjective judgments are irrelevant to AFD decisions. The question is, are there sufficient reliable sources to establish notability? Are the sources located by User:pythoncoder and any other editors adequate to demonstrate GNG? That's the important question here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I have to say this but I don't care what you have to say either ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

relax bro we all have to follow wikipedia's notability rules and not our own. but ye i think yuno miles is notable, also due to the sources in that chart above, or at least surely will be soon because i have no doubt yuno will get more news coverage. Freedun (yap) 20:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea you right bro mb. I just be insulted when I'm just tryna throw in my two cents n somebody sayin they speakin on "behalf" of wikipedia and that my opinion doesn't matter, just rude and insulting u know? but yea the sources are kinda scarce, i think his page might get deleted for now, but u right we'll def get more news coverage soon ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 20:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the truth is, on Wikipedia, opinions are weighted based on relation to policy. Arguments with actual basis in policy has more weight. You'd have to be really convincing to make a non−policy based argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yea its kinda weird and ik wikipedia doesn't have a lot of rapper articles even for example f1lthy (i just made it last night). anyone who watches tiktok knows these people but whatever. if it gets deleted ill remake it after there's more news coverage Freedun (yap) 20:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article doesn't meet GNG, source analysis lacks WP:SIGCOV and intentionally, I don't succumbed with the rationales of being "a fan of a certain musician." Per the state of the article, I was checking redirect to see if the "Hood Rejects" do exist but not. At this point, when sources of an article is not enough to establish notability, it becomes deletion or redirecting. However, there is no room for redirecting and mostly, delete. I have critically accessed the sources presently in the article and some doesn't relate to WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Could you explain how the two sources I've assessed and the OnesToWatch source from pythoncoder don't meet GNG? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu, two sources aren't enough for me to justify whether an article is notable. There isn't any significant coverage of this individual as a musician whatsoever. Also remember that "celebrities" may be famous but not notable. One may have millions of followers, yet neither has he/her been covered in multiple news source. Per my experience so far, they are usually appearing in interviews, some which are not reliable or secondary per WP:RS. While being regarding !voting is not deletion, I am talking about the pure simple fact here and that the truth of the matter. Should I analyse the arguments too to see the argument coming from keep if not most, "he is notable, I have heard the song", "he is famous, I am a fan", etc. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In analysis, for example, no weight will be given to "He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss." Notability is not ones opinion. If that, then, my father is notable in my mind. The second was I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. Here, we don't believe in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. If the editor thinks the other articles like that merits deletion, so be it, nominate it or leave it. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b and Not0nshoree argued the article lacking sources and not meeting GNG.

Then the source analysis table generated also good. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. I assessed four sources above. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yuno Miles' music is unique. Also his song was trending on YouTube and hit music charts. Also he will hit 1m subs soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedun (talk • contribs)

User:Freedun, I want to know how you know about anything called AFD when you literally joined some minutes ago. What was your previous account? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is AFD? I dont think i had an account from the past but i edited my schools wikipedia page in the past so maybe i did but im not sure Freedun (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedun, that is my point. What is the school and your former name. It might help us know how to analyse your argument as it may lay on "a new user". Tell me the account and why you left after writing your schools page. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uh sorry dude I'm not comfortable telling you what high school i went to... Freedun (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual a new editor coming to !vote in an AFD. There is something going on. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uh ok? Freedun (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually imma say weak keep like Roasted beanz Freedun (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miles has fans and they saw the article's deletion notice and came here, duh. It's not unusual but unfortunate. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.onestowatch.com/en/blog/meet-yuno-miles-the-internets-favorite-rapper	Was about the rapper	Ones to watch is a music blog and by the virtue of looking at the written content, it made me feel to notify people of a notable blog it is. Another example Bella Naija.	Blog, equally advertorial.	✘ No
https://www.theneedledrop.com/interviews/2023/11/a-conversation-with-yuno-miles	An interview should always be independent as the person interviewed always say about him; those which aren't verifiable at most times.	Per WP:THENEEDLEDROP.	Its an interview per WP:INTERVIEW or related.	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJWNQSIoNE	Clip of played music. The full show should have contained other stuffs.	The show is reliable and notable as well.	In the context, the music was played within any discussion of it's nature, etc. I could have taken it as a review but no!	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why writing styles disqualify reliability, not to mention the ridiculous notion that that affects the SIGCOV part of the criteria. As said above, the site is ran by writers of an industry giant. This makes it highly likely that they are reliable (reputation, libel & stuff), and I can't find any incidences of false reporting. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show me their editorial guideline for publication and team. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find any so far, but it seems to be the same people, so I'm asking this at RSN.

Also, I feel like the two sources above and mentions add up to give this borderline notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also I looked closer into the requirements for Wikipedia musicians and Yuno Miles "has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" because they are highly known for meme rap Freedun (yap) 19:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources that claim that. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tbh its just well known but this article looks applicable: [21] Freedun (yap) 04:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that genre-representing, but while it's not significant coverage, it is more than a passing mention, and as said above, I feel like that, other non-trivial mentions, and the two sources I've found above confer notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ye i agree. Freedun (yippity yap) 07:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Fein[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV such as [[22]] and [[23]]. Let'srun (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Moderate success at lower levels but does not meet WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first source provided above is quite good, especially if you go to C5, where it focuses much more on him. I lean towards discounting the second source above since it mostly talks about his former partner's retirement and him contemplating the same in very few words. It is also the same publication and not independent of source #1 above. However, from the sources in the article, the Skate Today piece seems to cover him specifically in depth. Those are enough to meet GNG vice NSKATE in my view. -2pou (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Braakman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has some decent coverage at [[24]] and [[25]]. Not a ton here but probably enough to pass the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Nagle (figure skater)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An obit here, as well as coverage in the New York Times here and here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per source presented by Beanie fan. I think it's unusual nominating articles because they are short. WP:NSKATE is an additional Wikipedia policy. If per the sources they the articles won those awards, then he meets WP:ANYBIO and sources per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. please do run WP:BEFORE and not bypass it. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Stew[edit]

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

The subject of the article doesn't appear to be notable. The article cites two sources, the first being Everything2 (a user-generated website, thus not reliable), and the second being an article on adobe.com. Other than that, I found a short Entertainment Weekly article from 1999, a Boston Globe article (also 1999), and a Boston Phoenix article (2009) with around 30 words about Computer Stew. Perhaps it could be merged to another John Hargrave project, Zug (website) (although I don't know if Zug itself is notable, but it did exist for significantly longer) or ZDNET. toweli (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. toweli (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, which says:
Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.
Sources
1. "New This Week". Entertainment Weekly. 1999-10-15. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  This is a 142-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "So it’s a delight to discover this regurgitatively innovative daily show, in which John Hargrave (an editor at computer-trade site ZDNet) and Jay Stevens (contributing solely via speakerphone) present a feast of gag-inducing gags. ... Despite some audio glitches and a bulky download, Stew shows that a lot of fun can be had with a little technology — and a strong stomach."
2. Hartigan, Patti (1999-10-01). "Geeks go for guffaws: "Computer Stew" puts high-tech, lowbrow humor on the Net". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  This is a 784-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "The show comes in byte-size servings of about three minutes per segment. Short videos are appearing on the Internet, as entrepreneurs and Hollywood types are falling over one another trying to discover what kind of entertainment content is going to make a killing on line. And like it or not, there's nothing else quite like "Computer Stew" out there."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Computer Stew to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Just barely notable with the sources given above and what's used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126[edit]

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

Not notable. Could be redirected to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is significant coverage of FMVSS 126 in a large number of sources in Google Scholar and Google Books, including at least three entire articles on this subject: [26] [27] [28]. James500 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG.Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG still does not mean it must have a standalone article; per WP:NOPAGE, it's more appropriate to cover the topic in context elsewhere. There are also sources on the European Union's regulation of electronic stability control, on Australia's regulation of electronic stability control, on Canada's regulation of electronic stability control, on Argentina's regulation of electronic stability control, etc.... I'm sure an additional source for each beyond those in the main article can be found to satisfy GNG but that doesn't mean a duplicative page is necessary for this. Reywas92^Talk 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be any duplication. The laws of one country are not the same thing as the laws of another. In any event, there comes a point where the sheer volume of coverage of a topic is so large that it cannot be stuffed into a single article; and in such cases the parent article needs to be split. Electronic stability control is such a topic. There are hundreds of articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about electronic stability control, to the point where the words "electronic stability control" actually appear verbatim in their titles. The article Electronic stability control is already 62kB long and does not need to be made longer. James500 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um no, page length is measured by prose text and it's only 25kb/4,000 words long, well under WP:LENGTH's guideline. Expansion of that article including its regulation section is absolutely more than welcome. But if you think it should be split, a single country's regulation of it is the wrong way to do so (a different section or a general Regulation of electronic stability control would be better if warranted). This US regulation page is so short, it is duplicated in its entirety by the main article's "The United States followed, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implementing FMVSS 126, which requires ESC for all passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds (4536 kg). The regulation phased in starting with 55% of 2009 models (effective 1 September 2008), 75% of 2010 models, 95% of 2011 models, and all 2012 and later models." This is unnecessary to be a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This regulation does not duplicate the regulations of other countries. The sources about this regulation do not duplicate the sources about the regulations of other countries. WP:ARTN says "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability". Accordingly, the fact that some of the content of this article is similar to the content of the parent article does not decrease the notability of the topic of this article. In any event, the article has now been expanded some new content that is not in the parent article, and more can be added. Likewise, the fact that this article is presently short is also irrelevant, because it can be expanded so as to make it much longer. In theory, this page could be moved to Regulation of electronic stability control, without prejudice to a future split, in order to speed up the creation of such an article, but this page should not be merged into another page (which would not have the page history of this page). James500 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation, where this is already discussed. The sources above would also be better in the main article than a separate page. Individual regulations rarely need their own articles and I don't see an exception here. Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or WP:ATD Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards#Crash avoidance both of which cover the subject. There are literally hundreds of these individual regulations, evidenced with the above Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Title 49 has around 35 regulations under "Crash avoidance", "Crashworthiness" with approximately 27 regulations, "Post-crash survivability" with five regulations, "Miscellaneous" with five regulations, "Other regulations relating to transportation" with approximately 54 "parts". Per The slippery slope is creating hundreds of dictionary type entries with mainly primary sourcing, at the expense of the parent articles. Per Reywas92 Individual regulations rarely need their own articles. The actual concept is supposed to be that there is "significant coverage" in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a "whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", referred to as a permastub. Just because Wikipedia allegedly has unlimited space does not mean every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. At a point, if an individual subject grows large enough then a split should be discussed. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of individual regulations is not excessively large. Hundreds of regulations is nothing compared to the 6 million articles we already have, or the hundreds of millions of topics that probably satisfy GNG. In any event, no one is arguing that all the regulations should have an article. We are only arguing that the regulations that satisfy GNG should have articles. And right now we are only arguing that this one regulation satisfies GNG, which means that right now we are only arguing for exactly one article. The slippery slope fallacy is not a reason for deletion or merger. In this case, the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects. The article does not violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY in its present form. It is not a definition or a dictionary entry. In any event, the article can be expanded far beyond a definition. The sourcing is not primary. Reywas92 is not a policy or guideline. There is significant coverage in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. The article is not half a paragraph or a definition, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. The article is not a permastub, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. No one has argued that every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. We have argued that topics that satisfy GNG are presumed to merit an article. Insisting on waiting until the parent article actually reaches 8,000 words is bound to result in the article becoming seriously unbalanced (WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION). That is one of the reasons that we don't try to stuff and stuff and stuff lots of notable topics into a single article. James500 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The number of individual regulations is not excessively large" Maybe not U.S. motor vehicles regulations, but internationally among all subjects there are – hundreds of thousand of regulations do not need articles. "capable of being expanded". So is the main article. There's simply no need to have this separate page at this point, regardless of your hypothetical of who would write articles on individual regulations. The sources you added are highly technical papers that I do not believe are particularly conducive for an article here. The article could easily have a "Testing procedures" section as well. "article becoming seriously unbalanced" There is no indication that this will happen and we can still split before that point. Reywas92^Talk 15:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The total number of regulations on all subjects worldwide is irrelevant: not all regulations are equal. The USA is a large country with a correspondingly large number of motor vehicles and motor vehicle accidents. Motor vehicle safety is one of more important subjects on which regulations are made (because of the risk to life and property). US motor vehicle safety regulations are likely to receive more coverage than regulations from smaller countries on less important subjects. For example, a commencement order from Tuvalu (population 11,900) is not going receive anything remotely like the kind of coverage that US motor vehicle safety regulations are going to receive. The correct approach is to create standalone articles on those regulations that actually satisfy GNG. There is no evidence that an excessive number of regulations satisfy GNG. (There is no evidence that the number of regulations that do actually satisfy GNG is actually "hundreds of thousands" or even remotely close to that.) In fact, the number of regulations that satisfy GNG is, by definition, the number that is not excessive for our purposes. The point is that no one is arguing for a standalone article on every regulation in the world, we are only arguing for articles on the regulations that satisfy GNG. I think the three articles that I linked to above, and the rest of the 270 sources in Google Scholar, are conducive to an article on this regulation. James500 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So write it. The vast majority of those sources are brief mentions of the regulation or sine with dwell test, which are perfectly conducive for inclusion in the main article for appropriate context of development and testing of electronic stability control. Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electronic_stability_control#Regulation: where it is already covered in as much detail as is encyclopedically warranted. Owen× ☎ 15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted. Simply claiming that something is "unencyclopedic" is one of the arguments to avoid listed in the essay WP:ATA. James500 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTEVERYTHING, a section of the policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not explicitly states the following: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. I invite you to reconsider the accuracy of your comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has argued that more detail should be included "solely because it is true or useful". More detail can be included without the article ceasing to be "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". James500 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted which is not a correct statement, as written it could be justification for articles of infinite length. And all you've managed to do thus far is add one sentence about a "sine with dwell test" (whatever on earth that even means). What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) are sources that give significant coverage to the regulation. What more is there to be said about this regulation? If it can't be expanded beyond a stub it clearly should be redirected to Electronic stability control#regulation per WP:NOPAGE (and that's even generously assuming the regulation is notable, which has yet to be demonstrated either). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are twisting my words. The statement "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted" does not mean what you claim it means. As far as NOTEVERYTHING is concerned, it is a correct statement because that policy does not forbid the inclusion of "more detail" that is "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". I did not say "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". If I had meant to say "even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" I would have said so in express words. There is no policy, guideline or consensus that forbids "more detail" only because it is more detail. James500 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already supplied you with sources that satisfy GNG including [29] [30] [31] and others. What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) is any explanation of why the coverage in these sources is allegedly not significant, or why the additional information they contain about this regulation should allegedly not be added to the article. James500 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if you had actually read those sources, you would know what the Sine with Dwell test is. James500 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, no problem. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lya Stern[edit]

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

This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, have struck my vote and comment. In my defence the erroneous AllMusic bio is the first reference in the article but I should have noticed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA All-Star Game broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Also LISTCRUFT (or WP:CRUFT). The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are about the game itself, many of those are YouTube links and none of those assert notability to this list. I also advise them to start a Fandom page if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with sourcing from [32], [33] and [34]. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Less about WP:NOTTVGUIDE as it doesn't necessarily apply here, but since each broadcast and crew can be covered in each All Star Game, the collection in itself is not notable. Conyo14 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NBA All-Star Game is the National Basketball Association's big marquee annual event outside of the NBA Finals. Any further relevant information and sources always added to the article (such as through the aid of Google News Archives and what not) that can will help give it more notability. Also, the individual articles for each All-Star Game doesn't specifically specify or identify the exact role for each announcer like the play-by-play announcer, color commentator, sideline reporter, studio host, etc. This is where the lists in particular come into play as its presumably, a simpler and linear way to now about the television and radio broadcasting history and background. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above in case you didn't read, WP:USEFUL covers the point you made. Also, WP:ILIKEIT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, adding TV listings as sources will not support your argument. This isn't 2004 anymore. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @SpacedFarmer: I don't understand your own argument about how adding TV listings as sources will not support my argument. How can you argue that the list previously didn't have enough sources to assert its notability and yet, immediately discount newspaper articles from those exact time periods. To me you can't argue that something needs to be deleted if it's mostly unsourced per WP:RS and then say that said sources like TV listings. Many of the sources that I added thus far by the way, were not simply and just general TV listings (like bullet points), but paragraphed and fairly detailed articles. What does saying that "it isn't 2004 anymore" have to do with anything? I don't exactly get your point and argument there and why that's of any relevance. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:ROUTINE applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this particular article was placed in an AFD, approximately 136 different sources have been added to help boost its notability. Previously, there were about 119 different sources, but now there are approximately 255 in total. Every decade for the All-Star Game on television has now been sourced consistently since at least starting with ABC's first televised All-Star Game in 1968. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Information about the annual television ratings and viewership averages for the NBA All-Star Game dating back to 1990. Has now been added. BornonJune8 (talk) 8:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Lean Keep. Taking a quick look, there seems to be a decent amount of coverage when it comes to the broadcasters for the NBA All-Star Game. BornonJune8 has added also added sources so that it now exceeds 250 references. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that WP:REFBOMBING does not help with determining if this meets the WP:NLIST, rather we need to see the broadcasters discussed as a group. That being said, the nom does seem to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let'srun (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that? I was defending my decision to nominate this list for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as the broadcasters aren't discussed as a group in non-primary sources. Willing to change my mind if better sources are found so please ping me if that happens. Let'srun (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article from the Orlando Sentinel from 2002 regarding NBC's telecast of the NBA All-Star Game, which is its final NBA All-Star Game telecast to date: NBC SHINES IN ALL-STAR BROADCAST. The 1998 All-Star Game, which was called by Bob Costas, Isiah Thomas, and Bill Walton for NBC, is discussed here. Here's another article that delves into the highest television viewership in NBA All-Star Game history. The viewership/ratings for the 2003 NBA All-Star Game on TNT, the first ever to be broadcast on a cable network is discussed in this article from the New York Times. And here's a rundown from Bill Simmons on ESPN.com about the 1987 NBA All-Star Game, which was televised by CBS. Going back a bit further, here's an article on the 1981 All-Star Game from Cleveland, which was also aired on CBS and had Gary Bender, Bill Russell, and Rick Barry on the call. Before CBS, ABC held the network television rights to the NBA, and here's an article from NBA.com on the 1973 All-Star Game from Chicago that was called by Chris Schenkel and Bill Russell. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be in an article about broadcasting in NBA All-Star Games, not a list about a list of NBA All-Star Game broadcasters. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. These sources would be perfect for an article discussing the history of broadcasting in regards to this game. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about broadcasting in NBA All-Star Games and its overall history to begin with. That's pretty much the whole point or intent in my estimation or perspective. I don't exactly understand or get what point that you're trying to make. Unless, you're saying that there should be more context/information behind the individual network coverage of any given year beyond simply listing names. Besides, there's already a more broad-scale article on the history of the National Basketball Association on television that has a section on the All-Star Game. While it does list the networks and viewership totals since 1990, it doesn't specific the the names of the commentators (play-by-play, analysts, hosts, etc.) for the respective years. BornonJune8 (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as another editor said elsewhere, a list can serve valid navigational purpose and not have sources discussing all entries as a group. Here are a collection of pieces that perhaps, does exactly what you ask: The NBA in the 1970s: Roone’s Revenge, NBC’s NBA Nostalgia Play, Hoop Streams: The Rise of the NBA, Multiplatform Television, and Sports as Media Content, 1982 to 2015, The NBA Strategy of Broadcast Television Exposure, 5 Highly Improbable Facts About The History Of the NBA On TV, THE NBA ON NETWORK TELEVISION: A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS BornonJune8 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

would be perfect for an article discussing the history of broadcasting in regards to this game – Then move it, don't delete it and require it to be started completely all over. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT ,fails WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not seeing the problem here. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

Sorted by State[edit]

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