Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

General

Katherine Phillips

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable / WP:SOAP relic. 18 years ago when this was a current news event there was perhaps some case for this person being a smidgen notable but even then there was an AfD raised on the same grounds ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Kuwait, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holcomb Perigee

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

Unsourced since 2004. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aerocar International, which appears to be the original manufacturer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced for 21 years, and tagged as such for 16 years. Zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Significant coverage of the aircraft is available in the sources linked below, meeting WP:GNG:
- Taylor, John W. R., ed. (1986). "USA: SPORT AIRCRAFT". Jane's all the world's aircraft, 1986-87. Janes All the World's Aircraft. London: Jane's Publishing Company. p. 670-671. ISBN 978-0-7106-0835-2. Retrieved 7 December 2025 – via Internet Archive.
- Taylor, John W. R., ed. (1987). "USA: SPORT AIRCRAFT". Jane's All the World's Aircraft, 1987-88. Janes All the World's Aircraft. London: Jane's Publishing Company. p. 670. ISBN 978-0-7106-0850-5. Retrieved 7 December 2025 – via Internet Archive.
- Chant, Christopher (1990). "CIVIL PROTOTYPES". Aircraft Prototypes. Chartwell Books. p. 123. ISBN 978-1-85076-255-3. Retrieved 7 December 2025 – via Internet Archive.

Further coverage of the aircraft is available in this book (also from Janes All the World's Aircraft), which notes that its 1989-90 edition included "details of the perigee and an illustration". There is also further coverage of the aircraft available in this book, this book, this book, and this book, but of which I'm unable to verify. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against a merger. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure a merger is warranted. As this aircraft meets WP:GNG, its history, design, and specifications should be covered separately from the manufacturer’s article, contrasting from a merger which would remove/prevent the addition of these informations as the article on the manufacturer would then focus too much on this aircraft. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mega64 episodes

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

Article is little more than a WP:NOTPLOT violation, consisting solely of overly-lengthy plot summaries and no encyclopaedic material. Given these were DVDs/Public Access TV I don't think there's a likelihood of encyclopaedic material being added (airing dates, viewership etc) so should be removed. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mar-a-Lago Accord

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

Most of the text of this article, as well as its sourcing, originates from the April 6, 2025 version. This appears to be an AI-generated draft with severe hallucination problems bordering on WP:HOAX. For one, it calls it the "Margo Largo Accord" -- a name that is not and never was real. The draft also claims the accord was already introduced, and goes into detail about its supposed contents, effects, and reactions to it; the problem is, no actual accord was introduced at the time (or now), so pretty much all of that is made up. The sourcing gives an impression of WP:SIGCOV but almost all of it appears to be background information about various topics that aren't the accord. Most of these problems exist in the current version of the article, and I think it goes too deep for cleanup; a quick WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up much in the way of reliable sources about any actual accord -- which would be highly strange for a major US policy proposal. (Closest I found is this Financial Times coverage which is all speculation at that point.) The whole thing is WP:OR at best and I don't think there's any salvaging it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SPECULATION The key is in the first sentence. This is only a "proposed initiative" from the White House. Until it is put befofe Congress to review and vote on, it's too soon for Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salubata

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

The article appears to lack independent and reliable coverage in major areas. Most sources are press releases, awards announcements, or niche blogs; so likely to fail WP:GNG, WP:NCORP.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Environment. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria, France, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forsalebyowner.com

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

Seems like another non-WP:NCORP, WP:CORPTRIV-sourced company article; on top of that it's written like a product summary/advertisement. The only thing I could see that possibly evidences notability here is the lawsuit, but there doesn't seem to be enough SIGCOV to create an article. A GNews search turns up a lot of predictable passing/CORPTRIV stuff, and a GScholar search turns up some passing mentions in papers about FSBO sales in general, but not any sigcov about this site itself. Maybe its content could be included into For sale by owner as an ATD if deletion isn't preferred? Athanelar (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Athanelar (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 03:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, Michigan, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted garbage page no gng meeting criteria, just deletion is okay. 15:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Maazoz (talk)
Delete - The article doesn’t have enough independent, reliable coverage to show lasting notability. The 2003 lawsuit is the only potentially notable part, but unless there are strong sources highlighting its impact, the content (including company history) would be better merged into For sale by owner or a general FSBO websites article. If anyone can provide solid, independent coverage, the notability case could be revisited; until then, deletion with merge seems appropriate. SanneMonte (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rocket Companies#Subsidiaries, where appropriate short mention of it within its current company is already blended into that section; this article looks as if it hasn't really been touched in years outside the mention of said acquisition by Rocket outside of maintenance, general 'spam everything' real estate SPAs, and reverted COI edits. Nathannah • 📮 18:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally It's a brand name for a company by the way, so if anything should be included on for sale by owner it should be only a 'not to be confused' template to make it clear at the top of the page. Nathannah • 📮 22:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I did some digging (Google Books & Newspapers.com) and the company is likely notable but I don't plan on doing the WP:HEY and the information can be covered in Rocket Companies as already accomplished by Nathannah. As such, just need to create the redirect as an WP:ATD. For the hatnote, "for sale by owner" could have a disambiguation page since there are now five topics covered by that name. May be easier than a distinguish note. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly agree that if we decide on redirect, changing that hatnote would be much more proper. Nathannah • 📮 19:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asian American public television

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

Lack of any sigcov and so poorly sourced it is barely able to acknowledge its subject. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Asia, and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a topic with extensive research in media studies, sociology, etc. Just check google scholar, dozens of books and articles there; [1] [2] [3] [4] Katzrockso (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albert W. Hilchey

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

Lack of significant coverage. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Liberia, Guatemala, and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This helps [5], but this is a very niche subject, and I can only find one source. Without more, I don't think we have notability. Ping me if others are found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Lee Hoffman

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

I do see a few sources about him, but they almost all seem to focus on his research facility, "The Last Resort." Several blogs pop up and some others about him, but there isn't a whole lot else. I'm seeking comment for if we think the person alone merits the notability he has in relation to "The Last Resort" or if this person is not notable, and is only receiving coverage for one event or inheriting it from the Last Resort. aaronneallucas (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. aaronneallucas (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before deleting, sources should be checked in accordance with WP:BEFORE. I searched for information about him and there are quite a lot of mentions. Including in such major media as Business Insider https://www.businessinsider.com/tour-david-hoffmans-sustainable-home-before-its-demolished-2012-7Nagirakitan (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nagirakitan As I mentioned, I did check for sources about him before nomination. The question is whether these sources are more about his home than the man himself, or if he is only notable for this one topic and therefore may not deserve an article under the GNG. aaronneallucas (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lunz

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

Fails WP:CRIMINAL, his crimes were only covered by local newspapers and are certianly not "historic". Dozens of low-profile criminals appear on local newspapers for murder every day, which is why notability standards for criminals is higher than GNG. A repeat offender appearing on the local news twice for WP:ROUTINE crimes is WP:ROTM ("random Florida man got arrested a second time in our county!") and scarcely does anything to help one achieve notability. V. S. Video (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, United States of America, and Florida. V. S. Video (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is covered by extensive reliable and verifiable sources that cover the subject in depth. I'm no sure where our nominator comes from, but describing a serial killer as a run-of-the-mill ("random Florida man got arrested a second time in our county!") petty criminal appears to be misleading, at best, and hardly justifies deletion. Alansohn (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources say he is a serial killer, they only say that he described himself as such [6][7]. Claiming to be something that could make someone notable and actually being such thing is quite different. V. S. Video (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kursonis

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

Does not pass GNG or NHOCKEY. A before search shows a singular source from the Worcester Telegram that may be worth including, but does not push the article over the notability line. Kline • talk • contribs 16:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and United States of America. Kline • talk • contribs 16:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY. No sense the subject meets the GNG, and playing for a minor collegiate program, no prospect of doing so. Ravenswing 03:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not pass WP:GNG at this time. Try again in a few years. Flibirigit (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Edmonds (media consultant)

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a political consultant, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for political consultants. There are statements here that would probably be valid notability claims if they were referenced properly and expanded upon with more detail, but nothing at all that's so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability -- but in its current state this is completely unreferenced, and reviewing its history it has only ever previously contained primary sources (e.g. the self-published websites of companies and organizations he's been directly affiliated with, and a WorldCat directory entry) that are not support for notability, and there has never, ever been even one single solitary WP:GNG-worthy third-party reliable source in the article whatsoever, all the way back to its creation in 2010.
As I'm not an expert on American political backroom strategists, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody is able to find the necessary kind of sourcing to demonstrate that he would pass GNG on his media coverage, but the article can't stand without the GNG-worthy sourcing that's never been in it.
It's also undergone more than one round of "advertorialism by temp accounts getting reverted by established editors" editwarring in the past week and a bit, so I strongly suspect conflict of interest editing by somebody directly associated with the subject. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any sources about this person, most hits that come up are for UK politics. Sourcing now in the article is lacking, only cited to offline sources. Tagged for almost 15 yrs with no apparent updates. I'd delete this for any lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was copied word for word from https://theaapc.org/recognition-awards/hall-of-fame/tom-edmonds/ including the punctuation and spacing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
could be tagged as a COPYVIO unless it's under a CC license I guess. Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Dikmen

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

Appears to Fail Significant coverage and WP:BIO. Several sources cited in page are press releases beyond that there aren’t any reliable independent sources that can affirm notability. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 14:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Business. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 14:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Turkey and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kansas and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PharmaRusical (RuPaul's Drag Race episode)

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

Despite just having moved from draft, I do not believe that the episode meets notability for a standalone article required by WP:NEPISODE. The "Episode" and "Production" sections just explain what happens in the episode, what the contestants are wearing, etc., with no analysis whatsoever (or even references for the "Fashion" subsection) and the coverage in the "Reception" section is minor. See recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#RuPaul's Drag Race franchise episodes and notability and the earlier one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 39#RuPaul's Drag Race, season 7 episodes. --wooden superman 09:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 09:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This previously went to AfD and survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PharmaRusical; the later draftification came after a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#RuPaul's Drag Race franchise episodes and notability, and the return to mainspace was through AfC and not a unilateral contesting. There is separately an RM to move the article back to the undisambiguated titlePharmaRusical, which had been a redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race season 10 in the interim. I note all this for the record and have no opinion on any of this (beyond that there is an obvious alternative to deletion in redirecting this to RuPaul's Drag Race season 10 as well). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. This article is part of an ongoing effort to have entries about RuPaul's Drag Race episodes restored to the main space, per the discussion referenced by User:Wcquidditch above. This episode has received in-depth reviews by multiple reliable sources and the article is long enough to justify a fork from the season article. Here are just a few of the sources confirming significant coverage in independent and reliable sources:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The A.V. Club				✔ Yes
The New York Times				✔ Yes
Vulture				✔ Yes
Metro Weekly				✔ Yes
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}}.

The article was kept at AfD previously and accepted at Articles for Creation just two days ago. This article should be expanded and improved, not deleted, and I will continue working to get RPDR entries placed in the main space and promoted to Good article status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 09:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on your talk page, the other articles that have been recreated and submitted through AfC seem to have something exceptional about them, they've won awards, etc., and I would suggest an award winning episode should usually meet any notability issues. But I'm just not seeing it with this one. There is nothing remarkable about this episode, in fact, looking at the reviews, it seems it might be a bit mediocre. WP:NEPISODE sets a pretty high bar for individual episodes. To use an example for scripted television, look at how few Friends episodes meet this standard. All I'm seeing here is WP:ROUTINE coverage, nothing that sets it apart. --wooden superman 09:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 10:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not going to !vote, seeing as I accepted the draft.) Keep — GNG is very likely met, as there enough WP:42 sources that establish notability. I might be reading it wrong, but your argument for deletion is WP:TNT, but the issues you raise with the article would be pretty easy to fix. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG Olliefant (she/her) 17:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source table above has more than enough evidence that GNG is met. TheInevitables (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lookout, Indiana

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

A searching nightmare, all I have to go on is the post office and GMaps, which shows that the buildings at the spot shown on topos belong to one, maybe two farmsteads. I think the post office was all there was to this. Mangoe (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Indiana. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find absolutely no hits on normal search, Newspapers.com, Google Books, or Scholar, and no other mention outside of the post office ref here. On satellite and street view, it seems like one house and some farm buildings, definitely not an unincorporated community as claimed by the article and not notable. HurricaneZeta^C 22:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found two pieces on this community [8] [9], but I'm more confused than when I started. Worth noting that the first Guthrie article states it "had a blacksmith shop, post office, general store, creamery, tavern and a one-room school". It looks like the post office that we say is at Delaware, Indiana was first at this location ("Lookout") and was under that name. At some point, the "new" community Delaware emerged and this one was known as Schutte's Corner. Then between 1912 and 1918, the community was renamed to Lookout.

More info confirming post office dates here [10]

I wouldn't be opposed to a merge/redirect to another target, however. Katzrockso (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may be able to pass WP:GNG with the sources found above. It seems it was named Lookout by Robert A. Creigmile, a politician who was the youngest member of the Indiana House of Representatives in 1893. Aneirinn (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Beamon

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

Low-profile criminal that fails WP:PERP. He appeared in some local newspapers in 2019 due to a murder conviction. Other than that, a single local newspaper reported on a previous conviction of his in 2005, which counts as a WP:ROUTINE crime report and does little to help him climb his way out of WP:BIO1E. Dozens of criminals appear on local newspapers for murder every day, which is why our standards for criminals is higher than just GNG. V. S. Video (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, United States of America, and Florida. V. S. Video (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing at all notable in this person's crimes. There are a small number of newspaper articles about him but they do not reveal anything particular about him or his crimes. Some of the sources used (mainly the ones from the bureau of prisons) are primary and do not contain much information. I found nothing helpful through the usual searches. Lamona (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Anderson (screenwriter)

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

I found no evidence of notability upon a search for sources. Out of the article's two existing sources, one does not go in-depth into the subject as a person, and one is a primary source as the subject's alma mater. He seems to fail WP:AUTHOR as well. TheInevitables (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Florida. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There are mentions in some reliable sources, for example Wall Street Journal but no independent significant coverage of the subject so it clearly fails Significant Coverage and Notability overall. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 13:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is listed as Gregory Ramon Anderson in IMDB and searching on that name turns up more hits. Also, he is not known mainly as a screenwriter - the majority of his work is as producer. That said, I haven't finished checking the potential sources. Lamona (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles fought in Indiana

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

An essentially unreferenced article that goes against the WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN guideline. Nominations of other articles like this, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles fought in South Dakota, have resulted in deletion. toweli (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, United States of America, and Indiana. toweli (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Wikiproject style guideline is not a Wikipedia notability guideline. Moreover, that section of MILMOS refers to categorization, not what is permitted in articles, and I don't think the debates it is concerned with are particularly salient for US states. Anyway, there's still Category:Battles in the United States by state. This seems to be a perfectly valid and informational navigational list. Reywas92^Talk 02:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the South Dakota verdict. What applies to categories applies to lists of this sort. Also, there was no Indiana at the time of half the battles listed. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the nominator does not provide a policy-based rationale for deletion. Categories =/= lists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid navigational and information list. Enough things on the list have their own articles linked to, its a valid list. Dream Focus 22:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Riese Lassen

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

No indication of GNG or NARTIST. Most sources either don't mention the artist or only do so in passing mention. The one source that (according to the article) doesn't explicitly mentions the fact that the subject is not mentioned elsewhere. Fermiboson (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Hawaii. Fermiboson (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 18:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All 5 10 refs cover the artist by name in several sentences; stating that they 'don't mention the artist' is demonstrably false. The Takashi Kashima ref is focused on the artist and has 6+ pages on him. Christian Riese Lassen was also a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador in 1998 for the International Year of the Ocean, though I am still searching for good RS coverage of this.Dialectric (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an entire book published in Japan focused on his work and its reception. - Essays on works and reception of Lassen in Japan June 2013 by Film Art (Tokyo). Yuki Harada editor. [11]Dialectric (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, this seems like a set of essays about his work? Without the full book it can't be definitely said if it counts toward notability, but it might be a good source if it's not just an essay collection. HurricaneZeta^C 21:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What policy page are you looking at that suggests that a book of essays on an artist, published by an established Japanese publisher does not count towards notability?Dialectric (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Japanese-language biography written by Yuki Harada published by Chuokoron-Shinsha [12] (ISBN978-4-12-005724-3).and there is a review of the biography in bunshun [13] (in Japanese). Dialectric (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Takashi Kashima ref (ref 1) in turn references several articles on Lassen published in Japan's largest newspapers including The Asahi Shimbun (April 18, 1997, Fukui edition, p. 15)(June 5, 1997, evening edition, p. 14) and the Sankei Shimbun (June 2, 1997, evening edition, p. 11) which constitute significant coverage.Dialectric (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source is the only one that seems to have a good form of SIGCOV. The second one simply talks about his homes and the third one has glowing language and seems to be some sort of advertisement (might be wrong here). The fourth one mentions that his painting was stolen, but nothing about him (this one too). The fifth one does have coverage, but it's also regular coverage of an incident that is fairly common for news to cover. At first, the Google Books and Newspapers.com hits seemed promising, but nearly all of them are paid ads that just have glowing praise with no help towards building notability. As for the Goodwill Ambassador, it's mentioned a lot in Google searches, but I don't think that alone is enough for automatic notability. HurricaneZeta^C 18:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: I searched up his name in Japanese (I believe it's クリスチャン・ラッセン) and most of the results cited/included that biography book above, so I believe that could be usable as a source if the contents are accessible. Additional Japanese source I found: [14], but I'm not sure it's reliable. The Japanese Wikipedia page isn't too promising in terms of sources either. HurricaneZeta^C 21:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No listing in the Getty ULAN [15], the NY Post article (not a RS anyway) [16] covers some aspect the artist, but we just don't have enough to show notability. The one good source mentioned in the comments above isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That NY Post article just quotes from his website anyway, so it's not usable even as a non-RS to count towards notability. Also, I had no idea that he made that image. HurricaneZeta^C 21:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I was trying to show, I guess I didn't really explain it. Artist was only covered in a non-RS, that was all I found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red Voice Choir

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Absolutely WP:MILL / WP:GARAGE, fails in WP:NBAND. Svartner (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, an unsigned band fails at least one musical group category, never releasing an album on a major label. I don't see anything about this group. Red Army Choir, nothing for a Red Voice Choir. Sourcing in the article is largely PROMO, this has been tagged for 5 years with nothing added. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have mentioned above, appears to be a likely WP:PROMO attempt, falls well short of WP:NBAND. Nil🥝 05:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rug Burn (channel)

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

Lack of significant coverage. Go D. Usopp (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Internet, and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find other coverage about the channel except its launch, covered in the article, and nothing about it shutting down. If it were notable, you'd think there would be coverage about its end of operation. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to its respective collaborators 6 Point Harness and Titmouse, Inc. respecitively. as an ATD. as current sourcing and additional searching fails to show standalone notability. Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There can only be one specific redirect target. RedShellMomentum ☎ ✎ 03:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only coverage comes from the launch of the channel, not notable at all. No obvious WP:ATD-R target since it's a collaboration between two studios. RedShellMomentum ☎ ✎ 03:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Progressive Party

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

Fails GNG. Results were muddy, but filtering out all of the results pertaining to Africa left none relating to this PPP. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 22:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are sources, they're buried in search results pertaining to a party of the same name in Guyana. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This party is in no way notable, I hope this is not an example of COI Atriskofmistake (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the founder of the party (Faye Nichols) and the editor who created the party (Starryfaye) are rather similar Atriskofmistake (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appeared as non notable party. M S T L (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-so far lacks enough SIGCOV to suggest notability , additional searches shows much the same.Lorraine Crane (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Unwritten Law

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

Fails WP:NALBUM; should be redirected to Unwritten Law discography#Compilation albums per WP:20THCM. RedShellMomentum ☎ ✎ 21:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. RedShellMomentum ☎ ✎ 21:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- Unwritten Law discography#Compilation Albums as an ATD, additional searches show lack of standalone notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart of a Negro

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

Announced but never created film without reliable indepth sources. I redirected it to Lincoln Motion Picture Company#Unreleased future projects because it lacks notability, but was reverted. Part of a school assignment apparently. Would suggest redirecting it again as an WP:ATD. Fram (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the inconvenience. Even though the assignment is over I still intend on coming back to edit the article at a later date with more reliable sources because I am genuinely interested in creating Wikipedia articles. This is also my first time with something like this and I do not have any external help or assistants so I am trying to learn this on my own. Aidan Fields (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. It looks like this was planned, but never came to fruition. I think that this is something that could be covered in the company's article, but I don't think that it's notable enough for its own article, based on what I was able to find. The mentions are generally in passing and it doesn't sound like they did more than announce it and plan actors. Since this is for a class assignment I would recommend moving the article into the user's draftspace so they can have a copy for grading, if there isn't a copy already. This would also give them a place to work on this if the AfD ends with the article getting redirected or deleted prior to the end of their course, just in case there is enough coverage to justify inclusion and they weren't able to get it into the article before then. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doddle

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

Software that doesn't appear to have WP:CONTINUED coverage. The sources date back to the beginning of the project, and the official website itself seems outdated since 2013. Svartner (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and United States of America. Svartner (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any in-depth sources and most of the existing sources seem to be user-generated blogs on trade websites. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Individualized Quality Control Plan

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

Notability not established with substantive independent sources – standalone article not needed for narrow regulatory topic (merge to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments may be appropriate but I don't see the significance) Reywas92^Talk 04:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Management, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable subtopic on approach of statistical quality control in the United States for clinical applications. Ample sourcing available.GobsPint (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Major League Cricket season

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

No significant detail about the season has been revealed yet, WP:TOOSOON. Vestrian24Bio 09:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and United States of America. Vestrian24Bio 09:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify WP:TOOSOON Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - for now as the event nears, should likely get more substantial coverage.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, publish again when more info. Jiiiiii2 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per above. Mahavillage (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA Corps Outstanding Volunteer Service Award Medal

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

No indication that this award is in any way notable (lack of non-government indepth sources). I redirected it to Awards and decorations of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration but was reverted. Fram (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and United States of America. Fram (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To the target in the nomination. Important information about the award is already there. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Mind Records

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. 4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious merge target that did not need to come to AfD. It could be integrated into Norman Harris (musician) or Salsoul Records; I'd probably suggest the latter as the better resting place. Chubbles (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Community Expeditionary Service Medal

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

I redirected this to Awards and decorations of the United States government#National Intelligence Public Service Awards, but was reverted. It is unclear whether this award was even ever in use (not in 2012 and not in 2025, unknown inbetween), but in any case there is no evidence of notability, no indepth reliable independent (non-government) sources. Fram (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and United States of America. Fram (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is all WP:PRIMARY. Award appears to have never been awarded, and was only a proposed award. Not notable.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Intelligence Superior Public Service Medal

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

I redirected this to Awards and decorations of the United States government#National Intelligence Public Service Awards as I don't see any notability for this specific award, but got reverted. No independent reliable source seems to have given significant attention to this award. Fram (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added recipients for improved notability TexasBob85 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does "government gives government awards to government employees" add any notability for the award? Fram (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Director of National Intelligence per WP:ATD. Alternatively redirect to Awards and decorations of the United States government. Fails WP:GNG as no secondary sources have covered this award that I could find. (no hits in google books, google scholar, internet archive, newspapers.com). The only sources covering this are government sources, and while reliable, the government covering itself does not prove notability.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States and Canada by charging connector

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

Some of the info on this article is useful and should be added to each vehicles' individual articles, but I don't see how this is a notable category / satisfies WP:GNG. It's an indiscriminate collection of information that belongs in sections of a main article rather than a standalone list. Also appears to contain original research, with a number of government documents used as sources, some of which don't even support claims being made in the article. aesurias (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Canada, and United States of America. aesurias (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits have substantially changed the scope and sourcing of this article, so the original concerns about indiscriminate listing and original research are now much less applicable. The page has been refocused away from a speculative, model-by-model directory into a sourced overview of the main charging connector families used on plug-in vehicles in the United States and Canada, with only a small, clearly labelled table of representative vehicle usage. The current version relies on independent, non-Wikipedia sources (NRCan, U.S. DOE AFDC, SAE, Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, CHAdeMO, CharIN, and consumer guides) to summarise how J1772, CCS1, CHAdeMO and NACS are deployed in this region, rather than synthesising government documents to infer details that are not stated. From a content-organisation standpoint, trying to maintain connector information separately in dozens of individual vehicle articles is both impractical and error-prone; connector standards cut across manufacturers, platforms and model years, which makes a centralised, sourced overview article more maintainable and more useful to readers than scattering partial duplication across many pages. Per WP:LISTN and WP:NCON, the topic here is not a trivial "list of trivia" but a region-specific overview of EV connector usage that is already the subject of significant discussion in reliable sources. If further trimming of the example tables is needed to reduce directory-style content, that can be handled by normal editing; outright deletion is not necessary to address the earlier issues. Likeajc (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alecto AI

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

While the founder of the organization, Breeze Liu, may be notable, the organization does not seem to be notable itself. Per consideration of the current article's sources and a WP:BEFORE, the organization is only mentioned in passing in relation to the founder's activism, but there is no in-depth coverage of the organization itself. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Artificial intelligence, United States of America, and California. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced on founder notability, but I guess I'm not fully convinced they're not notable either. Either way, this can be a redirect to Breeze Liu until someone nominates the article on her also. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Johnson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Katrina Johnson

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

The existing sources used on the page are either dead links or do not seem like the most quality, reliable sources. I asked for help with finding more sources on this page back in January and it seems like no one else was able to find anymore. I just did a search myself and was unable to find sources. Therefore, this page fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The references seem to be adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific number threshold that a page needs to be considered "adequate"? I have seen pages be deleted for having many more RSes from much better sources (New York Times, BBC, etc.). Just curious if there is a certain numerical threshold and if the quality of the sources factor in. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources on Google, just social media. She was interviewed on a local Fox TV channel. She is name-checked in something called "Complex." I can't find the Celebuzz article, but by the title it's mainly about someone else. It is hard to search for her because her name is common. In fact, the CanvasRebel article is not her. None of these are stellar sources. Lamona (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Had only one notable role, so fails WP:NACTRESS. The coverage here is of a tabloid nature as well (ie allegations of abuse on a TV set). It's not even about her work on TV but stuff that allegedly happened off camera. The coverage is not strong, and I would say fails WP:NOTTABLOID. I'd think we would need something more substantial of higher quality to count as WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Distillers (EP)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. RedShellMomentum ☎ 20:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Distillers#Extended plays – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Ballers

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

All the team pages for the teams in this league are basically the same and simply state the team was formed by Lavar Ball's JBA which played one season and the team held tryouts, pretty much not meeting WP:GNG. All of that could simply and is covered in the general Junior Basketball Association article. So making this a group nomination for all of the teams - except Los Angeles Ballers, which I guess got a bit more coverage because of Lamelo and LiAngelo Ball and maybe meets GNG.

Instead of straight up deletion, a Redirect to Junior Basketball Association is probably most fitting.

In total, I am nominating the following related pages because of the same above reasons:

RedPatch (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Basketball, and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 16:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Junior Basketball Association per nom. Probably there would be no harm in merging Los Angeles Ballers there too. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the league page seems fine, a bit of coverage found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of turkey meat producing companies in the United States

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

No indication of notability or reception at all (WP:NLIST). A decent amount of these (not 100% sure about all of them) are WP:PROMO. Gommeh 📖 🎮 16:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United States of America. Gommeh 📖 🎮 16:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lists. Gommeh 📖 🎮 16:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NLIST. Google books has entire books devoted to turkey production in the United States. Clearly discussed in-depth in multiple reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE clearly was not done.4meter4 (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Creator User:Mckburton is a sock account. Much of this is WP:NOTPLOT. — Maile (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does WP:NOTPLOT have to do with a list of companies? That policy applies to articles on books, films, television shows, etc. Totally not relevant to this page. And many editors have contributed to this article in the ten years since Mckburton created the article, so that isn't relevant either. This isn't a valid deletion argument.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that isn't a valid deletion rationale. Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nefarious plot concocted by the turkey companies. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST. I trimmed the list, keeping only companies that have a standalone page. This should deal with WP:PROMO concerns. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be reasonable to add a reception section then, or something that discusses the list as a group? Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be great, but I am not willing to do it[17]. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, makers by commodity are always grouped and reported in places, especially if the commodity's a popular one. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this turkey. The major (articled) producers can be mentioned in Poultry farming. Where are these alleged company lists by commodity? Not in Category:Lists of companies of the United States by industry (industry, not commodity). Where are the chicken lists, the pork lists, etc.? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ira S. Nash

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

Seems to fail WP:NSCHOLAR. Science Direct says his papers (many of them are co-authored) have 888 citations, which as far as I now considered low. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and United States of America. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, editor of a major text-book, has publications (it's absolutely normal for academic publications to be multiple-author), and his position in Mt Sinai is very significant too. Elemimele (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right Mt Sinai is significant, but there is good-old problem—it doesn't seem be covered by any secondary with substantial coverage so it's not significant for wiki (I checked Gnews, Gbooks and ProQuest). If we can find any reviews of his textbooks or other works, i would lean toward keep. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Quoting from Notability criteria of Wikipedia:
  
  On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable"or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. (Underline added)
  
  Isn't it that substantial coverage is the secondary criteria? This entry may be fit to be kept as the first criteria in the paragraph above seem to have been met. However, this is contingent upon the quality of the citations. Postbox 2 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @LastJabberwocky:, to make it explicit, in terms of WP:NPROF, I believe that his editorship of Hurst's the Heart coupled with the chapters he's contributed to it, are a clear pass of criterion 4, which alone makes him notable. I think his publications are probably enough for criterion 1, and his position as Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President for Medical Affairs at the Mount Sinai Hospital (Manhattan) (a very large teaching hospital, analogous to a university teaching faculty) is probably equivalent to a professorship enough to pass criterion 5. His fellowship of several institutions may also contribute to criterion 3. The article is reminiscent of a resumé and a bit laudatory, but the person behind it passes on policy grounds. Elemimele (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I absolutely agree policy-wise he passes several WP:NPROF, but as WP:NPROF says, {{tq|"An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." I so far couldn't locate any quality sources (secondary-reliable-SIGCOV). This one can have something useful, but I cannot access it. There are several interviews that introduce his positions (e.g., [https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=18944018&lang=ru&site=eds-live&scope=site and [18]); not we have enough to make an article :(. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 13:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  From a literal wording of the second sentence of that dot-point you quote, the simplest interpretation is that it is the Major awards [and] claims of impact that must be verifiable. Articles passing NPROF would not need to pass BASIC also, or that would make NPROF very redundant. If you cannot access a source, WP:RX is an option. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the awards seem non-notable, has some publications, but nothing about this individual. I don't see notability for academics. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see which textbook they authored. If it is Hurst's the Heart, then OpenLibrary claims it was authored by Valentin Fuster and Jagat Narula. The latter, unfortunately, does not have a Wikipedia bio, but he has 68,534 citations in Scopus, far more than the 888 of the subject. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPROF. I checked his 3 "Fellow" awards, and none of these rise to the selective level that we require to demonstrate notability. I do not see any other notable awards. He has some publications with decent citations, but only a 1982 paper has enough (302) to approach notability. I do not see enough to pass any other criteria, no book reviews for WP:NAUTHOR.Ldm1954 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insane (Black Gryph0n and Baasik song)

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

I don't think "Insane" is notable on its own. Most of the sources are just primary sources, which doesn't help it meet the notability criteria for songs. The song did chart, but charts are not an automatic golden ticket to notability. I would support an alternative to deletion, if any, but I would just outright delete this. RedShellMomentum ☎ 02:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. RedShellMomentum ☎ 02:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to fail WP:NSONG quite severely despite charting. Besides the one independent source currently in the article, I can find exactly one other independent and marginally reliable source that so much as mentions this song, which is this SEO bait-y article from Dot Esports. Falls well short of the NSONG's requirement for "significant coverage as the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- though current sourcing like this though seem SIGCOV as it focuses specifically on the lyrics itself. Aside from this seems scarce, suggesting a redirect to Alastor the Radio Demon as an ATD where this song is mentioned.Lorraine Crane (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alastor the Radio Demon. Notability for the song itself is not demonstrated by the sources or anything else I could find online, so redirecting to the character's page as an alternative to deletion seems like a good choice. death pact (again) 17:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked Alastor the Radio Demon's page and it is only mentioned tangentially. It does not canonically or significantly define the character (most of his characterization comes from Hazbin Hotel and other Vivziepop-related works, and AFAIK the song is not canon to the show), so I do not support redirecting the page. As others have said, it does not meet WP:NSONG. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 06:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per JekyllTheFabulous. Svartner (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okapi (band)

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

Limited sourcing of overwhelmingly WP:PRIMARY nature (e.g. interviews), which means it fails WP:GNG as we should use secondary sources to establish notability. No better secondary sources discovered. Therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lack of enough SIGCOV sources to suggest notability, not opposed to draftify if more secondary sources more than interviews or passing mentions can be added.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. I was unable to find any additional news about this. Maxcreator (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several reviews of their albums and coverage from well known outlets.★Trekker (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user:StarTrekker could you provide links to the album reviews? I can't find any of note so far. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I made a bit of a mistake, this is indeed an album review, but this one is more of a general article, and [19] and [20], are reviews of songs. Tho I did also find this and this about the band in general, besides the articles already cited in the article.★Trekker (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the new sources you're suggesting don't look to qualify as RS. The majority look to be self-published music blogs (ForTheLoveofBands, Music-Defined, and The Deli Mag), and the already present The Wire link isn't actually a review, but a very brief description of and link to a specific song. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- - Is The Deli not reliable?★Trekker (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A publication having an article isn't an indicator of reliability (cough Daily Mail) and that article looks rather questionable itself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are very few secondary independent sources about the band. It has very little mainstream coverage and just is non-notable. Heavily requires more secondary sources. The article also leans toward being promotional and is not in a neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VertiasArchivist3 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of The Jackson 5

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

Non-notable album in the 20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection series. Suggesting redirect to The Jackson 5 discography#Selected compilation albums. RedShellMomentum ☎ 23:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. RedShellMomentum ☎ 23:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom; actually created after the album series's deletion with an inexplicable 'it charted at this one time in 2012, meets N' rationale by the creator (for a sub-100 position on what would usually be a bubbling under position on other charts, so it was faulty judgement then!); its only N claim was from around Jackson's death when it charted on the catalog only because had 'everywhere including 7Eleven' availability in the market and was just the easiest/cheapest to find for your average music consumer in that exact period of time in 2009 and no other time. Nathannah • 📮 00:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It charted, it was reviewed. The article need to be improved though. Markus WikiEditor (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Markus WikiEditor: WP:NALBUM clearly states that an album MAY be notable if it charts, not that it IS notable automatically. Also, one review from AllMusic is not enough SIGCOV to make this album meet the general notability guideline. RedShellMomentum ☎ 02:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as I stated above, its only charting was based upon very unusual circumstances where it could be found everywhere, including even truck stops and supermarkets, rather than just Walmart and record stores. It's already mentioned as an aside (with other Jackson albums with large catalog distrubution) in Death of Michael Jackson#Record sales, but is otherwise an average greatest hits album with no group involvement whatsoever. Nathannah • 📮 21:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RedShellMomentum, @Nathannah, @Mika1h, I added more reviews, ratings, and info about the album. The album sold over 1 million copies in United States and soon it (probably) will be certified platinum by RIAA (it's elegible already). Markus WikiEditor (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom; a review by AllMusic is not enough for notability. Would need at least another review or other piece of WP:SIGCOV. --Mika1h (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added anothe review (rating) by Tom Hull (critic) Markus WikiEditor (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both Tom Hull and Rolling Stone are not significant coverage, they are just ratings. --Mika1h (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes (album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM; should be redirected to Liam Kyle Sullivan#Albums. RedShellMomentum ☎ 18:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. RedShellMomentum ☎ 18:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:I like and also this was a hige deal in the late 2000s! Ten Years of “Shoes,” the Story of the First Great Viral Music Video, Betch [[21]] Early YouTube Star Kelly Performs Viral Song “Shoes” For Pride in Los Angeles [[22]] Liam Kyle Sullivan — YouTuber Behind 'Shoes' and 'Muffins' Videos — Talks Early Success and What He's Up to Now (Exclusive) [[23]] I think if anything it should be merged with Liam Kyle Sullivan Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you click that WP:I like link, you will find that this is an argumant that should not be made in a deletion discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles just talk about the songs, whose notability are not inherited from the album. The album still needs significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the notability criteria for albums, which I'm seeing none of. RedShellMomentum ☎ 22:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Liam Kyle Sullivan. The performer has a small cult following, and they talk about this album in social media, but I can find nothing in significant and reliable music media sources that describe the album in any depth. It is only present in the usual self-upload and directory sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Liam Kyle Sullivan#Albums – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Hurricane Hunters NOAA 42 incident

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NEVENT. The only significant coverage is from the episode of Air Crash Investigation (ironic, since there was no crash); everything else is either passing mentions, primary, or non-independent (by NOAA or Jeff Masters of Weather Underground who was on the flight). I attempted to call for more sources but was promptly reverted with no further attempt to show independent secondary sourcing. I note that this was previously the site of an edit war involving many parties between redirecting to Hurricane Hugo or not. I believe it is time for the community to formally decide if a standalone article is merited for this event. A basic before search did not identify anything providing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United States of America. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't see why the section, Lockheed WP-3D Orion § Accidents and incidents, can't be expanded to include more detail of this event, or/and redirect it to Hurricane Hugo. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The edit war was over putting this in Hurricane Hugo, but your idea seems like a much better option. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Aviation, and Barbados. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Lockheed WP-3D Orion § Accidents and incidents. Not enough independent significant coverage, this was a relatively minor incident anyway that would easily be covered in the suggested merge target. As an aside, I don't know why that user reverted your tag...it shouldn't have been removed without further discussion. nf utvol (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not enough sustain secondary coverage?

https://eos.org/articles/the-wildest-ride-on-a-hurricane-hunter-aircraft Zaptain United (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is independent sustain coverage and it got a ACI episode despite it being an obscure incident.
6 of the Most Harrowing Flights in Hurricane Hunter History | The Weather Channel

The Wildest Ride on a Hurricane Hunter Aircraft - Eos Zaptain United (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you consider adding or at least identifying the second source when I initially tagged the article for notability? If you'd done that instead of just blindly reverting, we might not be at AfD right now. The first source is only a few short paragraphs and I don't think it meets SIGCOV. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure your supposed to do a Wikipedia:BEFORE when you are considering a AFD nomination. Zaptain United (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure you would have seen I did do a BEFORE search if you actually read my nomination. That doesn't mean I searched exhaustively for every possible source of coverage anywhere on the entire internet. You're ignoring my point that, since you knew about this source, you could easily have added it when I first tagged the article. When I did a quick search for references as part of NPP just prior to placing the tag, I did not find that reference. If you had added it to the article instead of just reverting and saying "it's notable trust me" things might have been different. In fact, I prefer when that happens because then I can mark the article as reviewed and don't need to bother with AfD. I know you wanted a snarky one liner, but it's a little more complicated than that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you don't want to link to the redirect with "&redirect=no" in the url. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well look, I first reverted your edit because I took a glance at the sources and thought they show enough sustain coverage to be a article. I didn't think I needed to link anything because I thought the sources were good enough in the article. It wasn't until this AFD started, that I actually began searching for sources. Zaptain United (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect, it was a small incident which would fit nicely under Lockheed WP-3D Orion § Accidents and incidents. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lockheed WP-3D Orion#Accidents and incidents. Sometimes engine fires happen. One happened. Suitable remedial action was taken and the aircraft landed safely. I would not object to this being a sub-section of Hurricane Hugo and redirecing there either, but currently Hugo's article makes no mention whatsoever of this incident. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lockheed WP-3D Orion#Accidents and incidents; there's some sourcing, but it's minimal and not really enough to support a standalone page on the subject. I have no objection if somebody wants to expand the content at Hurricane Hugo and redirect this there, though. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 20:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — Secondary reliable coverage of the incident exists and it additionally has been used as a detailed case study. The amount of reliable sources on the incident justifies its existence as a separate article. A consensus (admittedly weak based on silence) was made to create this article on the Hurricane Hugo talk page based off of length of the main article and existence of sources for this incident. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two other sources that mention the flight signficiantly: 1, 2 RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 17:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Note that this is the event's second nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NOAA Flight 42 for more information. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as secondary sources exist about the incident. However, expansion would be appriciated. ~2025-31396-09 (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is enough WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV in the sources identified by Zaptain United to meet WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Note that if this is kept, it should be moved to NOAA Flight 42 as is the standard for aviation accident/incident articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
wait is that really the flight number. Does NOAA really refer to their planes with a flight number. The sources I see refer to it as just NOAA 42. Zaptain United (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. "42" is the aircraft number. Struck mny comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kidscreen Awards

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

Article about an awards program, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, awards are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their significance -- but this is referenced entirely to the awards' own self-published content about themselves, with not even one hit of GNG-worthy media coverage about them shown at all.
This has existed for four years as a redirect to Brunico Communications, the company that stages and hosts these awards, so obviously that can be reinstated if desired -- but this article, as written and sourced, has not demonstrated the notability needed to get its own standalone article separately from the parent organization. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brunico Communications per nom. There are 15 citations in this article, 14 of which are to kidscreen.com -- the website of the award and its organizer. The only independent source cited doesn't actually support the sentence that it is being used to support; specifically, this Animation Magazine article says nothing about a red carpet reception or hosted entertainment. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added additional sources from PBS, NPR, Animation Magazine, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and newspapers like UConn Today and the Northern Ireland Screen to satisfy notability guidelines. Article is also referenced by numerous other Wikipedia entries for film and television that have won Kidscreen Awards. EternalShadows123 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"other Wikipedia entries" are not notability-building sources, per WP:CIRCULAR. Notability is established by WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable source media, not by how many times a thing's name appears in other Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply adding context that the article is not a WP:ORPHAN, the other external citations address this concern. EternalShadows123 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brunico Communications: Fails WP:GNG as in the article most of the sources are from the awards themselves so not prove notability and the reliable secondary sources provided do not have WP:SIGCOV and I also could not find any reliable sources outside the article with SIGCOV. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added additional sources that directly discuss the Kidscreen Awards to address your concern. EternalShadows123 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brunico Communications. The current sources are all either from the Kidscreen Awards themselves, or do not contain significant coverage of the awards. At most, the secondary sources provide a single sentence about what the awards are. Upon looking for sources that do contain significant coverage, I couldn't find anything. death pact (again) 17:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added additional sources that directly discuss the Kidscreen Awards to address your concern. EternalShadows123 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Currently, the article has a sentence that ends with 13 footnotes. That appears to be citation overkill which doesn't add much to establishing the notability of the awards. I would be more impressed by 13 citations that supported 13 different facts about the awards in general, than with 13 citations supporting the same fact (or with 13 citations each supporting an award being given to a different show). In addition, some of the independent sourcing (such as [24], [25], [26], and [27]) just relates to content affiliated with the source itself receiving awards, which does not constitute significant coverage of the awards in general. (For comparison, this article from NBC News discusses the Emmy Awards ceremony without limiting itself to covering the winners/participants from NBC.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going to try to improve the article today and see if I can get it to a better place. My initial feeling is to keep but want to see what I can find first. Snuggle 📫 🖤 20:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after spending some time on it, I think it should be kept. There is plenty to meet notability and I removed a majority of the primary sources. I left an editors note for where I worked down to, the bottom of the article will still need work. Snuggle 📫 🖤 00:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Avital

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

Article about a filmmaker, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. This has existed for almost an entire decade, and spent most of that time completely unreferenced (and thus never should have survived this long) until having just one reference added to it only in August of this year. Even that one reference isn't really about him, however, but just briefly namechecks him in the process of being about a viral video -- so it would just make him a WP:BLP1E, not a person who had passed WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis about him and his work, if we took it as his principal notability claim.
But otherwise, this is strictly on the level of "person who did stuff", with the only other attempt at a notability claim being a list of awards from minor regional or local film festivals that are not highly meganotable enough to confer an automatic free pass over WP:NFILM without reliable sourcing to support them.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a lot more GNG-worthy media coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The citations presented are OK and will pass notability guidelines. In particular the articles in BBC, Jerusalem post, The Guardian and Jerusalem post are the best ones. Yolandagonzales (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are not even in the article at all, and thus have not been "presented" — and all of them are covering him strictly in the context of the same single viral video, and thus have failed to demonstrate that he would pass WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems more that the video is notable, more so than its creator.★Trekker (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- to either AI-generated content in American politics (after adding some of the content here about the video) or 2025 Donald Trump Gaza Strip takeover proposal#AI-generated video, as current citations and additional searches indeed leans more notability to the mentioned "viral video" more so than the creators themselves.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright. Even that one video co-created by our subject is barely noticeable in the realm of the media; its creators even less. The sources one can scare up (NBC, The Sandpoint Reader, The Jerusalem Post, and so on) are all about the brouhaha caused by that small clip. -The Gnome (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Most of these news sources are written around the viral video, keep those aside and there isn’t any independent coverage about the subject apart from mentions. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 14:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Donald Trump Gaza Strip takeover proposal#AI-generated video. The coverage there is more extensive than in AI-generated content in American politics. He is indirectly mentioned as The video's true creators later came out saying they did not know how Trump obtained it and criticizing him for posting it without credit or permission... As said above, the coverage about him is centered on this video. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

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