Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

A.J. Applegate

A.J. Applegate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't pass GNG. AVN and XBIZ coverage is not sufficient. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Maxim is about the most RS I could find [2], not really useful. She's mentioned here [3] and here [4]. Last isn't a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found a piece on her in the The Jerusalem Post (a good RS), and the International Business Times, (not a great RS). Very hard to search for adult film stars given the wall of x-rated links they throw up. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Russell-Pinson

Dan Russell-Pinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Interview	1. "One-Man Development Firm Finds Sweet Spot in Educational Apps". www.gamesandlearning.org. Retrieved 2023-05-23.
App review, no SIGCOV about subject	2. ^ Hodgepodgedad (2012-02-02). "Stack the States App Review". Your BEST Homeschool. Retrieved 2023-05-23.
One sentence about subject.	3. ^ Ravindranath, Mohana (2012-09-05). "App developers wary of children's online privacy law". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2023-05-23.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  21:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Video games, and North Carolina. Skynxnex (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, undersourced BLP. The entire music section is unsourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Mostly unsourced, questionable sources for a biographical article, minimal relevance. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ASM-One Macro Assembler

ASM-One Macro Assembler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

non-notable product; other than Wikipedia pages the sources I could find were user manuals and the like ~TPW 17:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~TPW 17:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be quite popular (in its time), but I was not able to find any suitable sources (reviews, articles about practical use etc.). Will look further. Pavlor (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while interesting to learn about, it doesn’t meet GNG and no significant coverage found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC) — TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete: per nomination. There has to be a line somewhere. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Armond Powell

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Costa Rica, and Pennsylvania. AllyD (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Ping those who participated or were pinged in the last AfD discussion SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), Melcous (talk · contribs), Conquistador2k6 (talk · contribs), and Dthomsen8 (talk · contribs). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only significant coverage is from press releases and non-RS sites, such as a Medium blog. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 24 May 2023 (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, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There doesn’t appear to be justifiable evidence to support keeping the article. Little to no RS news coverage or notability. Go4thProsper (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Strat Andriotis

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 24 May 2023 (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, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This looks like a substantial article in
  ProQuest 1615777790 Nfitz (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Even just basic "notable because GNG" requires more than just one "substantial" article. Especially when even that one source is a Q&A interview in which the subject is talking about himself in the first person: an interview source can be used amid a mixture of solid GNG-worthy sourcing, but it can't singlehandedly vault a person over GNG all by itself if it's the only media coverage he's got. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not say "requires more than just one "substantial" article". It literally says "multiple sources are generally expected" not "multiple sources are required". Please don't turn shades of grey into non-existent black and white rules. Nfitz (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

One source is only sufficient if it explicitly verifies a hard notability pass on the order of "won a Juno Award". One source has never, ever been enough all by itself if you were going for "because media coverage exists" as the notability claim, especially if that one source was a Q&A interview in which the subject was talking about himself in the first person. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major achievements in Olympic team ball sports by nation

Major achievements in Olympic team ball sports by nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable cross-categorization and synthesis to combine the results of team ball sports and not other Olympic sports. I'm a bit confused by the article because each sport has achievements for both the Olympics and other world championships, which furthers the oddity of combining ice hockey and water polo in one list. Moreover, it's largely duplicative of pages like Major achievements in basketball by nation and Major achievements in baseball and softball by nation, so there's no need to combine these tables here. Reywas92^Talk 22:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite into a list of articles. The scope of this article seems weird, as there doesn't seem to be many instances where different countries' achievements in all ball sports are being discussed and compared together. Nevertheless, I think it might have some value as a directory to articles like Major achievements in baseball and softball by nation and Major achievements in basketball by nation. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tutwakhamoe Already exists at List of major achievements in sports by nation. Reywas92^Talk 22:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's not much of a guide to interpreting the tables, and once you've worked it out, it's clear this is basically a content fork as described in the nom - lists of major achievements that don't relate to a single sport of country are generally dubious, but being so specific here is just strange. Perhaps ping the main editors and offer draftification in case they want to make something useful from the data? (edit conflict) Or per the above suggestion. Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A strange cross-categorisation for an article and as noted above similar content already exists elsewhere. Ajf773 (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if there's encyclopedic content for specific sports, then articles for those sports can be created. But this catch all article for "ball sports" is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Royal Netherlands Watersport Association#Olympic sailing. Selectively, as noted below. Star Mississippi 02:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Olympic Sailing Team

Dutch Olympic Sailing Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Article is just a collection of navboxes. Not very many similar Country×Sport at the Olympic Games articles exist for non-teamsports. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Olympics, and Netherlands. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unconventional and ugly duplication of the Category:Netherlands Olympic sailing team templates Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (selectively) into
  WP:CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge (selectively) into Royal Netherlands Watersport Association#Olympic sailing. "Selectively" meaning not with the templates, but with any useful, sourced prose text. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! We need a SUMMARY table, not tables/templates/navboxes specific to individual games. It doesn't exist so in this merge nothing should move with the long paragraph! gidonb (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of mainstream films with skiing scenes

List of mainstream films with skiing scenes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While the topic of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Sports, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:CARGO says: Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content. TompaDompa (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete bizarrely arbitrary topic for an article if there ever was one. What about “list of mainstream films with chess-playing scenes”? Or “list of non-Western genre, non-equestrian-sport films to feature horse riding in some form”? Dronebogus (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but raise the criterion bar to films about these sports and rename
  WP:NLIST: "The Best Ski And Snowboard Films Of 2022-23 You May Have Missed" (Forbes), 13 Movies About Skiing You Absolutely Need to Watch This Winter (Yahoo Sports), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That would change both the scope/contents and the title, which says something about the lack of viability of the current article. I would suggest that it would be better to start over, based on sources, rather than trying to add sources to a bunch of
    WP:Original research—the latter approach has a tendency to result in very poor quality articles indeed, just complete messes. If sources discuss the portrayal of skiing in films more than they discuss the films themselves, it might be more appropriate to create an article on skiing in film. Another option might be to cover films about skiing in the already-existing ski film article in a manner similar to how it's done at surf film (if sources do likewise). TompaDompa (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. I don't see how it is encyclopedic to list films where there is a mere few minutes of skiing in it. As mentioned above, a list of films where skiing is the primary focus, would be ok, but not built from this list. Ajf773 (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. If there is an encyclopedic article such as List of skiing and snowboarding films, then no objection to that being created. But there is nothing encyclopedic and salvageable in this current article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I disagree with the non-encyclopedic characterization. There are clearly "ski movies" (Warren Miller (director)'s output comes to mind), and there are non-"ski movies" where skiing nevertheless plays a significant plot point--Better Off Dead (film) being one such. Perhaps this would be better off as a category, but I don't know it should be removed entirely. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a textbook example of
  WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beysim Beysim

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

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

Same sort of case as

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination. --Nk (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails
  WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chestnut Hill Realty

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

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

This article, in my opinion, does not meet the Wikipedia's notability criteria. In addition, the article was initially created by a user whose name corresponded to the address of Chestnut Hill Realty (see talk page). Overall, this page seems like blatant self-promotion, which has no place on Wikipedia DuckWrangler97 (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. Skynxnex (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Plenty of hits for them donating to charity and about properties they've acquired, very much routine business dealings found in the press. Nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Promotional article where just about every significant assertion comes from the websites/publications of, or out of interviews with, the principals. I'd ask the article creator (an SPA whose sole Wikipedia contribution this was) to disclose a COI, if they weren't long gone. Ravenswing 06:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Myanmar National League statistics

2020 Myanmar National League statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Similar case to

Excessive listing of stats in addition to 2020 Myanmar National League, which is already significant enough on its own in terms of stats and we do not need any more stats articles on this subject. This article exhaustively lists every single goal scorer, assist and clean sheet in the entire season, which is too much in my view. For seasons of other leagues, the agreed standard is to have a separate section of the main season article dedicated to stats and only listing the goal scorers and clean sheets above a sensible cut-off point.

See 2019–20 Premier League#Season statistics and 2019–20 Serie A#Season statistics as model examples of how this should look. 2020 Myanmar National League is fine as it is and this redundant extra stats article can just be deleted as there is no consensus that these are necessary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete same reasons as the 2023 one, and can we delete List of 2022 MNL statistics too? Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that one is also unnecessary. I have put a PROD on that one. It'll need a separate AfD if anyone wants to oppose that one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NOSTATS. Govvy (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss America 2024

Miss America 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Keep I don't really think it's too soon, it's basically in less than a year from now. Barring some terrible thing happening, it will more than likely take place. A few decent sources already in the article as well.

Oaktree b (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss America until date and venue are confirmed. Nate • (chatter) 17:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are already 4 contestants crowned, with a bunch more coming up in the next few weeks. I don't think its too soon for this article. Karalott84 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Oaktree b, seeing as how there have been ninety five previous iterations it's somewhat likely the 96th will occur. Although the article's wording implies the pageant has already taken place "Miss America 2024 was the 96th edition of the Miss America pageant", I think the likelihood that it will occur later this year and the valid sources outweigh reasons to remove. It is a good faith entry in the encyclopedia and if we remove it now, it will only reappear later this year.

talk) 18:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment The redirect is intended temporarily; we need a confirmed venue and date before an article is created, and this has been consistent for any article, pageant or not (and the continued pageant project/ANI drama makes draftspace a no-go). Nate • (chatter) 01:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @MrSchimpf I'm curious if you have some easy links to discussions/similar coming to that consensus. I don't recall seeing that requirement for future events when there's sufficient other coverage and it is likely enough to happen. Thanks. Skynxnex (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Skynxnex - The pageant project has been dead for a while anyway, so I don't see what weight something that doesn't exist holds.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Oaktree b, the fact that there are contests being crowned who will compete, and we're at the point if somehow it doesn't happen (or is moved to next year, say), we'd still want an article about it and this is a decent place to start. Looking at
  WP:CRYSTAL again: for #1, it almost surely will happen and the event is notable; for the amount that this fits within #2, we know more than generic information, so this article passes since #3 through #5 are not relevant. Skynxnex (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I'm voting to keep this due to the fact that we already know that various people are qualified for it and that makes it part of the competition. I'd vote against it if Miss America 2025 was posted today.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Schools

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Wyoming. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments News coverage about this school was not hard to find.

You can read the USA Today story referenced under "Wyoming" on page 4b here[5]. Here's an AP story about the subsequent reopening of the school after a gas field leak [6]. There's a long write up of the incident in Inside Energy[7]. Another story in the Casper Star Tribune[8]. KGAB[9], a different AP story[10], another in the Casper Star Tribune[11].

It's an important policy point that with a publication, date and page number, it doesn't actually matter that there's no link, because sources don't have to be published online.

In the past I would have argued for the deletion of this under

WP:ONEEVENT, but in practice, those policies seem to have fallen by the wayside to a large degree. Jahaza (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comments - no comment on notability here, but deletion wouldn't be appropriate even if it isn't notable. Per
  SCHOOLOUTCOMES
  , if notability can't be shown, the article should be redirected to the school district article.

69.92.163.38 (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes
  AFD is not cleanup. BurgeoningContracting 04:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:ORG. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Change my vote to keep, based on new sources added. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added two sources with content relating and written about the school. I don't see how fails

  WP:ORG, would you mind explaining? BurgeoningContracting 18:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. Kudos to
  WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brenna D'Amico

Brenna D'Amico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Illinois. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an obvious delete – this is far worse than the earlier
  WP:BASIC, and that is still true 3+ years later. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment: She played Jane, which seems like one of the main characters in

  WP:NACTOR pass. What am I missing? CT55555(talk) 19:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Not in the principal cast in any of those films per their articles. Not significant roles, just supporting roles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see your point. I also notice her role was perceived as significant enough by who ever wrote the article for the franchise to list it. And yet they didn't link to her, so that utterly wasn't a promotional attempt by anyway. So it seems like the significance is borderline.

  Considering all the other roles she has had, how certain do you feel that she isn't meeting

  WP:NACTOR. To me it seems arguable either way, depending how significant we see her roles. CT55555(talk) 19:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Was the article a

WP:RS now, it is clear it passes the actor notability and just needs a moment to flesh out, either in the article, or moved into draft. Raladic (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

She has to have a major role, the films must be themselves notable (a Tubi original almost certainly isn't that), and she still needs to have significant independent coverage herself, as per

WP:BASIC. I still think this is "delete", but if someone wants to "draftify" it's not unreasonable. But she is not notable enough for an article right now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Keep. I think her role in the works mentioned above are significant enough, and sufficient in number, for her to pass
  WP:NACTOR. I recognise this is point on which there is legitimate disagreement, and the counter arguments above are reasonable, hence my "weak" !vote CT55555(talk) 11:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Draftify leaning very weak keep Probably
  WP:TOOSOON, but getting there. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep alternatively draftify In view of the sources added by Raladic I change my vote from Draftify leaning very weak keep. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draft. My main problem is that the Deadline source is listing almost every role. If she was notable enough, there would be sources stating the fact. If only one source is capable of listing her credits, then she isn't notable yet. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 13:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Great point. And she certainly doesn't appear to get past the "passing mentions" guidance either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I just spent some time doing the actual research and found a whole bunch of magazine coverage including a print magazine cover article in 2021 featuring her, so she definitely passes

  WP:SIGCOV based on the amount of featured articles and interviews, including a live TV interview on ABC 7 Chicago, and magazines from outside the US that I have now added to the article

  .

  It is also clearer now that in the two feature films "

  WP:NACTOR

  well beyond just her roles in the Descendants franchise.

  It was just that the article was nominated practically instantaneously after being put up (as a poorly sourced stub, that is).

  So per

  WP:BEFORE

  , the article could have been given a chance to develop using cleanup tags instead of immediate AfD nomination.

  Pinging @Callmemirela @Random person no 362478479 @CT55555 to please reassess with the new sources in the article. Raladic (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have changed my vote from draftify leaning very weak keep to weak keep alternatively draftify. The main reason why I did not go all the way to keep is that the sources you added are almost all interviews. Interviews are routinely discounted in deletion discussions, because they are not (fully) independent (see

  WP:INTERVIEWS). I do not agree with this policy and think that the number of interviews demonstrates notability, alas it is not up to me. The second reason is that I am not convinced that the movies in which she has main roles are notable enough to confer notability on the actors involved. So while I believe that someone like D'Amico should qualify for Wikipedia, I am not entirely convinced that she does given current criteria. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm going to change my vote to draft instead of delete. Per Random person no 36247879, the sources are repeated. I feel as if this doesn't notability yet, especially if one of the sources to list her credits is an interview. For example, I google Jennifer Lawrence's credits, and I'll have platoon of sources from Variety, Deadline, People, Forbes, NY Times, and Vogue to name a few. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Perhaps there wasn't enough coverage of her in 2018 for the first AFD, but there seems to be enough now to show the subject is notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Roles in Descendants movies and sufficient sources, as discussed above. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  She is not a "lead" in the Descendants film series – her role was secondary. She is arguably a "lead" in Crushed, but that's a "Tubi original film" which is hardly a mainline "notable" role (IOW, it's the kind of TV movie that is going to be completely ignored in other media). When you take out passing mentions, teen gossip mags and interviews (which many feel, for better or worse, do not contribute to notability), you are left with a single profile in the Chicago Sun Times. I could see "draftify" as a vote here. But the subject does not credibly pass

  WP:BASIC still. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment This discussion did not appear on any daily log page; I have listed it for the current day. --Finngall ^talk 16:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep She's in the tubi thing and the Descendants movies, seems like a decent enough case for GNG. She isn't "woman on bench in background" or "Woman #3 at coffee shop", like most of these ACTOR ones we see at GNG, she has a named role in at least 3 movies. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I find the arguments to keep very weak; "it's harmless" has no basis in policy at all, we need an affirmative reason to keep any page. The navigational purpose argument is stronger, but does not have consensus. I don't see much argumentation about DAB pages for similarly-named conflicts, which I understand this page originally was; this discussion does not preclude the (re)creation of such a page, but it would not be at the current title. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars named for their duration

List of wars named for their duration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

Not a valid

Reviewing the 2015 AFD it just looks like people focused on the idea of renaming the page, rather than whether the resulting page would be of any use. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PamD 15:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another unsourced list; I'd !keep if there was some sort of discussion about the use of time-periods when naming wars or some sort of critical discussion of the issue, it's just a fancy wall of text otherwise. Basically trivia at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous AFD was at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Years'_War The result was keep. Also rename to List of wars named for their duration. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Dream Focus 01:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Tavix, Seyasirt, Clarityfiend, PWilkinson, Peterkingiron, Boleyn, Necrothesp, BD2412, North of Eden, Anotherclown, and Black Kite: as the contributors to and closer of the previous AfD at a different title. PamD 06:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I admit a COI: I saw the original AfD for a dab page because it was on a list of dab page AfD alerts, and it caught my interest so I developed it from the IAR-ish dab page (titled "Years' War") to an expanded, sortable, table. As I said in the previous AfD "It's trivia, but mildly encyclopedic". I now find several discussions of the importance of the choice of names of wars (eg Brookings, Quora, Bacevich) all of which acknowledge that duration is one of the options, used for many wars. Perhaps we need an article on "Naming of wars", which we currently do not seem to have (although we have one specific case: Names of the American Civil War), and which would refer to this, or include this list as a section. We have Lists of wars, to which I have today added this one. Jill Lepore's book The Name of War, while it is about the multi-named King Philip's War (which I don't think I'd ever heard of, in my UK education and reading), appears to include a discussion of the naming of wars. This list gathers together a large set of wars with a common characteristic: that one of their major names defines it by a time period. It is one aspect of the broader topic of "Naming of wars", and I think has value for the reader who can half-remember "What was that conflict, it was called the n years war wasn't it?" or similar, whether while solving a crossword or researching a topic, as well as the curious reader who thinks "OK, we have the six days' war and the thirty years' war, are there any others?". I think this list has a place in our encyclopedia, though perhaps in future merged into the not-yet-written article "Naming of wars". PamD 07:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the Brookings entry in my

WP:LISTN

. I just don't see how this passes that standard since at no point are wars named after their duration discussed "directly and in detail" in any of these sources. Just to highlight the extent to which these sources are not sigcov for this article's topic, here's the complete relevant coverage in each article -

• Brookings: "Other times, wars are named by how long they lasted, from just Six Days (1967) to as much as Thirty (1618-1648) or even One Hundred Years (1337-1453)." A single sentence of ~20 words.
• Quora (which is most definitely not a reliable source) : "Others are named by their length (after they end) - 30 years, 7 year, 9 year, 6 day wars etc." A single sentence of ~18 words.
• Bacevitch - actually doesn't address the topic of wars named after their length directly and in detail anywhere.

This appears instead to be a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation (

WP:NOT (specifically, Wikipedia is not a directory). FOARP (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Bacevich doesn't say much, but does say: If you incorporate the European conflict of 1914-1918 and the European conflict of 1939-1945 into a single narrative, you get a Second Thirty Years War (the first having occurred from 1618-1648). PamD 10:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not addressing the topic

WP:LISTCRUFT. FOARP (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. There is not a requirement that a list topic be the end-all-be-all of lists to be of interest or use to readers. BD2412 T 14:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requirement that they be notable? And not offend against

WP:LISTN, your classic "List of X of Y" set. FOARP (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you asking me? I think there is sufficient support for the notability of the list as is, but would not be averse to merging this into a broader article on the naming of wars. BD2412 T 21:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 - Which documents do you think give this support? I agree that maybe two of the references above give significant coverage to a "naming of wars" article (not Quora, as it's not a reliable source) but only one of them even directly addresses the idea of naming a war after its length and that's in a single sentence of about 20 words. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not appear to pass
  it's interesting", neither of which convince me. If an article titled Naming of wars existed (Google Scholar has at least a few hits for the expression, so there's some potential there), I'd see that as a potential redirect target, but it doesn't and we sure can't redirect to a red link. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Ljleppan: We can't redirect to a red link, but we can move this to that red link and build from there. BD2412 T 16:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @BD2412: I don't really see the current content as a useful starting point for that article. Ljleppan (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of confused why the people who favour keeping don't actually favour keeping but instead moving? To an article that doesn't exist? And if it did, it is hard to see how this list could be a useful part of it? FOARP (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How would we have an article on naming of wars that omits the list of wars named for their duration? BD2412 T 19:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very easily, there being no reason at all to list all of them exhaustively? For a

WP:AVOIDSPLIT, which in this case it wouldn’t. FOARP (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete no evidence of
  WP:SAL/ nn. (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Trivia list. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete why not list of wars named for locations? List of wars using adjectives as primary identification? List of wars with hyphenated names? List of wars… Dronebogus (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a harmless list that may be useful as a sort of DAB page. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:HARMLESS Dronebogus (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a useful list for navigation. List does not fail
  WP:NLIST, which states that there is consensus that lists of items discussed in RS as a notable group are notable, but doesn't say that other lists are not notable, but rather says that there's no consensus about "Lists of x of y" and other lists useful for navigation or other purposes.Jahaza (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  NLIST says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I see exactly one 20-word sentence cited above from an RS that even mentions the idea of naming wars after their duration. This is not a discussion of the group/set since nothing is really said about them, much less multiple examples of different independent, reliable sources discussing it.

  What you're proposing is a notability standard for lists lower than

  WP:GNG, meaning that a list of wars named after their duration would be notable whilst an article about the concept "wars named after their duration" could not possibly be. This cannot be right since it would essentially negate GNG, as you could then write articles about the concept based only on passing mentions but simply include a list into them and, hey-presto!, GNG no longer applies. FOARP (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don’t know why we have most lists tbh. Unless it’s for significant statistics (not “oldest left-handed quarterbacks in Canadian football”), articles about lists, or maybe award listings, what benefit at all does a hard-to-maintain, hard-to-format article have over an automatically expanded and alphabetized category? Dronebogus (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree that lists should not be used as a pseudo-category, or back-door route to write about non-notable subjects. If you can't write a GNG-passing article about "X", then "list of X" is also going to be non-notable. FOARP (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You should propose a change to the guideline then, not put up for deletion lists on the basis that they don't meet a guideline that doesn't say that. Jahaza (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I like the idea of tighter list requirements but my last experience at village pump gave a strong sense that the community is instinctively hostile to “more rules” Dronebogus (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What you're proposing is a notability standard for lists lower than WP:GNG, meaning that a list of wars named after their duration would be notable whilst an article about the concept "wars named after their duration" could not possibly be.

  I'm not proposing it, the guideline is saying that there's consensus that lists can meet the standard of notability as a list, but that they don't always have to. You can't just read one sentence of NLIST.

  There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.

  Jahaza (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m pointing out that that makes no sense, this is *particularly* the case as the majority of people !voting keep here are doing it because they think there *should* be an article about the concept “wars named after their duration”.

  Your’re saying you don’t think it matters that no such article can be written due to lack of sources, but it is the lynchpin of the keep argument in this discussion.

  Also, even in

  WP:USEFUL terms, I disagree that it is useful since we already have List of conflicts by duration which is where people will go to find wars that last X amount of time and receives far more page views (~20 times more) than this page. FOARP (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @FOARP That list sounded interesting, and I wondered about even adding a sortable tick column for "wars named after their duration" to provide the same kind of information as this list ... but it's in a poor state. It has a "sortable" duration column which doesn't function because no-one has done anything to standardise the sort keys (OK, slightly redundant as the list is sorted by duration, but it means it can't be sorted back once sorted by anything else). And apparently no wars have started since 2014. PamD 07:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of which sound like reasons to work on that page, not keep this one. FOARP (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mostly per nom. The argument to keep seems to be that it's
  Walt Yoder (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It’s not too trivial, very little is; it just seems like some people are convinced 90% of our readers don’t know categories exist. Dronebogus (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If readers use a mobile, then categories don't exist for them. PamD 07:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UI issues are not a reason to keep non-notable listcruft articles. They are a reason to change the UI. FOARP (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Harmonizers

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

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

basically unsourced. although there seem to be many sources on the web, most are unreliable or lack substance. lettherebedarklight晚安 15:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia. lettherebedarklight晚安 15:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on searching newspapers.com, it appears to meet
  WP:BAND given sustained coverage (outside of the immediate region even!) and seemingly well-regarded awards: https://www.newspapers.com/article/centre-daily-times-200-voices-strong/125568990/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-daily-item-alexandria-harmonizers-to/125569014/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-daily-american-alexandria-harmonizer/125569076/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/citizens-voice-alexandria-harmonizers-c/125569095/ (which refers to them, in 1994, as the two-time international champions of the Barbershop Singing Society), https://www.newspapers.com/article/asbury-park-press-singers-offer-champio/125569119/ and four-time a few years later: https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-press-reliving-barbershop-melodies/125569434/ and https://www.newspapers.com/article/republican-and-herald-harmonizers-to-ser/125569484/. This is the first batch of independent, and largely in-depth sources. There are more in newspapers.com and I assume other places as well. Skynxnex (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The

  Washington Post has maybe a dozen or so articles of varying levels of detail, one of which is https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1995/08/03/harmonious-hotshots/86150afb-1215-4a40-ae3b-1eae1e35b718/

  .

  Barbershopping: musical and social harmony (https://archive.org/details/barbershoppingmu0000unse/page/126/mode/2up?q=%22Alexandria+Harmonizers%22) refers to it as Witness the fact that in the Alexandria Harmonizers, one of the largest and most successful chapters .....

  And this doesn't really contribute to notability (but kind of does?), but in searching archive.org, I saw that John Glenn mentions them in his memoirs, during his flight on Discovery (https://archive.org/details/johnglennmemoir0000glen/page/396/mode/2up?q=%22Alexandria+Harmonizers%22): I also took along a disc of barbershop chorus harmonies by the champion Alexandria Harmonizers, a taste I inherited from my dad. After that, the entire crew slept. Skynxnex (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based upon the reliable sources newspaper coverage identified in this discussion which verifies they have played at the White House and Supreme Court and won various awards. Passes
  WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Hallmark of Harmony

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

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

only source is the chorus's own website, written really promotionally. a check for sources yields nothing substantial. lettherebedarklight晚安 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. lettherebedarklight晚安 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close‎. Nominator has been blocked from WP-space for disruptive discussions, and this proposal is in the wrong forum. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

大妈

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

)

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

Merge to Dama, because there are only two dab items, one of which is most relevant to Dama. Q𝟤𝟪 14:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karyl McBride

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

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

Karyl McBride appears to be some random self-help guru. She's definitely not notable beyond her books, and those don't seem too notable either. ~Strawberry of Arctic Circle System (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Some of her books have reviews and she's used as a subject matter expert in this PBS program [12], seems to be at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources added to the article help support her
  WP:BASIC notability as an author and subject matter expert/therapist. There is sustained international coverage, including in The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Maclean's, ABC Radio National, The Daily Telegraph, etc. The are multiple reviews for one of her books; another was featured by The New York Times Well Book Club, and the most recent one on PBS. Beccaynr (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Beccaynr and
  WP: NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The sourcing is now sufficient per
  WP:NAUTHOR. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Solar eclipse of October 17, 2153 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

We didn't have to create him 130 years earlier. Q𝟤𝟪 13:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Q𝟤𝟪 13:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unless there're any time travelers among us, this is
  WP:TOOSOON --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Way
  WP:TOOSOON. Also already listed at List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century. ULPS (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:GNG or be redirected to the appropriate page. For this eclipse that means redirecting it to its corresponding list. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per the above. Primefac (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as Qwaiiplayer and primefac said redirect to list of solar eclipses.MICHAEL 942006 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:NASTRO should be redirected. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per previous participants and
  WP:TOOSOON. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Maarten Nagtegaal

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

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

Completely unverifiable, and not notable if true.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Delete Non-notable individual, there is zero coverage for him. He appears to be the son of a rich person, which isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Completely irrelevant non-notable figure. ULPS (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable figure. Creator claims that the information comes from knowing him personally (see talk). Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This might be a different person with the same name. Also probably a different person: This. The corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia has been deleted. Twice. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost a speedy for an unreferenced BLP. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete since cyber harassment of a lving person. Admin assistance appreciated! gidonb (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

)

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

Term has only trivial mentions, I couldn't find anything better. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tariq Nasheed who appears to be the originator and proponent of this. Don't see it mentioned in any other context. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tariq Nasheed - This is a trademark term invented and owned by Nasheed. ("FOUNDATIONAL BLACK AMERICANS Trademark Application of NASHEED, TARIQ - Serial Number 97309615 Justia Trademarks". trademarks.justia.com. JUSTICA Trademarks.) The media outlets jumping on the bandwagon and using the term to appear politically correct, does not change the fact that Nasheed invented the term. And stands to gain financially every time the term is used. — Maile (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to American Descendants of Slavery as everytime I find this mentioned ADOS is also mentioned, and ADOS is the more common term. Redirecting to Tariq Nasheed would also be acceptable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  alternative to deletion per above. Sal2100 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep There are quite a few reasons why the entry Foundational Black Americans should be included on Wikipedia. I will cite 6 main reasons:

Conclusion: Therefore, to fulfill its mission of inclusivity and comprehensive coverage, Wikipedia should include the term "Foundational Black Americans" in relevant articles to provide accurate information on the identity and historical context of this distinct African American community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fijiwahwah (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foundational Black Americans (FBA) have gained significant coverage in various media outlets, including reputable news organizations, academic journals, and online platforms. This coverage demonstrates their notability as a distinct group within the African American community.

• Numerous news articles, both online and offline, have been published on the topic of Foundational Black Americans, discussing their historical contributions, cultural identity, and socio-political impact.

FBA-related topics have been the subject of academic research and analysis, with scholars examining the experiences, achievements, and challenges faced by this specific group within the larger African American population.

• Prominent scholars, historians, and experts in the field have written books, articles, and scholarly papers addressing the unique aspects and historical significance of Foundational Black Americans, thereby providing reliable sources of information.

The FBA movement and its proponents have been covered extensively in documentaries, television programs, and podcasts, indicating their impact on public discourse and their place within contemporary social and political discussions.

• Foundational Black Americans have been involved in social movements, activism, and advocacy work, resulting in coverage by news outlets and publications that document and report on these activities, further establishing their notability.

• FBA organizations and community leaders have been quoted and referenced in news articles, interviews, and public speeches, demonstrating their independent presence and influence within the broader African American community.

Foundational Black Americans have been discussed in online forums, social media platforms, and online communities, where debates and discussions about their historical and cultural significance have taken place, showcasing their relevance and interest among a wide range of individuals.

• The term "Foundational Black Americans" has gained recognition and traction within academic circles, civil rights organizations, and grassroots movements, further solidifying its significance and notability in public discourse.

The growing awareness and recognition of Foundational Black Americans have prompted the inclusion of the term and related discussions in educational curricula, textbooks, and scholarly resources, emphasizing their importance as a distinct group within African American history and culture.

Fijiwahwah (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to Tariq Nasheed. Never heard of this term, and no sufficient and in-depth coverage from RS to merit a stand-alone article. Article does not pass our notability test. Article is more relevant to Tariq, and I would recommend merging as per our merge guidelines. 2A00:23EE:1300:82A3:A0B1:2C2A:4A1:69DB (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep There should be a stand alone article on the term Foundational Black Americans because of the media and cultural relevance and popularity of the term — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dresmond762 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep Having a standalone article about Foundational Black Americans on Wikipedia is important for accurate representation, recognition of their unique historical contributions, and addressing systemic biases in historical narratives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rougeedoogee (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World TradeX

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

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

Some hype articles from obscure sites (the kind of sites like LA Weekly which seem at first glance legitimate, but seem to be mostly populated by badly rewritten press releases), no actual good sources for this, despite being called the new Amazon or Alibaba... 81 actual Google hits[14] is a rather clear sign that this is so far more a nothingburger than anything else, and a website[15] which starts with " ACCEPTING FULL REGISTRATION FALL 2022 PRE REGISTRATION IS OPEN NOW FOR APP FIRST ACCESS Click on the icon below" and doesn't have any further information doesn't really give much confidence either.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Delete SEO spam sites and the like, nothing found for GNG. Appears PROMO for what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, garbage sources removed - mostly press releases and SEO/PR sink sites. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Delaware. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sought sourcing and came up slim. Deleted promo and weak sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwatchmee (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burdickville, Rhode Island

Burdickville, Rhode Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced, could not find anything to establish this as a real or notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rhode Island. –dlthewave ☎ 16:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found this reference: "Burdickville: Rhode Island Blueways". exploreri.org. Retrieved 2023-05-07. Google Maps shows Burdickville with boundaries, not just as a point, and there is a Burdickville Road. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:NGEO. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• comment I found a "census" listing from 1885 which named this as a town. Also, the presence of the dam would indicate a mill of some sort in the past. That siad the documentation is extremely scanty. Mangoe (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I found some additional sourcing and content to add. if anyone has free newsbank access, the original of that Aug 23, 1931 article I cite can be pulled, as well as others, it looks like at [16].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep population of 52 in the 1865 Rhode Island census[17]. A mill was operated there earlier in the 19th century[18]. Jahaza (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sourcing identified by Milowent, especially the Providence Journal article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Elon Musk

Statue of Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The statue is not notable by itself, but was covered in press as everything else related to Musk. One line in the main article on Musk should be enough to cover it. Artem.G (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2 sentences worth of content, from an unreliable source. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -
  WP:NOTINHERITED
  applies here. And, the article is easily confused with a different 2022 statue of Elon Musk as a goat, which is more notable and does not have its own Wikipedia page.

Godtres (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to increase scope. I propose moving this page to Cultural depictions of Elon Musk or Elon Musk in art, since there are clearly other works to describe as well. @Artem.G, TheInsatiableOne, Festucalex, and Godtres: Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Festucalex Template:Elon Musk has a section dedicated to cultural depictions. There are other statues of Musk. Wikipedia has many "Cultural depictions of XXX" entries. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Another Believer: What do we have in that section? Three books, two documentaries, and two cartoon episodes. Template:Bill Gates has two documentaries and two movies, including a blockbuster (The Social Network), not to mention all the books about Bill Gates that aren't listed. And yet, there is no Cultural depictions of Bill Gates. All that stuff fits comfortably in Musk's and Gates' primary articles. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Another Believer: Also, we already have Elon Musk filmography. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree. There's essentially 0 content here, and using a press release as a source isn't best practice. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, we would add a lot of additional content with additional sources... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm unconvinced by hypothetically improved content, as opposed to demonstrably improved content. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've already added some text about three additional sculptures. I'm reluctant to spend too much time expanding the scope beyond statues if there's a chance the page is just going to be deleted. This is why starting talk page discussions can be better than jumping to AfD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Everything related to Musk got covered in press, but it's like creating an article "Memes twitted by Elon Musk", "Stupid things written by/about Elon Musk", "Something something of Elon Musk". I still don't see why it should be a separate article, and not just one sentence in the main article on Musk. Artem.G (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable. --Bduke (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as per nom. The main article Elon Musk can simply cover the subject. Gothamk (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of children of vice presidents of the United States

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

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

Most vice presidential children are not notable in their own right. Interstellarity (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well-crafted encyclopedic list. Carrite (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While the article does require some work, it is inherently useful to have some additional information about the family of some of America's most notable politicians. Alexcs114 (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to the wrong person, sorry Alexcs114 (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are many children of vice-presidents notable in their own right: for example, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, and Jeb Bush.

Godtres (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I question when this would be useful. The overwhelming majority of Vice President’s children aren’t terribly important or are known for other things. TheRealJT1743 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLIST is met might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]