Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

WP:AFD/USA

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

General

IJEX Exchange

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

Non-notable crypto company. All sources online are PR. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:NCORP. No independent coverage found, reliable or otherwise. Not only does the coverage found online consist of press releases, but they are copies of the same two press releases and then some outright advertising. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing shows this company as passing inclusion criteria. All sources are not independent. Mekomo (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Fails NCORP. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, there are TWO hits in Gnews, both PR items. They've got coverage on the Big News Network (I wish I was making this up) [1], so we're a long, long way from notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jms Brynt

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

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and New York. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Steven Svoboda

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

This article about a lawyer and activist has been tagged with too much reliance on primary sources since 2016. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added what I can, but am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I do not think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanori's Raid

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

Fails WP:MILNG. Most of the sources fall under WP:PRIMARY & WP:AGE MATTERS, maybe merging this event in Refugio Tánori could have been better but a standalone article is not warranted for this. Garudam ^Talk! 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, France, Latin America, Mexico, United States of America, Arizona, and North America. Garudam ^Talk! 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge relevant information to the article suggested by nom. Intothat darkness 13:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another inappropriate close paraphrase of the source, which does not even present this as a specific notable event needing its own page rather than part of a longer narrative. Don't merge the close paraphrase. Reywas92^Talk 15:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Grass Valley

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

Fails WP:MILNG. Most of the sources fall under WP:PRIMARY & WP:AGE MATTERS. Nothing significant or even relevant context found in the Bancroft. Garudam ^Talk! 09:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, United States of America, Arizona, California, and North America. Garudam ^Talk! 09:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with other articles, much of this information is already in the related unit articles. If it should actually be there is another question, as this event isn't especially notable on its own. Intothat darkness 13:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the few battles the Native California Battalion took part in and the most violent episodes between California Volunteers and secessionist like the La Paz incident. It's also one of the few battles were Mexicans took part in. The battle is the only to take place in California during the Civil War, unlike the other battles that include Volunteers fighting the Native Americans. Tablelegs6 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least this constructed title isn't bolded in the lead, but there's no indication this event is notable enough to warrant an article when there is no modern historical coverage as a significant event, only contemporary news. Reywas92^Talk 15:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah its on page 51 of Californio Lancers: The 1st Battalion of Native Cavalry in the Far West, 1863–1866 By Tom Prezelski Tablelegs6 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its on page 313 of Bancroft: vol. 7 Tablelegs6 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirefreaks.com

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

Does not appear to be a notable company. The only reliable sources I could find that covered it were passing mentions to the website as a result of the Murder of Carly Ryan. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment references 1, 2 and 3 are the subjects websites. Ref 4, passing mention. Ref 5, they've organised a festival which is a 3 day event and touted as 'America’s largest 3-day gothic-industrial music festival and convention'. Ref 6 is a interview with one of the owners. Ref 7 now points to a casino website. Ref 8 another 'Dark Force event page which doesn't give any real detail about Vampire.com. Ref 9 is another interview. I will have another search before voting, but there doesn't seem to be anything indicating notability per WP:GNG. (Further edit) I've had a look gor referencs. I've added one from Kerrang about the network site closure. The only other references I can find are a tenuous connection to the murder mentioned above. Knitsey (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ZIP Code prefixes

AfDs for this article:

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

Two years on, and every issue from the first round is still here. Again, the information from here does not agree with the list in Sectional center facility, and the latter information is correct, and this is not. Last time I pointed out that 207 was wrong, and yes, it's different, but it's still wrong: 207 has nothing to do with Silver Spring, and the actual name of the SCF is "Southern Maryland". It still doesn't step up to the issue that many SCFs serve zip codes in multiple states. If someone wants to make the listing in the SCF article into a table, I'd be fine with that, and this could be redirected there. But as it is, this is a magnet for misinformation and needs to cease to exist as it stands, and it should not be merged into the other article, because it is mostly wrong. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I can't exactly verify the misinformation, not that that's truly a reason for deletion, but I'll just say that WP:NLIST is not met for the prefixes specifically. The rock solid source from last time is a primary source and doesn't count towards independence. However, I am willing to change my !vote if there are sources that say otherwise, or if there is a case that shows how a list of zip codes would be easier in this format than showing all 41,704 zip codes. Conyo14 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Grandma Hardcore

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

No real establishment of notability. The sources provided are: a blog site, the MTV homepage, a BusinessWeek article about her gaming career which seemed quite trivial, and a forum post-esque story pointing back to the aforementioned blog site. Been notability tagged since 2012. I should also add, I suggest not looking up her nickname lest you find links to 'the Hub'. Aydo h8^[contribs] 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and United States of America. Aydo h8^[contribs] 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage in Fox and CBS News [2], [3], Endgadget [4]... The name does bring up porn links, but we can still find some things about this granny. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced there is enough WP:SIGCOV for her to pass WP:NPERSON. There is an article on Igromania, but mostly an interview (primary source). Otherwise, she is largely mentioned in short anecdotes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the additional sources found by Jovanmilic97, I change my !vote to a keep. It's clear that NPERSON is passed at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in NBC News [5], Der Spiegel [6], The Columbus Dispatch [7], The Spokesman-Review [8], cz:Aktuálně.cz [9], has some brief commentary in The Village Voice [10]. Meets WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence James Ludovici

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

PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958^Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. cyberdog958^Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sri Lanka and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gscholar brings up two papers this person wrote, but I'm not sure that's enough for an academic notability pass. I don't see any reviews of this person's other books either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have added further information and references - satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. Dan arndt (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. You added references that the subject wrote, but none of it is about the subject himself. There is no evidence that he is widely regarded or cited by peers, originated a new concept, authored a body of work that itself is notable, or created a work that has been regarded as significant. cyberdog958^Talk 15:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the author of the first biography on Alexander Fleming, which received significant international attention at the time of its publication. I would have to disagree with your view. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rizzler

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

Pure WP:BIO1E. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and New Jersey. UtherSRG (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: people will probably forget about him soon and there's not much information about him other than him being "The Rizzler" Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid reason for deletion. C F A 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "one event" is he notable for? C F A 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is stretching. He may not be notable per se. But he also isn't even notable for an event I don't think. He's just a TikTok famous meme kid. Andre🚐 23:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NBASIC. I see no reason why WP:BIO1E would apply. C F A 23:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not exactly sure how they cover WP:BIO1E. It appears the child does cover WP:BIO based on the current sourcing. Although I do doubt Betches as a source, the others in the article do fine. The interview with Jimmy Fallon was an event, but he's been famous for a while. Conyo14 (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources, so the general notability guidelines have been met. Dream Focus 12:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with frequent collaborators A.J. & Big Justice until enough content is available to justify a separate article. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanticoke City, Delaware

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

Likely insignificant formerly unincorporated residential subdivision that is now a part of Seaford, Delaware. I am unable to locate the article's cited sources anywhere to verify whether it fails WP:SIGCOV or falls under WP:ROUTINE, but based on Google or Newspapers.com yielding no relevant results and the only relevant newspaper coverage that I am able to find being passing mentions, I am almost certain that this place is not notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Delaware. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly was a real "village" – the Delaware General Assembly once appointed commissioners to survey the "village known as Nanticoke City, Seaford Hundred," to consider the construction of a public road there. Passing book mentions here and here. Newspapers.com has ~170 mentions of the community in Delaware papers, e.g. [11] [12]. It seems like it was considered separate from Seaford until it was "annexed" in 1910 ([13]). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with merge to Seaford, Delaware#History. The latter is terrible anyway, and given that this area is now part of the town, it makes sense to talk about it as part of Seaford's history. Mangoe (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If every unpopulated but named crossroads or housing development in the county deserves its own article just because it is noted in the GNIS, then certainly an unincorporated town that existed as a separate entity for more than 50 years and was home to a railroad stop, a natural gas plant, river docks, and hundreds of residents before being annexed into another town is notable. Deeds for these properties in Seaford still have them listed on the Sussex County Recorder of Deeds site as Nanticoke City. For example, the property at 120 N Bradford Street in Seaford is listed on the Sussex County Recorder of Deeds as #54 Nanticoke City on both the mortgage and deed in the legal description of the property. I would also add that this article already includes more information than other so called notable communities listed for the county such as Adams Crossroads, Delaware, Blanchard, Delaware, Indian Beach, Delaware, and dozens more from the county and state. Superman7515 (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Superman7515: Per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." Unless Nanticoke City was an incorporated entity, Census-designated place, or had its own ZIP code, it most likely isn't notable on its own as an unincorporated subdivision. I'm not really convinced that local newspapers coverage of a storm that occurred there and deeds are anything beyond routine coverage and sufficient coverage to verify its notability.

It is more than likely that a lot of these mass-created stubs for 'unincorporated communities' should not exist, too. After having been opposed to deleting these sort of articles (I don't doubt I had created some myself some years ago), I have in the past listed some of these sort of articles for deletion, most recently here, here, and here. It is definitely possible that some if not all of those examples of communities you linked should also have their articles deleted, too. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a reasonable way out. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was clearly once a populated place from my WP:BEFORE search separate from Seaford - even referred to specifically by the state legislature in 1893. It's eligible for its own page. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trends in library usage

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

This is not really an article about a notable subject but rather an informational essay about a broad topic. See WP:NOTESSAY. If the information on the page can be salvaged into an actual article then I think this page should be moved to draftspace. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Literature, and United States of America. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems to be something here, broadly mentions the US and Canada, but that's not a worldwide view... Sourcing isn't trivial either, but this isn't the version of the article we need. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Education, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of libraries as an alternative to deletion. Left guide (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be something to talk about regarding the topic of "trends in library usage", but the article as it stands only discusses it from a North American perspective and is very essay-esque and broad as nom suggested. I lean towards either deleting it and starting over per WP:TNT or heavily condensing it and merging it with another article, possibly history of libraries like Left guide suggested. I think I lean more in favor of condensing and then merging the article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13: Yeah, that was more or less my idea too, a very selective merge. I presume there's good sourcing, but some of the prose will certainly need re-writing when such a merge happens so as not to degrade the quality of the target article. Left guide (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:TNT. Another article in horrible unencylopedic shape. The project is better off just deleting this. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Spevak

AfDs for this article:

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

Passing mentions in the RS's in the article - most focus on his company, not him. Potential history of COI per article tag from 2020.

The only article I could find where he is the sole subject is this interview from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2017/04/07/harvey-spevak-the-leadership-lessons-hes-learned-from-growing-equinox/ Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the prior deletion discussion, this source is a Forbes contributor, so as far as I'm aware it loses its reliability. Notability is not inherited. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Presidents

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

Non-notable WP:NORG separate from its parent institution Vermont State Colleges. Coverage is in this context. Redirect to Vermont State Colleges as WP:ATD. Longhornsg (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, United States of America, and Vermont. Longhornsg (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Don't see why this warrants its own standalone article. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vermont State Colleges. With the council having such a generic name, it's unlikely that users will be looking for this topic under this name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vermont State Colleges - Not seeing any substantive coverage to justify a standalone article. Suriname0 (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three people have had their turn singles on. It's time to Merge. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fitzmartin

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

In my WP:BEFORE I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Much of the coverage that there was was related to the subject's role as musical director of the Keystone State Boychoir, and only passing mention at that. I couldn't find any critical reviews of the Concert Mass that is referred to in the article, although its premiere was at Carnegie Hall [14]. I therefore propose that the notability bar is not met, and that the content should be merged into the Keystone State Boychoir article (not that that itself is without problems!) with a Redirect from this article. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

André Hoelz

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

Prof who has made a good start, but WP:TOOSOON, not enough pubs in a high citation field and no major awards. Article constructed by a novice editor less experienced on WP:NPROF requirements, so was tagged with notability; it is understandable that beginners don't know. A different, experienced editor removed notability claiming, to quote, "a professor is notable is if they have more 5 papers with more than 100 citations in each", which is not part of WP:NPROF policy. Also claimed that WP:MILL activities such as "sitting on comittees" counted, also not part of WP:NPROF. When the accepted need to compare was pointed out along with links to recent AfD and policy discussions said "it will need to go to AfD to settle it". Hence now AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 20 years out from a PhD is not junior, and his citation record [15] looks ok to me. More to the point, for a nominator going on at such length about WP:PROF, I wonder why you ignored his named professorship at Caltech? It looks like it should pass WP:PROF#C5. If you need more, this article states "In 2022, the journal Science dedicated a special issue to the work of Hoelz’s group". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein, please note that almost every full professor in that department at Caltech has a named chair, and that nobody has called Hoelz "junior". To quote you from a week ago Hence the recent update to change "a named chair appointment" to "a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement" [to a distinguished professorship]. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @David Eppstein please use the full quote from that article which is "the work of Hoelz’s group and a few others around the world". I count 50 authors total in the actual papers. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invoking TOOSOON as you did is implicitly calling someone junior. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry David but there is no mention in WP:TOOSOON (or WT:Too soon) of "junior". I certainly did not intend anything like that to be read into it. I use it when I consider that there is a good chance that in a few years notability will become clear, but it is not there now; WP is a lagging indicator. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the actual reference will show that the work highlighted on the cover stems from the Hoelz and Beck groups. Naturally, laboratories in the life sciences rely on the contributions of many talented graduate students and postdocs who play key roles in these projects, but many people are directed by the lab heads. The elucidation of the human nuclear pore complex structure has been a monumental 20-year effort, culminating in an extraordinary series of publications that led to a special issue of Science declaring the atomic structure solved. Such special issues are rare in the fields of biochemistry and structural biology, underscoring the significance of this achievement. The actual introduction of the special issue notes: "The work reported here represents a triumph of experimental structural biology and highlights the role of the ongoing resolution revolution in our quest to understand the construction and design principles of large molecular assemblies."

It’s also important to note that citation counts alone do not fully capture the quality of research. While the life sciences as a whole are vast compared to fields like mathematics, the nucleocytoplasmic transport field is tiny. This makes it difficult to evaluate accomplishments based solely on citations. Within this niche, papers garnering 25+ citations per year are exceptional and uniquely stand out.

Another testament to this investigator's leadership in the field is the high impact of his reviews in the Annual Reviews of Biochemistry. For example, the 2011 review (Hoelz, Debler, Blobel) has been cited 553 times, while the 2019 review (Lin, Hoelz) has been cited 428 times—figures unmatched by any other review in the nucleocytoplasmic transport field. These metrics speak to the investigator’s prominence and the exceptional influence of his contributions. JenniferconnellyII (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A named chair alone should make this entry pass the criteria, the rules do not state to ignore named chairs from institutions such as Caltech. Apart from that the scientific contributions are very significant and apart from cover publications in Science in 2016 and 2022, Hoelz's work was celebrated by national synchrotron facilities as major science highlights. JenniferconnellyII (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for passing part 5 of the Prof test: a named professor at one of North America’s top polytechnic universities. Bearian (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A full professor with a named chair at a major university is usually notable per DGG's instructions and more than 5 papers with 100+ citations is decent. scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without reviewing his other details, I continue to argue that automatic notability for endowed professors – significant coverage be damned – is absurd. Caltech is certainly a well reputed university with accomplished faculty but of this department's 46 faculty, 27 of them have named professorships. Caltech has a lot of rich alumni, and endowing faculty is a way to give back when there's not a new building to be named. This is not necessarily determinative of whether we should have articles on them, and other criteria must be used in addition to this. Reywas92^Talk 16:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some perspective on the highly decorated faculty at Caltech may be helpful. It is no coincidence that a significant fraction of the faculty in Caltech's Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Division hold named professorships. These prestigious titles are not merely the result of soliciting donations—they reflect the extraordinary quality of research conducted by the faculty. Named chairs are awarded by Caltech's president to the most outstanding and notable researchers, and they exist because of the exceptional science that underpins them.

Caltech's Chemistry department, for example, boasts 46 named professorships, 5 Nobel laureates (Marcus, Arnold, Zewail, Grubbs, Hopfield), and an astonishing 2/3 of its tenured faculty are members of the National Academy of Sciences or hold prestigious HHMI Investigator appointments. These accomplishments highlight the department’s remarkable level of excellence.

It’s also worth noting that, unlike larger institutions such as Harvard, Caltech has a relatively small undergraduate population of approximately 250 students per year and does not have the same expansive graduate base. This makes its achievements all the more extraordinary. Named professorships are therefore not awarded lightly, nor are they handed out universally.

Most importantly, the rules governing these appointments do not suggest that professorships should be evaluated differently across institutions. Instead, there is an implicit trust that each institution can determine the individuals who are most deserving of this significant honor. JenniferconnellyII (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So use membership in NAS and other accomplishments and coverage for notability. There are plenty of other universities with other distinguished faculty and their funding sources and named professorships and departments, but we should not be making notability decisions this way universally even if Caltech is an outlier. Use it as one criterion for consideration, not an automatic keep because of it alone. Reywas92^Talk 23:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. @Reywas92. This is however not what the rules state. If the rules are changed that would trigger such a discussion for many wikipedia entries. It appears that you do not agree with the notability rules. In this case you should request a change of the rules, rather than have this discussion at this particular entry. The rules do not state that NAS membership is required, which would also be arbitrary as foreign scientists are rarely NAS members. NAS and HHMI investigatorships would be good criteria but they are not listed in the notability rules. JenniferconnellyII (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He clearly meets the criteria for notability. Athel cb (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- named full prof. chair at Caltech. I know that Ldm1954 has been working with WP:PROF for a long time, so--I'm sorry to say friend but--it looks like a WP:POINT nomination that is wasting the community's time, in the middle of this beautiful, rare Southern California snow fall. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk)
Keep Obviously notable person SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough sources exist that are able to establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason-Shane Scott

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

I struggled to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources during my WP:BEFORE (there are a few interviews on soap opera related websites, but nothing of substance to my mind. The one significant role in One Life to Live does not meet the bar for WP:NACTOR, and so I submit that the subject is not notable. I proposed a Redirect to One Life to Live. The article is also not written from a terribly neutral point of view either, but that is somewhat by-the-by. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as the nominator does not advocate deletion. The article can be boldly redirected as desired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to be unclear. I do think that the article should be deleted. My suggestion of redirection was as an alternative to deletion, and I wanted to get some consensus before doing that. Cheers SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tinychat

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

Articles about companies must meet WP:NCORP requirements. This one clearly fails them.

1. [16] Puff piece by WP:TECHCRUNCH, an outlet infamous for its COI articles

2. [17] Very brief and clearly promotional article, even including calls to action with a link to the website. Fails WP:ORGIND.

3. [18] non-independent interview article, doesn't say anything of substance about Tinychat.

4. [19] reads like a routine announcement, not deep enough coverage to satisfy ORGDEPTH.

5. [20] Reproduction of another WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece.

6. [21] Routine announcement, doesn't say anything about the company in any depth (WP:ORGDEPTH). Also relies on TechCrunch.

Other sources I found were PR articles and top 10 lists. This article was also created by an editor with the same name as a co-founder of this company [22]. Badbluebus (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Internet, and Websites. Badbluebus (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any good sources either. I found this article that alleges that two celebrity investors used the software to "flirt with underage girls", but the article states that these are merely "rumors". At best, this source is unreliable, and at worst, it's a violation of WP: BLP and should not be added to the article. I also found a book called "Introduction to Omegle" by Gilad James, PhD. I thought that this source would be reliable, but the author's LinkedIn profile indicates that their PhD was obtained from a "distance learning institution". This, regrettably, makes the book an unreliable source. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2024 (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 23:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uniswap Labs

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

No reliable sources found for this software developer Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources can be found in traditional media, books, and academic papers. For example, the company has received coverage in Bloomberg News ([23][24][25][26][27][28]), the company has been covered by The Wall Street Journal ([29][30][31][32]), and there are two chapters dedicated to Uniswap in the book Automated Market Makers (published in 2023 by a division of Springer Nature). Sources available span multiple years. The subject of the article meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, even if the current state of the article could use some work. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the product, i.e. Uniswap. Uniswap Labs has been involved in some legal cases but other than most of the coverage is about its DAO, Uniswap. As a company, Uniswap Labs fails WP:NCORP. Veldsenk (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Lerner

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

None of the reliable sources that mention this person discusses him in any significant depth. Some provide Lerner's commentary about his own companies, others are interviews with him (not very independent, since it's him talking about himself), others are plainly unreliable puff-pieces. Badbluebus (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, United States of America, and New York. Badbluebus (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Most of the coverage, both in the article and from a web search, is either self-published or centered on his companies instead of himself (WP:NOTINHERITED applies to the latter). Given that the article's main author, Marciscarlson, was blocked for being an advertising-only account, there may be a case for speedy deletion per WP:G11, but I think that's a step too far. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeerStream

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [33] [34] [35], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, Websites, United States of America, and New York. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gendel

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

This article has been marked as unnotable since April 2017. After checking the revision history of this article, I noticed that there were no significant improvements. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, New York, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reference 10, plus this article: [36], should be enough to establish notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an article. It's an advertisement. In a shop. Selling his product. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:SolxrgashiUnited, fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kishore

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:SIGCOV, sources are poorly cited and nothing notable to be found within sources. Garudam ^Talk! 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kablammo (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, Poetry, India, Haryana, United States of America, and Minnesota. Garudam ^Talk! 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage on subject's biography and career. I can not find in search if the subject was an important figure or was widely cited by peers or successors, or created a significant new concept, or created a significant or well-known work. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. RangersRus (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As mentioned in the article, the subject was reportedly honored with the 'Padmabhushan Dr. Moturi Satyanarayan Award' in 2005. However, there is no verifiable evidence to support this claim, nor is there any significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) available regarding the award or Subject. Baqi:) (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No quality sources SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ronnie Harris (sprinter)

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, specifically "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject"; does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, to have been successful in a major competition, or won a significant honor, as described in WP:ATHLETE Stephen Hui (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Stephen Hui (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per these three sources. Left guide (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three sources clearly refer to a different Harris -- the Wikipedia article is about a sprinter, but the articles all refer to him as a middle distance runner. The Wikipedia article says he was born in 1956, but the second source says he was 31 in 1996 (i.e. born ca. 1965), and the third source says he was 21 in 1987 (so born ca. 1966). Not the same guy. Stephen Hui (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll take your word for it, struck my !vote accordingly. Left guide (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject tied the world record in the 4 × 220 yards relay and was an NCAA Division I champion, was covered in e.g. "Harris Looking For Better Times". The Daily Progress. 10 Apr 1977. p. 34. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Trackmen Ready For 1980". The Daily Progress. 4 Aug 1976. p. 13. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Rushed to Russia: Harris takes whirlwind trip". The Daily Advance. 21 Aug 1979. p. 22. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Sports Festival Was Not All Fun". The Daily Progress. 12 Aug 1979. p. 32. Retrieved 5 December 2024. I'll try to incorporate these into the article soon but wanted to get this out before everyone puts their !votes in. --Habst (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Does not meet NTRACK and unclear if that threshold could ever be met, but some of the information above could be placed into more notable articles, such as the NCAA Championship. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest, subject actually does meet NTRACK prong 2 for his international Universiade gold medal. He also tied world records in both the 4 × 220 y and 4 × 200 m. Of course, whether he meets NTRACK doesn't really matter as long as he meets GNG which I think is demonstrated above. --Habst (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst: If someone can add that information to the article with references, I'd be happy to alter my opinion. I see there is that box there, but wondering why it's not mentioned beyond that. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest, thanks, I expanded the article and added some context on that medal. --Habst (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, updating my opinion to Weak Keep Would like to see more expansion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, article greatly expanded. A source review would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject notable enough with multiple international accolades. ParvatPrakash (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apt Records

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

References only one source and a google search does not yield much notability (i.e: a few questionable sources; Discogs, Rate Your Music, Both Sides Now Publications. Notability seems thin here. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, this is a discontinued label, so much of the info may be in newspapers from its era. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ABC Records: this was its parent label and Apt Records is mentioned there, making it a viable-enough alternative to deletion barring the emergence of more-substantial sourcing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ABC Records. Completely agree with above. I think there's some useful information in the article that could be used within ABC Records, but not enough to warrant its own article. Beachweak (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ rather than redirect. This was just a sublabel for singles releases of ABC, but the label history is noteworthy enough to merit mention in the parent article. Chubbles (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or keep! based on below efforts. Chubbles (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage found at [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], Billboard January 30, 1965 page 4, the liner notes of this, [42] (I consider this a reliable source, it is curated and used by academic sources), 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for what it’s worth regarding nom statement, Discogs and Rate Your Music are not reliable. Both Sides Now is reliable, but what’s there regarding Apt isn’t significant coverage. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at User_talk:OwenX#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apt_Records.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge I think there's a potential editorial decision to be made as to whether this should be a stand-alone page - the Billboard coverage is clearly good coverage, I'm not entirely convinced liner notes and a list of releases get us to GNG but there's definitely sources we can use to write about the label. Whether a sub-label should be on the parent page or not isn't something I really care about, but the article as it reads currently is in pretty bad shape and if it's not significantly updated, a merge might be a better option. But while AfD can function as a merge discussion, my entire point is that there's enough sources that we don't need to delete this. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ABC Records - This is a company (or a subsidiary of one), so the appropriate guidelines are WP:NCORP. That means coverage must be at WP:CORPDEPTH in multiple independent reliable and secondary sources. The run of sources provided are mostly all from Billboard and count as a single source under the guidelines. The other two sources are definitely not at CORPDEPTH, but at least the first Billboard article is, telling us something about the proposed re-activated subsidiary and about a previous hit on the label. But these are also news reporting, which is a primary source. You are right that Billobaord would be curated and used by academic sources, but that word, curation, is key. Academics would be curating this primary source when producing their histories, analysis and synthesis. The academic sources are then the secondary sources. Wikipedia articles are tertiary, and should be written from the secondary sources, not the primary ones. We don't yet have any secondary sourcing. Under WP:SIRS there is not enough here for a standalone article. But, despite that, the first Billboard article is a good find. Used with care, it could be used to flesh out information on this subsidiary of ABC Records in that article. A secondary source would be better, but the primary source provides information that we could present without synthesis in a suitable small section. Although this !vote is for merge, much of the mergeable content is actually in this AfD and not on the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDreamBooks

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This article was previously nominated and reached no consensus. There has been no significant improvements to the article since. While there are indeed sources, coverage appears to be routine/centered on company launch and are not independent of subject (include contributions from company founders). Analysis by @HighKing: shows the sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH Imcdc Contact 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Websites, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and I fail to find any sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Seems unlikely this article will grow from a stub or get more sources in the future. Beachweak (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a date for when this company folded, but based on blog posts and other social media it seems to have become defunct within a few years. I can't find much beyond the announcements of its beginning - nothing about what impact it might have had while it existed. This is enough for me to consider it a "flash in the pan" and not notable. Lamona (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Existing sources are sufficient. HuffPost is a reliable source for non-political content per WP: RS, and the Crikey article is written by Bethanie Blanchard, a person who's spent a large portion of their career in the media industry and has extensive freelance writing experience. (cite). Both of these articles give in-depth coverage (i.e. more than a brief mention) and do not primarily consist of content written by company employees or executives. WP: ORGCRIT requires that sources provide "an overview, description, ... or evaluation of the product." I do not have a sufficient explanation for why these two sources do not meet that bar, even after reading and rereading the confusing explanations of the previous AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Publishers Weekly and Huffington Post references in the article each provide the needed WP:CORPDEPTH to meet the WP:NCORP, IMO. Let'srun (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To reiterate what @HighKing: has stated regarding the huffington post article. The first couple of paragraphs generically describe "the problem" so not really about the subject. The third paragraph is a company description that looks like a boilerplate description. See 1 which even has a comparison to Rotten Tomatoes. And then there are quotes by the co-founders. So what remains doesn't seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. - Imcdc Contact 04:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Discussion appears to center on whether the HuffPost and the Publishers Weekly articles meet the criteria, so lets take a look at these.

This Publishers Weekly article from April 19th 2013 is about the partnership between Sony and the company. This is the blog post from the company from April 18th 2013. Here's another Blog post from GoodRead from April 17th which duplicates the information in the Publishers Weekly article. Here's another article from Books & Review, written by a "Staff Reporter" on April 20th which uses *exactly* the same text text as found in Publishers Weekly. There are lots of other similar reviews but they all share the same information in common, none are "Independent Content" which is a requirement to meet the criteria. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This Huff Post article is claimed as meeting the criteria (above) because it is "a reliable source". Being a reliable source forms only one part of the GNG/NCORP criteria to be met. The other (and more crucial) parts are than it must be in-depth *about* the *company* and that it must be independent *content*. This article is an advertorial, relying entirely on information about the site provided by the company itself and is promotional. Don't just take my word for it - this article on Tyler Shores describes the article as "an interview". Another "big red flag" is that there is no author/journalist attributed to this post. Nor was there one attributed in the original post in 2012. Based on all that, it fails WP:ORGIND.
Last article mentioned was this Crikey article is from the same date as the original Huff Post advertorial and both those articles are practically identical in content, both trying to "explain" the website, both referencing Rotten Tomatoes, both referencing "50 shades of Grey", both comparing to GoodReads, both listing all of the "big six" publishers. All indications that they're using content provided to them. But this fails on a more fundamental note. This article is a blog post (the URL is blogs.crikey.com) and blogs fail WP:RS for the most part. So fails WP:RS and WP:ORGIND.

I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. All the articles I can find are advertorials for the most part. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the website's front page (as shown in the HuffPost article), I think it's pretty natural to describe the website as "Rotten Tomatoes for books". Reviews are crowdsourced and the website displays the percentage of users who rated a book favorably. It's also common for startups to be described as "<existing product> for <new vertical>". The HuffPost article says that they interviewed an executive, but that is only a short portion of the article. I'm not convinced that these are advertorials, and I don't think I will be unless you somehow obtain conclusive proof that money changed hands as a result of the article being published. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rippon, Rachel (2015). "Watching the Watchmen: The integrity of reviews in digital self-publishing" (PDF). Minding The Gap: Writing Across Thresholds And Fault Lines Papers – The Refereed Proceedings Of The 19th Conference Of The Australasian Association Of Writing. Wellington: Australasian Association of Writing Programs. ISBN 978-0-9807573-8-5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The review notes: "Finally, iDreambooks is a database that integrates self-published books alongside traditionally published ones and has both critic reviews and user reviews displayed on a book’s page. ... For the author, however, while iDreambooks is an excellent resource for readers, it does little to help authors garner reviews. Nevertheless, books who do manage to receive critic reviews – particularly from reputable review sites such as Kirkus or Publishers Weekly – are far more visible on the site than books with low or no critic reviews. In this regard, therefore, iDreambooks maintains ‘quality control’ by allowing books with a higher degree of critic analysis to become more visible."
2. Quill, Greg (2012-07-16). "idreambooks.com a cool tool for readers in need of credible reviews". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "A couple of young Canadian web specialists have come up with a useful tool that will help you select good books to read, using the curated reviews of mainstream literary critics. Taking their cues from Rotten Tomatoes, the popular website that aggregates the work of professional movie reviewers around the world, Sarnia native Rahul Simha and his tech-savvy buddies, Canadian Vish Chapala and American Mohit Aggarwal, have built a website, idreambooks.com, that collects, aggregates and links the published works of professional book reviewers. ... Using automated software programs and manual techniques, the three founders have managed to encapsulate and link to reviews of more than 1,000 books from publications, movie websites and blogs all over the world, including Canada’s major newspapers and magazines, the Star among them. They have aggregated the opinions into “must read” and “don’t read” categories, signalled by smiling blue cloud and frowning grey cloud symbols beneath the book cover illustrations, along with the percentage of favourable reviews."
3. Kannan, Indira (2013-06-20). "iDreamBooks: Reading between the lines: The Silicon Valley start-up spotted an opportunity in aggregating book reviews, but accurate sentiment analysis remains a challenge". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2014-04-26. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "Last year, the three friends started iDreamBooks. The website, www.idreambooks.com, aggregates book reviews from major publications such as The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and a number of other media platforms around the world, and assigns ratings to books based on the reviews. The service is modelled on www.rottentomatoes.com, a well known website that provides a similar service to moviegoers, aggregating film reviews. ... The project started with a couple of thousand titles; now, it covers about 100,000 titles. While critics' reviews are displayed for most books, ratings are available only for about 2,000. A search for Dan Brown's long-awaited thriller Inferno, for instance, reveals only one review and no critic rating, though it was widely reviewed and one of the biggest publications this year."
4. Kalder, Daniel (2012-07-13). "iDreambooks Promises "Rotten Tomatoes-like" Site for Books". Publishing Perspectives. Frankfurter Buchmesse. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "iDreambooks has developed rapidly. Simha has been “playing around with the idea” since February, and developing it seriously since the end of March. There are three founders and four contractors on staff; Simha and one of his co-founders are engineers by training, but know how to write code. Currently they are adding new content to the site every day to make it as comprehensive as possible. Of course, others have announced similar intentions over the years, including Kirkus Reviews, which abandoned the project."
5. Grant, Rebecca (2012-07-13). "idreambooks offers credible recommendations for book lovers". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "idreambooks.com launched this week in an effort to help people read less rubbish. The site aggregates literary reviews from publications like the NYTimes and Washington Post and recommends books that were given a positive rating by 70% of critics. Plenty of book review sites out there collect user reviews and base recommendations off that criteria. idreambooks sticks solely to the professionals, so only books with critical endorsement are promoted."
6. "iDreamBooks Review Site: Rotten Tomatoes For Books?". HuffPost. 2012-07-13. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "iDreamBooks, a site openly inspired by Rotten Tomatoes, has created a system that aims to aggregate and streamline book reviews, giving new releases from the big six publishers (Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, Random House, and Simon & Schuster) a percentage rating. Like its popular film equivalent, the iDreamBooks team decides whether a certain review is positive or negative using both automated and manual techniques, and compiles the ratings to determine a book's critical merit."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow iDreamBooks to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response Not one of these contains in-depth independent content about the company, just stuff regurgitated from the website and from PR packs. A couple of sentences does not meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Also most of those articles rely entirely on interviews from the founders or information provided by the company, which is obvious if you read the article rather than the individual sentences isolated above. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard, seems in depth and from a variety of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PARAKANYAA, which ones appear to contain in-depth "Independent Content" to you? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minding the Gap is good, containing a decent amount of critical analysis of the platform from a scholarly work. The Business Standard piece is also fine on that front. The other 2012 era ones are IMO all functionally one source since they came out at the same time, but in combination they have some useful pieces. Together that's enough for me. And I do not think your assessment of relying wholly on interviews or "just regurgitated from the website" is accurate.

Your bar for company notability is very high, higher than already the high NCORP. Quite frankly you say this a lot, I don't think I've ever seen you vote keep on a company at AfD. And that's fine, you're very often right, but I do not necessarily agree with your assessment of the pieces in this case or every case.

Also, WP:NWEB is a more appropriate guideline for this article IMO than NCORP, as website, under which this would also pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not really related to the this current afd but one of my articles Cowin Capital was nominated for deletion by a now blocked account before. The decision was to keep it. One of the main reasons was because Cunard provided more sources just like now BUT HighKing actually agreed with him and voted keep. It does show both of them can agree to keep an article even if it probably is not common. Imcdc Contact 01:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response The reference "Minding the Gap" is a paper submitted by a student for an unknown course. We don't know the context, but it is not a reliable source. You say it is "scholarly" - it has not been cited anywhere. The Business Standard piece relies entirely on information provided by the website (hence the references in the first few paragraphs to Rotten Tomatoes) and to an interview with the founders, Simha, as noted at the beginning of paragraph 3 and as is obvious by the number of direct quotes in the article. That said, your point about NWEB is valid if the article was to focus on that aspect and not on the company/founders/etc. Finally, my "bar" for notability is precisely what is contained in NCORP, nothing more or less. Others might go on their own opinion or what the like or dislike, but if you want to stick to arguing guidelines and you can point to any paragraphs in any article which contain in-depth "Independent Content" (as defined in our guidelines) then I'll happily change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moments to Remember (XM Satellite Radio show)

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

Article about a radio program, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for radio programs. As always, radio programs are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed -- they need to show that they pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in sources independent of themselves. But this cites no coverage about the show at all, and instead is referenced entirely to the host's own self-published uploads of old episodes of the show to YouTube, which is not an independent or notability-building source.
Simply existing is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the show from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Professional Landmen

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

Purely promotional article with only primary sources; the current version of the article is already a cut-down version of even more promotional material seen here: Special:Diff/755821962. Could find no secondary sources on Google LR.127 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. LR.127 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Landman (oil worker) - These two are essentially saying the same thing about the subject matter. We don't need two articles on the subject. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough secondary sources to prove notability. I'm against merging. This is about an organization, not about the career itself. Rublamb (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of specific sources in light of WP:NORG would be helpful in ascertaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

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

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

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

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the article is notable on its own. WP:SPLIT is justified for significant battles of the Soviet-Afghan war. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could be merged at best. Otherwise, I don't see a reason why this article should exist in the mainspace when the parent article itself does not cover this topic or lacks sources, even if it does. Garudam ^Talk! 19:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pure violation of WP:SYNTH. The topic is not notable and the article itself appears to be pushing a POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has standalone notability of its own established through significant coverage and a necessary split from Soviet-Afghan war article. Muneebll (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is not even notable for its parent article and lacks citations, clearly it does not pass GNG & SIGCOV. Garudam ^Talk! 14:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncharted (EP)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: WP:NALBUM notes that an album may be notable when it is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works". The reviews from Kerrang! and Distorted Sound Magazine should suffice for this, given that both are deemed reliable per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. While I can't seem to find any other sources at the moment, and while it is true that none of the other album notability criteria currently apply to this EP, I believe it's still enough for a presumption of notability. Leafy46 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leafy46: Ah, those have been added since I nominated the article. I agree that the notability is looking better from those alone. Ss112 09:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since being nominated the EP has been subject to "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" per WP:NALBUM. Because of this, I would say it passes WP:GNG as well and should be kept. Beachweak (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has now been demonstrated. I found a third source, too: [43]. -3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She does social media as well, Greta133 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [44] [45] [46] [47], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least reading the sources cited here, I'm not really convinced there are even any significant coverage even of the things the subject has done. The deportations article, for example, starting from the 5th sentence is evidently secondary, and I'm not sure I see the same thing for Kai here. Maybe the second half of the Telegraph article? A lot of the references proposed as the best sources in this discussion seem like straightforward fails of SBST. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[48]] and [[49]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: If we keep it, it's logical that Barron Trump should have his own article. Lucafrehley (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's a public figure and meets Wikipedia notability requirements to have her own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.77.187 (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. We don't write about the grandchildren of Nicolas Sarkozy, Olaf Scholz, or even Vladimir Putin. --Tataral (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per the articles focused on her by Daily Beast, Essentially Sport, ABC News, Golf Week, New York Times.XavierItzm (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Also should be even more prominent during the next four years. Her fame is global. She is covered in The Times of India for instance. Hektor (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India is not an unquestionably reliable source, see WP:RSP and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_447#RfC:_The_Times_of_India. In my own experience, its coverage tends towards the sensational. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources with sigcov – such as this Cut piece and especially this solid Telegraph profile published after the start of this AfD – demonstrate notability. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would appear that Kai has done little else to gather press coverage other than be the granddaughter of the incoming President (unlike her aunt Ivanka who is notable), only thing going for her in terms of notability is the instagram posting and social media influencer career paragraph, and thats not much. Considering we have First Daughters that are far more notable than her (Malia Obama comes to mind who is in filmmaking) don't have Wikipedia pages I struggle to understand why she does. Naomi Biden's wikipedia page got deleted for this same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfriendnow (talk • contribs) 18:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Gelasin (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. The content of this article could be shortened to a sentence or two that would fit well in the full family article. This individual's internet popularity is on the increase but right now it's WP:TOOSOON to tell if that will hold. Might warrant a standalone article eventually. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. Having some subscribers on tiktok and youtube does not give notability. The possibility of being an influencer in the next years does not give notability WP:TOOSOON. User:GuzmanTierno 8:00, 29 November 2024 (GMT)
Keep: Meets WP:GNG as you can find sources as https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kai-trump-sanitizing-grandpa-trump-200345791.html and https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/13/kai-trump-age-parents-donald-trump-grandchildren/76259196007/ Shadow4dark (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is her own growing brand, she says she wants to stay out of politics and grow on Youtube separately. Osnelandrejr(talk) 07:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I would actually like to see a "Descendants" section in the Donald Trump article. People are interested in what his children or grandchildren are going to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Ashik Rahik (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made this article because Kai has used the fame afforded by her family, the most famous in the world, to garner significant attention among teenagers. There’s already been coverage, and there’ll be more as she does more stuff. The idea of Wikipedia is to make a place where people can find reliable information about things that are happening around them. Don’t cut it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpharomeo12 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her family being famous doesn't mean she needs a Wikipedia page. It's either delete this or merge it. Unfriendnow (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she passes notability -- famous family (like Kennedy family members) and media is covering her extensively because she is providing videos into meetings at Mar-a-Lago, etc that otherwise we don't have visibility into. Deleting now would be a big mistake -- it would have to be re-created from scratch in future years.. Danski14^(talk) 14:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it need to be re-created from scratch in future years? have other granddaughters of Presidents also had Wikipedia pages? Naomi Biden's was deleted and she had a historical wedding and was in the news, Finnegan Biden when she was in the news and attended the coronation making her and her grandmother the only member of a First Family to do so.

Why is Kai Trump so important and so different from those two? what has she really done? Unfriendnow (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely notable, and I really hope this AfD wasn't created out of a political bias toward her grandfather. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG due to sustained media coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.160.78 (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, she has lots of media coverage, speech at RNC, And there seems to be no good reason for delete.Editingwithcoffee (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has become a notable person and there's enough media coverage about her to satisfy WP:GNG. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously passes GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golikom (talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of mainstream media coverage of her RNC speech and social media content. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
● Keep, Notable, media coverage, influence in social media, RNC Speech. InterDoesWiki (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one or the other suggested targets. Merge in some of the material and references. There's a huge surge from participants in recent days that have little to no history at AFD, which seem to consist of pointing to various news stories that only exist because of their relationship with the former president. I see no policy-related reasons for this article to exist standalone. Nfitz (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:LiamKorda seems to have erroneously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Trump (2nd nomination) from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21. I've manually (hopefully correctly without breaking something) - but the listing has been missing at AFD since November 21. Nfitz (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. Thanks for this, @Nfitz. -- asilvering (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was accidentally removed from the log on Nov 21. So one more go around on the AfD logs, despite the seemingly snowy keep here; given that this was somewhat hidden, there are canvassing concerns here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bottom end of notability is notability still. Nowhere to go but up now. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not every trump is notable. This is a Trump too far, I hoped we had seen the last Trump (to have an article here). Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a WP:DONTLIKEIT arg; more specifically, a WP:DONTLIKETRUMP one. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  yep GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Not a notable political figure - made a speech at her grandfather's convention, in which she spoke of how she sees him, in a non-political way. Plays high school, amateur, golf. Come back when she has a career of her own, in professional golf or in the political industry. Barron Trump is also a redirect to the family page, despite the weird online cult growing around him. The Obama daughters redirect to Family of Barack Obama. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Did any Obama kid speak at a national political convention? If so, maybe they ought to have an article. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Temptation ignores coverage which centers on K.T., such as the The Cut piece and especially the remarkable Telegraph profile of Kai. XavierItzm (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. _Mrwoogi010 ^✉ 00:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Given the coverage and sources in the article, the article is significant enough to exist outside the Trump Family article and also meets WP:GNG. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:TOOSOON, she doesn't really have enough notability on her own. 200k instagram followers really isn't a notable indicator of stardom. Most articles reference her to someone else, and that's not good enough for an article. In general I really don't like these article of extended family of celebrities. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 08:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also say here that I don't think this person is going to get any kind of sustained significant coverage... so it's doesn't pass GNG like most of the keep votes here say. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 08:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SIGCOV GRALISTAIR (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect : I don't believe she is really notable enough to have her own article. Being someone's grandchild doesn't make a person notable. Furthermore, her Instagram followers may only be following her due to the elder and more well-known Trump's popularity. Either way, 200k followers isn't exactly famous. Ali Beary (talk2me!) 13:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kai Trump has had considerable media coverage and will only become more notable as the granddaughter of the soon-to-be-47th president.

WorldMappings (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

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