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

Adam Fox Building

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

It does not meet presumed notability under WP:NBUILD and while it might mean something in the local community, it's just a run of the mill old building that doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article and the sources don't meet the threshold of independent significant coverage needed for for GNG. This appears to be a part of the broader walled garden on Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA buildings/subject matter. Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, United States of America, and California. Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the two book sources, the first falls under WP:ARCADIA and consists only of a photo and its caption. The second is some hyperlocal press (possibly the same as Paper Vision Press / Western Tanager Press?) and has only two passing mentions. This level of coverage is not significant and not enough for WP:GNG, even setting aside the Carmel-related issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Rubin (actor)

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

WP:TOOSOON for this actor. One credit in a major film isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dee

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references that are presently used in the article mention him once or twice, at most. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Out the Gate (film), in which he starred. toweli (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Jamaica, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Hunter (actor)

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for actors is not satisfied just because the article lists acting roles, and requires the reception of WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about him and his roles in reliable sources -- but the referencing here is almost entirely to unreliable sources such as blogs, YouTube videos and IMDb. The only source that counts as reliable at all is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person on an individual television station's local newscast, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if all of the rest of the sourcing is junk.
Simply having had acting roles is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have proper GNG-worthy coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redrect to If Loving You Is Wrong: Appears to fail both GNG and NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft

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

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Whilst "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been", I have been unable to find any reliable sources talking about a list of preserved (McDonnell) Douglas aircraft. I have been unable to find reliable significant coverage on both topics. Sources do exist (only for individual entries) albeit only talking about the individual entries, not about the topic in general –List of preserved (McDonnell) Douglas Aircraft–.

I have also nominated <List of preserved Douglas aircraft> since both topics are similar enough as they both cover preserved aircraft and were manufactured by similar companies, whilst also sharing the same issues. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Lists, and United States of America. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is some discussion of Douglas/McDonnell Douglas aircraft as objects of preservation in Holden (The Douglas DC-3) and Francillon (McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920, volumes 1 and 2. Furthermore, since the list entries are not generally independently notable, these lists fulfill criterion 1 (information) of WP:LISTPURP, and under WP:NLIST, "[l]ists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some way to access the books (with the pages mentioning preservation) since they have a restricted access? From the available pages, there doesn't seem to be any mention of aircraft preservation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviationwikiflight Anyone can create a free account with Archive.org and then check the books out virtually for an hour, renewable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok I see, I had the account but didn't see the Borrow button. But are there specific pages that discuss preservation? Thanks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, search for "museum" in particular in the Francillon books; each volume has several references to the preservation status of aircraft under discussion. In Holden, look at page 171-191, which discuss the preservation challenges and then-current/future status of the remaining DC-3s. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per @Dclemens1971. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'll AGF on the sources given by Dclemens1971, and I also concur regarding WP:LISTPURP. S5A-0043^Talk 11:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfC reviewer comment: I had this on my watchlist since I thought someone might try to AfD it. Which is to say that I agree that it looks like "preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft" aren't notable as a set. But "aircraft preservation" is notable, and "McDonnell Douglas" is notable (even individual aircraft models), and whether or not an individual aircraft is preserved is a defining quality of that particular aircraft. There are many broader articles where this kind of information would be relevant, so this is useful for information purposes as a kind of spin-out of those articles. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabardine (band)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There's a brief biography of the band on AllMusic, it's mentioned in a review of another band's album ("Bemberger, Hughes and Peterson also played together in an obscure band called Gabardine, which released one EP before disbanding in 1998.") and there's another description here (I have no idea if Hard Noise is reliable). toweli (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Nebraska. toweli (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saddle Creek Records. It's hard for one-release bands to have gotten enough coverage to meet WP:NBAND. That being said, Gabardine is tied to other bands through former members, making redirect a better option than delete IMO. Geschichte (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ogan

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

CEO of a small hedge fund, not large enough to lend notability to either; not long out of university, with few publications. The references are about related topics but not about Ogan, who is mentioned tangetially if at all. Searches find routine listing and social media (with insufficient followers to use that to justify notability). Klbrain (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, China, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The majority of the articles are about Tesla or a Chinese car company; Ogan is asked about what he thinks about xyz thing... None of these are about Ogan. There is no coverage about this individual and this shows a lack of notability. I don't find any articles we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Burmeister

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. Google news yields 2 third party sources from Manchester Evening News, but it's rather routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, United States of America, and California. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, yield same result for me no WP:SIGCOV for the guy Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado

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

Someone is bound to AfD this, so I'll just get it out of the way and see what the community thinks. My concerns:
1. This is WP:TOOSOON, especially for a low-end EF4 tornado.
2. The entire tornado summary (and even part of the "post-anaylsis" upgrade bit) can be merged into the existing section at Tornado outbreak of April 25–28, 2024.
3. Does it meet WP:NOTABLE? I'm on the line because it was a low-end EF4 but it killed nobody.
While I get that I have AfD'd a lot of these recent tornado articles, please understand that I'm just raising my concerns here, and would like to gain community concensus on these issues. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 05:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Nebraska. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 05:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm going to have to make an argument here. As the reviewer of the article, two things: this meets WP:GNG, and it's notable enough to at least not warrant a WP:NOPAGE-type deletion. I don't think it's really the fatalities the specific tornado causes, but rather the individual coverage garnered from it. And from what I can tell, I think it does meet the specified criteria and, from its length, is alright to keep. ~ Tails Wx 10:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Science. C F A 💬 15:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to answer each one individually.

1. The rating means absolutely nothing. There have been weaker tornadoes that have received articles. The reasoning also doesn't even relate to the WP:TOOSOON argument.

2. I'm not going to deny that one, but in this case, I don't think length matters.

3. A tornado doesn't have to be deadly to be notable. In fact, of all the tornadoes that occurred in the Omaha metro that day, only one of them killed someone. Despite this, all 5 of the EF3+ tornadoes in the area received varying, although still a lot, of press coverage.

I see this as a valid WP:LASTING case and am, therefore, going to vote keep. ChessEric 15:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — About a week ago, I gave my take on having an article for this tornado. A week ago, I was opposed to it having an article only on the grounds of not having clear lasting coverage. However, that has since changed, with several news articles on the tornado in just the last week ([1][2][3]). The tornado seems to have lasting impacts as well. My take on the WP:TOOSOON rational/argument is when a tornado is entirely still preliminary. The official/“finalized” reports for this tornado are out, so I do not believe it would be too soon for an article on the tornado. For all of that, I believe it is ok to have an article for this tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per ChessEric and WeatherWriter.

Poodle23 (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per ChessEric. It's snowing in August? Jdcomix (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! ChessEric 20:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Hanami-Sakura 10:00, 7August 2024 (UTC)

Merge It’s an injustice for readers to have to click to get more information.Hurricane Debby 2024 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Multiple news articles have been recently published on this tornado, as linked above by WeatherWriter, and it has caused lasting impacts based on this and the continued analysis of the damage that took place as a result of it, making the article pass WP:LASTING. Additionally, finalized information has been released on this tornado with all of it being reliably cited and verifiable rather than just preliminary reports, along with detailed information on the tornado's upgrade in its post-analysis, making this not a WP:TOOSOON case, and making this suitable for an article. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 02:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

its not too soon, the tornado happened three months ago and there have been other tornadoes that got there individual articles more soon when everything was still preliminary 2. Yeah no 3. I don't know if you realize but since this tornado struck a metro of a large city, it received alot of news coverage, and Elkhorn got more news coverage when it got upgraded to EF4 for it certainly passed WP:LASTING

Hoguert (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy's Place (2024 TV series)

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

WP:TOOSOON; short article Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City of Lions

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources (or really any coverage). toweli (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chalet Lizette Brannan

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

Article about a non-notable actress and philanthropist. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Has only played minor roles in movies. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor acting roles; some interviews and stories about her beating cancer found in Gnews, but not really helping notability (most are about a "local person that beat cancer and helps others"). Her philanthropy is fine, but not that much different than any one else really. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Nation

AfDs for this article:

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

\this doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The phrase is still used, but there is nothing for this TV show I could find. This article has no sources, not helping matters... Well, last AfD in 2005 was a keep, and the show got cancelled shortly thereafter, so that was a bad call.... Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I was able to find [4], [5], and [6] but it seems to be pretty routine coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, and United States of America. C F A 💬 04:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Speed#Series_programming_2: a standard ATD; the sources presented (or other) can be added there. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Does not at all assert notability, neither does it have any WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per above, topic is not notable on its own, but a redirect is likely to be useful. Garsh (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BioSense

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

Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary or tertiary sources to establish independent notability. A couple passing, definitional, mentions in books, but not enough for this encyclopedia. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral WP:SIGCOV might apply. I found some mentions that are more-than-passing-mentions that are outside of cdc.gov, including this news article https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/cdc-realign-biosense-focus-most-populous-cities-0 and this GAO report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-100.pdf. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klover

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

I'm not completely sure that this band is notable. I was able to find a description of the band in Trouser Press, a brief review by Robert Christgau (!), a brief review by Visions [de], and an interview with a bit said about Klover. Edit: Wow, I didn't even notice that two of those are already linked in the article. toweli (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Massachusetts. toweli (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources uncovered by the WP:BEFORE are good. A bit slight for a standalone article. Therefore a slight merge to Gang Green#Second hiatus (1990–1995). There are a number of possible redirect targets; I chose this because of what Trouser Press wrote: "Klöver has roots in the mighty tradition of Boston’s Bud-guzzling skatepunks, Gang Green, in the persons of guitarist Chris Doherty and drummer Brian Betzger. [...] As of early ’96, however, Klöver had folded and Gang Green was back in action." Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are usually some reliable sources to be found for major label albums released before the early/mid-2000s, when both the print media and music businesses were healthier. There are mid-to-longish articles in The Morning Call, The Boston Globe, and Telegram & Gazette, with reviews in the Daily Herald and Daily Breeze. An entry in the Encyclopedia of Punk Music and Culture--can't read it, but I'm sure it's only a small paragraph or two... Caro7200 (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tip the Van

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Connecticut. toweli (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find multiple independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this band. I couldn't. Cullen328 (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cullen328. I'm not sure if these are the sources you are looking for, but here are some that I found.

CT Newspaper - Hartford Courant

https://www.courant.com/2019/12/13/tip-the-van-reunion-tour-stopping-at-space-ballroom/

https://www.courant.com/2007/08/02/a-slam-bam-thank-you-to-some-grand-bands/

CT Newspaper - New Haven Register

https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Spring-Heeled-Jack-reunites-Friday-and-Saturday-11600584.php

Archive.org copy of the Vans Warped Tour Site from 2010 listing the band

https://web.archive.org/web/20100415160948/http://www.vanswarpedtour.com/warpedtour/bands.asp

Wikipedia Article Listing the Band Having Played the Vans Warped Tour 3x

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warped_Tour_lineups_by_year

Ticket Listing from a CT Music Venue

https://spaceballroom.com/e/tip-the-van-reunion-show--82671932977/

Interview with the Band

https://v13.net/2010/08/interview-with-tip-the-van-singer-nicole-oliva-and-bassist-bryan-howard/

Michigan Newspaper Listing the Band

https://www.mlive.com/entertainment/flint/2010/07/rocker_andrew_wk_returns_to_hi.html

Concert Listings

https://www.concertarchives.org/bands/tip-the-van--2?page=1#concert-table

Concert Review

https://duffguidetoska.blogspot.com/2009/11/duff-gig-review-across-aisle-tip-van.html

If you need more sources to keep this article, I'm happy to keep digging. 137.99.142.26 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the Wikipedia source one, It absolutely does not qualify as reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only source out of those that could possibly contribute to notability is the first one, the others just mention the band or aren't reliable sources. Interviews don't establish notability, although the pre-interview portion has a bit of commentary, so there's that too, I guess. toweli (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, anyone want to look over these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Hellier

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Generally, just being a mayor doesn’t inherently makes Hellier notable, and no evidence of passing WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Minnesota. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote that we do not delete. I have updated the article with multiple references to sources showing he has been covered multiple times in various publications. Ajthom90 (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just for existing, and do not automatically pass WP:GNG just because a smattering of local coverage exists — local coverage always exists of all local mayors, so the existence of the routine local coverage that's merely expected to exist is not in and of itself enough. So the key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not to minimally verify that he exists, it's to write and source substantive content about his political impact: specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this article contains absolutely no content of that type whatsoever, and is sticking to the "verify that he exists, the end" template for bad articles about mayors.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something much more substantive than this, but just being able to verify his election and a bit of trivia about his educational and career backgrounds is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been expanded since its nomination, can we get an assessment of any changes and new sources added?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there's enough here for WP:GNG. Lean delete.-KH-1 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are two claims here. Political operative and elected official. He does not meet GNG for his political operative career like a Charlie Kirk or a James O'Keefe. His political position does not meet WP:NPOL and while mayors can be notable, he took office less than two years ago so it's WP:TOOSOON.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016

Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements (2nd nomination)

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

Sub- and sub-sub-pages of List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign political endorsements, which was tied up with the 2017 deletion discussion. These pages stand out among Presidential candidate endorsement articles as excessively forked, hugely reliant on WP:SOCIALMEDIA sources (WP:PSTS) and thus not establishing notability (WP:TRIVIA). I am also nominating the following related pages:

U-Mos (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid page split. The other lists would be too big if this verifiable information were added there. --Enos733 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting a merger; very little of these pages meets notability through their reliance on WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, and what's left would take considerable effort to extricate. U-Mos (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said this in 2017 I am not sure Wikipedia is the proper place to document lists of endorsements for political candidates (Notable endorsements covered in multiple independent sources, probably as part of the main campaign page). Is AfD the proper place to hold this discussion, though? I still feel that AFD is not the right forum to determine whether we should retain all endorsements. That said, the main topic Clinton 2016 endorsements is notable, and it can be assumed that a page split (based on size) can inherit the notability from the primary topic. - Enos733 (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Keep - 2002crash1 (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note It's come to my attention that there is a content guideline at Wikipedia:Political endorsements, with endemic violations of points 2 and 3 of the inclusion criteria for individual endorsements apparent on the pages here proposed for deletion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign endorsements. U-Mos (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content can be fixed through normal editing. - Enos733 (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to WP:BLOWITUP in my opinion. U-Mos (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it violates Wikipedia:Political endorsements. If such a ridiculous result can be somehow justified based on the current text of the guidelines, then the guideline text needs to be revised. I cannot find any list of endorsements in WP:RS that even remotely resemble this one in scope. Therefore, most (99%?) of mentions in these lists are WP:UNDUE. --Викидим (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep According to Category:Lists of United States presidential candidate endorsements, the same sub-list thing is happening with both Biden and Trump 2020. The guideline is from 2020 based on an RFC, but the guideline either doesn't really get enacted, or there are simply too many wiki-notable people expressing clear endorsement. A general discussion should take place at guideline level, not at AfD, how to deal with such prominent presidential campaigns. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an example of WP:RECENTISM, is not notable as is 8 years later. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collective PAC

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

Pretty much all in-depth coverage I could find on Collective PAC were either about its founders (Stefanie and Quentin James) or articles where its founders were quoted, with a short snippet mentioning that they founded a PAC. You could make a decent case that Stefanie and Quentin James are notable, but the same can't really be said for Collective PAC. An editor removed my PROD from this page on the basis that they found a more recent source--a Hill article from 2024 with 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James. Most coverage I could find of this PAC is like that: an article about PACs more broadly that simply mentions Collective PAC in passing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom's assessment. I have been unable to find significant coverage of this PAC. Most of the coverage I could find are quotes from the PAC's founders or brief mentions of the PAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of disparaging nicknames for settlements in the United States

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

Scope is vague and due to the nature of the article it attracts unsourced information to be added (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 16:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer: major contributor). If the scope is vague, propose a move instead. If it attracts unsourced editing, that is not a reason to delete a page. See WP:BEFORE, Point C1: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Normal editing can fix the unsourced additions concern since undoing edits and rolling back to revisions are core embedded features to both Wikipedia and its extensions like Twinkle and RedWarn. Lack of will to work on a page is not a reason to delete it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. The best, almost the only, list I can find is The 5 Best North Texas City Nicknames (and Some of the Worst). (Ranker ["The Funniest Negative Nicknames for US Cities"] doesn't count since they rank all sorts of stuff that isn't notable.) Also, universities aren't settlements. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll just take one example I am personally familiar with: "Los Anchorage" for Anchorage, Alaska. Yes, those of us that live in more rural areas use this term dispairingly for people who move to Alaska just to live in an urban nightmare. However the source [7] is just the article's headline, the nickname is not the subject of the article. Seems like most of the sources are of this nature. This is just trivia, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Trivia" about sums it up. Qwirkle (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be spin-out of List of disparaging nicknames for settlements. There is potential to either smerge this back, or delete the parent list as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of disparaging nicknames for settlements: very selectively, for entries that are well-sourced. The topic doesn't justify being spun-off the original list, nor expanded to the degree it has been. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. It’s marginally notable, but a combined list makes sense. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between Delete, Merge and Keep. We need to come to a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per InvadingInvader. Who cares if it is trivia? At worst it can be merged. I don't know what genuine benefit it gives to ask whether there is a WP:LISTN source for specifically disparaging place names in the United States -- either it's too big to be in the main article and it should stay out, or it fits into the main article and it should be spun back into it. But the stuff I see here has sources and I don't really see a great argument for why it needs to go, other than it's bad in some nebulous way. jp×g 🗯️ 06:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. I question the accuracy of this, especially the ones not sourced. Just because someone may have blurted out these names, does not make them valid. A lot of this is just childish stuff, sourced or not. — Maile (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NLIST as "List of disparaging nicknames for settlements in the United States" is not notable as a group. There has been insufficient discussion of the set in reliable sources which establishes its notability as a set. Also delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disparaging nicknames for settlements, that list was created to solve a specific problem at WP:RFD. That doesn't mean it's untouchable, but I believe that history should be taken into account. I also strongly recommend potential closers closely coordinate this discussion with the other. Avoid nonsensical outcomes (e.g., keep this but delete the parent) or time-wasters (e.g., merge this, then delete the parent). --BDD (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Simmons (commentator)

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

WP:BIO1E. Coverage is only around his odd legal case 10 years ago of impersonating a CIA officer and committing fraud. He's just not notable outside of that. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There's plenty of coverage about him, but nothing past 2016... Still, he was rather "popular" for lack of a better term until he got caught. Semi-notable fraudster, unlike so many others that have articles here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
!Weak keep given only because there's also some discussion of his activities in peer-reviewed journals, this was the first one I pulled up [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles in The New York Times (March 2015), Rolling Stone (January 2016), Time (October 2015), in Australia (October 2015), Canada (October 2015), China, etc. make him a notable fraud. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have enough reliable and independent information to prove he's notable, the article fails to meet WP:NBIO. Yakov-kobi (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Attack Matrix

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

Fails WP:GNG. There was one article with WP:SIGCOV written about the document presented one time to the CIA Director, but its notability is not WP:SUSTAINED. There are a few WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, but nothing speaking to its lasting importance as an important document notable enough for a WP article. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

Sorted by State

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