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

Scott Helvenston

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

Delete and redirect to 2004 Fallujah ambush, the redirect target for the other 3 victims of the ambush. Coverage of Helvenston is in relation to the ambush or subsequent events. Otherwise he was one of thousands of individuals killed during the Iraq War. His notability is due only to the ambush, therefore delete per WP:BIO1E. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Terrorism, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is not known for just one event – he was on a reality TV show and was a credited Hollywood consultant, and was the subject of a dedicated LA Times obituary [1]. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Home Town Hero

(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, other than a biography ([2]) and an album review ([3]) by AllMusic, which isn't a lot. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Under the Influence of Giants, since three of the members were in both bands. toweli (talk) 21:25, 14 November 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) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir Shahani

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

Entirely promotional and unsourced Amigao (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United States of America, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTPROMO and WP:GNG. Even if WP:SIGCOV is found, the article is still too promotional to be kept unless it is completely rewritten.4meter4 (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, he's stepped down from a job [4]. Rest of the coverage found is similar, I don't see notability. Article now uses flowery text, could likely have been speedy deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanawha people

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

WP:TNT, this doesn't appear to be about a notable topic, and I can't find any scholarly literature discussing the subject. The idea that the Kanawha people are the ancestor's of Native Americans appears to be fictitious, or at least incredibly fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Piscataway people per sources like [5], which indicate that "Kanawha" is used at least in part as a synonym for the Piscataway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the original Special:PermaLink/229303722 shows this was an essay titled "Kanawha Valley's Prehistoric people", that has been mojibaked into its current form. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I'm suprised an article as bad as this one has stuck around for this long. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a real people group mentioned in history journals and books. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I'm not saying the current text is accurate, but I have a big problem with deleting an article on a Native American people group. That would be participating in erasure which is morally problematic in light of the history of Native American genocide in the United States. The answer is to trim out unsupported content and validate what we can with the sources we can locate. Stubifying it would be better than deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When people are writing "Kanawha people" are they referring to a distinct ethnic group, or a general term for Native Americans inhabiting the Kanawha area? If the latter, I hardly see how this warrants a standalone article. The sources you mention are passing references that are completely inadequate to construct any kind of meaningful article about the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sources better than this are needed. However, it is clearly a people group as they are being referenced as living in New England in one source, and Kentucky in another at various points in history. It's not attached just to the Kanawha Valley. I'll see if I can find anything in JSTOR or EBSCOE that gives a better defined definition.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first four of those sources appear to be referring to white settlers in the Kanawha Valley. The only mention in the Cotterill source, in a passage about a surveying party in Kentucky, is in the sentence, So many of the Kanawha people had joined the expedition that there were now thirty-three men in the party, although four of the original members had returned home for fear of the Indians. The Stealy source is talking about the cost of hiring slaves in Kanawha County, and the only mention of Kanawha people is in the phrase, I discover that the people of this country don't like to hire to the Kanawha people, it is a long distance & near the state of Ohio. The Davisson source is about the Union army in Kentucky during the Civil War, long after Native Americans had been forced out of Kentucky, and the only mention of 'Kanawha people' is in the sentence, I propose ... to induce the Kanawha people to take a more decided course. The Engineering and Mining Journal source, from 1910, says, The New River and Kanawha people have been busy in New England territory this spring, offering coal at very low prices. I think it is quite clear that those sources are referring to white settlers/residents of the Kanawha Valley, and not to any group Native American people. Donald Albury 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but the Scoggins source below clearly is referring to a Native people group that the Kanawha Valley is named after (not the other way around). That people group lived in several places according to that source. That source is enough to establish that deletion is not the answer here and WP:ATD at the very least is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is referring to St. Albans Site. Haven't looked through all the "Kanawha people" links above but the appear to have been misread. fiveby(zero) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This old article on the history of Kanawha County from West Virginia University political science department says that the Kanawha were a people who lived in the area during the early British colonial Period, but this honestly this isn't a great source and I haven't been able to find anything better, so maybe a redirect to Kanawha_River#History would be better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing article there wood be Adena culture. oops colonial period, will look for more. fiveby(zero) 19:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This tribe, a branch of the Algonquin family, was closely related to the Nanticokes and Delawares who resided in what are now the states of Delaware and Maryland. During the seventeenth century, the name of this tribe was variously recorded by early English settlers as “Conoys,” “Conoise,” “Canawese,” “Cohnawas,” “Canaways,” and ultimately, “Kanawhas.”
— KANAWHA Michael C. Scoggins

Conoys redirects to Piscataway people

looks like a museum bulletin but by a published author. fiveby(zero) 19:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's definitely an improvement. Looking at other sources, they seem to agree on the synonymy between Conoys and Piscataway, so I would support redirecting to that article (though I am unclear if as to whether the term "Kanawha" has been applied to multiple distinct Native American groups). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much forward we are here. Scoggins looks to be from Hale, John P. (1891). History of the great Kanawha Valley. p. 63. That's this John P. Hale. I'd like to find something more recent and more affirmative than the author's "probably derived by evolution from..." fiveby(zero) 21:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There does appear to be some confusion about the issue in the literature. The Lenape and Their Legends (1885} states: [11]

The fourth member of the Wapanachki was that nation variously called in the old records Conoys, Ganawese or Canaways, the proper form of which Mr. Heckewelder states to be Canai. Considerable obscurity has rested on the early location and affiliation of this people. Mr. Heckewelder vaguely places them "at a distance on the Potomac," and supposes them to have been the Kanawhas of West Virginia. This is a loose guess. They were, in fact, none other than the Piscataways of Southern Maryland, who occupied the area between Chesapeake Bay and the lower Potomac, about St. Mary's, and along the Piscataway creek and Patuxent river.

The Indian wars of Pennsylvania (1929) p. 53 states [12]: The Conoy, also called the Ganawese and the Piscataway, inhabited parts of Pennsylvania during the historic period. They were an Algonquin tribe, closely related to the Delawares, whom they called "grandfathers," and from whose ancestral stem they no doubt sprang. Heckewelder, an authority on the history of the Delawares and kindred tribes, believed them to be identical with the Kanawha, for whom the chief river of West Virginia is named ; and it seems that the names, Conoy and Ganawese, are simply different forms of the name Kanawha, though it is difficult to explain the application of the same name to the Piscataway tribe of Maryland, except on the theory that this tribe once lived on the Kanawha.

The 2022 book chapter "Tribal Collaborations and Indigenous Representation in Higher Education: Challenges, Successes, and Suggestions for Attaining the SDGs" states: The Piscataway Rico Newman, Piscataway elder and MIHEA participant, relays some history of the Piscataway people: The Piscataway-Kanawha (Piscataway) are the “People Who Live Where Waters Blend Below Rapids.” Prior to colonization, the Piscataway developed well-orchestrated lifeways that sustained them for centuries.

Reading the literature. "Kanawha" also appears to be used for a stone projectile point type produced in the early Holocene, long before the colonial period. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on Scoggins, it seems like it would be possible to keep the article if it were substantially rewritten. However, it would be equally plausible to incorporate that content into the Piscataway people article and redirect it to that page. Either would be fine, but I do think closing this AFD is going to require someone to step in do the work of either recrafting the current page, or writing a bit in the Piscataway people article so that a redirect is appropriate. That article currently doesn't even mention the Kanawha people.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is really anything to say in any article yet. Appreciate your view on erasure but in my opinion worse would be getting this wrong and creating some fiction about a people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough evidence between the journal article presented by the nominator above (who is advocating for a redirect) and the Scoggins source to put something into the Piscataway people article at the very least. Scoggins is after all a published historian. At some point, we just have to trust subject matter experts and their judgement. Worse in my view would be to ignore these sources as a form of WP:Systemic bias; something wikipedia struggles with when it comes to marginalized people groups (which has been researched).4meter4 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump effect

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

Collection of quotes showing no evidence that "Trump effect" exists as a well-defined, studied concept. There's also a big issue of WP:RECENTISM about defining it as the specific effect of Trump's 2024 reelection, given that previous iterations of the same idea were repeatedly deleted in 2016, in 2017 and in 2023.

Also, not a policy but I'm tempted to link to this essay: Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and other claims. Hoax? Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who created (or recreated, I suppose) this article, I will go with whatever the consensus is. Perhaps the content could be merged into some other article? The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. This is the third time this has been brought to AFD, and every time its brought here the term "Trump effect" has a different definition. That's because its a WP:NEOLOGISM without clear definition.4meter4 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I agree that the attempts to create an article under this name have all be nonsense but I do think a redirect to Trumpism could be useful here. It seems clear that this is a term the media uses. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a legitimate subject, and there are publications about it (e.g. [13]), but the page is merely a set of random quotations. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reuteurs wrote this is non-notable. This is basically a list of quotes, I'm not sure how this is an "effect" whe there is little to no critical discussion of this concept. Seems like an attack page of sorts. Oaktree b (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For all the reasons above. — Maile (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy or snow delete. The article doesn't even say what the alleged subject is. "certain incidents" is not a defined subject at all. Most of the article is an indiscriminate list of News articles, only two of which even have "Trump effect" in their headlines, and none of which have any obvious relation to each other other than proximity to Trump and November 2024. This is worse than some of the previous unsuccessful attempts at an article under this name which did at least attempt to find a topic to write about. I think it might be speedily deleted under WP:A1 if we treat the list content as irrelevant padding. Failing that it's a snow delete. Maybe there will be something called the "Trump effect" one day. I could see it being used to describe a coarsening of political discourse for example, but it is not for us to coin such neologisms. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Shattuck

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

Biography of an unelected political candidate. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while losing candidates get articles only if they can establish that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or they can show credible reasons why their candidacy would be a special case of greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies. But this makes no other notability claim at all besides an unsuccessful candidacy, and is referenced only to the bare minimum verification that he existed rather than anything that would make his candidacy permanently notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doing a quick WP:BEFORE, Shattuck was indicted for election fraud after the 1914 election (which he lost), but died before trial. Not sure a six year mayor who failed to rig a congressional election is notable, but it is vaguely interesting and has some expansion potential. I'll add what I found to the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was indicted, so there was probable cause of election fraud. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump

AfDs for this article:

(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 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]

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 [14] [15] [16] [17], 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]

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. Only Matt Gaetz is interested. Bearian (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Park

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

Non-notable actress. Could not find SIGCOV about her. Natg 19 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Natg 19 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in the article do not pass any sourcing guidelines and could not find other sources as Google search showed only unreliable sites where the subject is mentioned. Fails WP:NACTRESS. Mekomo (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has a role in the main cast of Snowpiercier (https://thenerdsofcolor.org/2020/05/19/the-spectacular-susan-park-on-snowpiercer/ https://deadline.com/2017/08/snowpiercer-susan-park-cast-series-regular-in-tnt-pilot-1202158674/) and various recurring roles in notable series. Various sources (some being intros of interviews, the focus varying, and the quality too) allow to verify that. So that she meets WP:NACTOR in my view and deletion is not necessary. (also see https://deadline.com/2024/08/twinless-movie-adds-chis-perfetti-francois-arnaud-more-cast-1236050504/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/movies/always-be-my-maybe-review.html (role mentioned with short appraisal) https://www.thewrap.com/keanu-reeves-joins-ali-wong-randall-park-comedy-always-be-my-maybe-at-netflix/ (simple mention) https://cinemadailyus.com/interviews/actress-susan-park-on-sxsw-pilot-lucy-sara/ Other sources in other languages exist. Mushy Yank (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that she has roles in notable films/TV series, but they are usually minor roles. I was not able to find much beyond simple mentions of her in reliable sources. Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Usually", maybe but that means not always, not all, and indeed she is in the main cast of Snowpiercer and has recurring/signficant roles in other productions (see NY Times and other sources mentioning them) and the guideline requires significant roles in notable productions, not that none of her roles (or even only a small part of them) should be minor. Mushy Yank (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Twinless and Snowpiercer. Her role in William also seems to be significant enough. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Colleges and Employers

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

Unsourced article from 2008 about a professional association. A WP:BEFORE search reveals scattered media, e.g. [18], covering the organization's annual jobs survey, but such coverage is not focused on the organization itself. Sdkb ^talk 05:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Economics, and United States of America. Sdkb ^talk 05:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raw ("Hopsin" album)

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

Contested draft. Duplicate of Raw (Hopsin album) which was WP:BLARed last year due to a lack of notability. Pinging @QuietHere: the editor who performed the BLAR on the previous article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hopsin discography. Lack of usable sources on the album. Ss112 14:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUM. Raw (Hopsin album) already exists, so no need for a redirect. मल्ल (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unlikely search term when properly formatted title already exists (if it is redirected then it should go to Hopsin#2010–2011: Success with Funk Volume and Raw to match with Raw (Hopsin album)'s current target). Shows no amount of notability more than the prior article did. Surprisingly, despite the ping, I appear not to have received a notification for this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault

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

WP:NOTNEWS, followup of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Donald Trump (Philadelphia). No evidence that (or reason why) this protest will have more sustained, enduring notability than the countless other protests happening every day and being reported on in news articles. Fram (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Visual arts, United States of America, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside comment about the Trump articles in general. Based on Category:Trump family and subcategories therein, I suspect AFD will have numerous Trump-related articles up for deletion. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and potentially merge with pages describing other Trump statues. While the Portland and Philadelphia ones are confined to a particular timeframe, I think there is notability in the fact that statues have popped up since 2016 and perhaps pages can be merged into a single "Trump Statues" page with some editing to remove extraneous details. Nnev66 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article seems properly sourced. I would also support a merge to some relevant article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe an article like sculptures of Donald Trump could make sense? Clearly there is a lot of coverage on the numerous works of art (both positive and negative) which depict Trump. And while the individual pieces might be problematic from a NOTNEWS standpoint, the overall subject of Trump in art almost certainly has encyclopedic value.★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Alan Peterson

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

Fails WP:NBLP. Uses Ballotpedia almost entirely as a singular source, and what information isn't sourced to it uses thegreenpapers.com, which appears to be no more useful in providing notability than Ballotpedia. Google returns no news articles, sans a couple providing voting results (although I can't even find him on these) SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rationale. The sources used are not reliable to pass notability guidelines. Search result failed to turn up any useful failing WP:GNG. A mere announcement of a presidential run does not bring notability by default. Mekomo (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet up Artiste notability guide as stated above, weavil words and promotional statements are flying around the article too. Tesleemah (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total spam, utter failure of WP:GNG on top of that. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article claims nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing for it, but the article contains absolutely no GNG-worthy reliable sourcing whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Team (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Law, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as it clearly fails GNG and lacks notability. — Mister Banker (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Strike SockPuppet vote DonaldD23 talk to me 01:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A burn-off pilot never really meant to be aired; only did so for tax benefits (years before David Zazlav would take too much advantage of it). Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added ref to book with significant coverage, also see https://www.theregister.com/2007/12/19/tiger_team/ A redirect might be considered too. Mushy Yank (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23 pinging you to ask you what you think of the 2 sources and/or a redirect. Best, Mushy Yank (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the book reference is good, but the register one is saying the page does not exist. Is there a better link to evaluate the source? Thanks! DonaldD23 talk to me 21:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 My bad! I did not leave any space between the link and the next sentence. It should work now. Thanks.Mushy Yank (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be just a blurb about it upcoming, nothing substantial. But if others think it is enough for notability I won't dispute. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One can add https://www.wired.com/2007/12/hackers-on-cour/ mentions in https://www.darkreading.com/perimeter/tiger-team-member-attacks-developers-not-apps https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/court-tv-getting-makeover-in-08-idUSN14211084/ (repeated here https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/court-tv-plans-rebrand-2008-131955/ also in Variety) ; significant mention in Disguise (see excerpt here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/unauthorized-personnel). Fwiw, the short series is listed on the page about Court TV (a natural redirect if this is all judged insufficient). Mushy Yank (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)@Donaldd23[reply]

Milan the Leather Boy

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

The article has 13 references, but the issue with them is that many of them aren't reliable sources and/or don't provide significant coverage. I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions, like less than 30 words about a Milan release in an issue of Cash Box ([19], page 26, bottom right corner). toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 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 New York. toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington

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

Delete or redirect to Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) as WP:ATD. One of 100+ local JCRCs, and this one is non-notable without WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:NORG. Coverage where it exists, is WP:ROUTINE or WP:PROMO. Longhornsg (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom Andre🚐 08:26, 11 November 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 redirect‎ to 2028 United States presidential election. I'm choosing not to Draft this page because, frankly, there will be little new information coming over the next 6 months and it is likely to just be deleted. As a Redirect, the content is there and as we get closer to 2028, we can return this to an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Republican Party presidential primaries

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar to 2028 United States presidential election. All this article contains is speculation about who might run and some polls. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it should deal in facts not speculation. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a topic worth having a Wikipedia article over. The fact that it is being speculated in the media just shows the need for such an article. 45.177.176.17 (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election, as has been done in the past. There is currently nothing to be said here that can't be said in the main article until the separate page is needed. That might not be too far off, but this isn't the place for this outdated speculation. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — Wholely speculative material. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election as a viable ATD, per Reywas92. Sal2100 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, @ElijahPepe: what would be the benefit of draftifying over redirecting? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retaining the information that is there and establishing a page structure ahead of time. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's moot and not a tangible benefit, because if a redirect occurs, the information and page structure can easily be retrieved anytime by accessing older versions in the page history. Left guide (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just mentioning because it has been proposed as a Redirect target article but 2028 United States presidential election is also involved in an AFD deletion discussion right now. Is there an alternate target article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2028 Republican National Convention may be a plausible alternate redirect target. Left guide (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election, at least for now. Once the primaries arrive, then a separate page could be created.TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election per others, seems like a fine target. Conyo14 (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per the above. Renerpho (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify & redirect to 2028 United States presidential election.

WorldMappings (talk) 18:06, 13 November 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.

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 redirect‎ to 2028 United States presidential election. I'm choosing not to Draft this page because, frankly, there will be little new information coming over the next 6 months and it is likely to just be deleted. As a Redirect, the content is there and as we get closer to 2028, we can return this to an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar to 2028 United States presidential election. All this article contains is speculation about who might run and some polls. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it should deal in facts not speculation. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn’t warrant deletion, only removal of unnecessary, speculative or otherwise unsourced information. It’ll likely be a very short period of time before relevant information is available. For example, electoral college seats, candidates expressing interests (or those ruling themselves out), primary timelines. It would be futile to delete only to have to be recreated after only a short period of time. 148.252.147.58 (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Keep. InterDoesWiki (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both users above. Keep this article. 24.208.3.72 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the page should remain with more detail added as it comes, the list of speculative candidates should be deleted. Gabriel3129 (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is best not to delete this right away.

1, There is already a lot of debate on who going to be the next nominee

2, Some candidates have been talked about like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 50.91.26.176 (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election, as has been done in the past. There is currently nothing to be said here that can't be said in the main article until the separate page is needed. That might not be too far off, but this isn't the place for this outdated speculation. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — Wholely speculative material. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election as a viable ATD, per Reywas92. Sal2100 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just mentioning because it has been proposed as a Redirect target article but 2028 United States presidential election is also involved in an AFD deletion discussion right now. Is there an alternate target article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election. Again, the page could be recreated once the primaries arrive.TH1980 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election as suggested. We've not met WP:CRYSTALBALL here until there are candidates who have officially put their hat into the race. As for the target being in a deletion discussion, we probably do not need to worry about that considering the way things are going there. Though 2028 Democratic National Convention might be a fine target too. Conyo14 (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as above.---Ehrenkater (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect For now its content could easily be merged into 2028 United States presidential election, and redirect to the Democratic Party section until the primaries come closer. It's likely that it will only begin at full speed around January 2027. Gust Justice (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that we should both draftify and redirect the pages for both the 2028 Democratic and Republican primaries, like how there is both a draft of Barron Trump, and a redirect to the Trump Family page. WorldMappings (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this user. Draftily and redirect. Wacksonjilliams (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I think deleting it is a bad idea but as much as I won't mind a redirect, drafting this page means we can still keep the page and make it ready once things come into full swing with the primaries. 20chances (talk) 01:49, 15 November 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.

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!} 05:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hodges

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Old AFD is not for this person, it was for someone church-related. Geschichte (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, India, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, diplomatic roles held do not confer notability, coverage singularly lacking - there's more coverage out there, especially in Indian/Chennai media but it's all routine 'consul general says thing about trade'. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Deletion is warranted as the subject does not meet WP:GNG Diplomatic roles alone do not establish notability. Baqi:) (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable, consuls like this one even less so. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing substantial that meets the GNG.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject has a lack of WP:SIGCOV and as such fails the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:01, 14 November 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.

Bill Wylie-Kellermann

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His books have been reviewed in major publications. He is also well known as an activist. See coverage in this article in the Guardian: No water for poor people: the nine Americans who risked jail to seek justice Thriley (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. In addition to the sources in the article, here are a couple book reviews from SAGE: [20] and [21]. Best.4meter4 (talk)

The Cane as a Weapon

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

Neither the book nor the author appear notable. This is a book summary. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Martial arts, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything immediately referencing this on Scholar or Newspapers, so this appears to be a factually correct nomination... but I wonder if we're missing something. This is clearly a real book, short though it may be, from 112 years ago. It's in the public domain. Why should we delete this solely on notability grounds? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN, is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. More broadly, it's a form of quality control/way of maintaining encyclopedic standards. Can we create quality content that abides by our policies here? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the improvements made to the article since nomination, it appears the answer is clearly yes. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source in the NYT - I also found this book that mentions the author. If there are more like this, we could probably make this an article about Cunningham and have a section about the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This description of the book is kind of hilarious. It's a favorable advert, of course, but kind of tongue in cheek. With the other source I didn't realize that was put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Is that a society along the lines of the Royal Societies? Would membership in that count towards notability? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that would be the case, but wanted to ask. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. There was a very strong, promising start but I can't really find anything else. I get the feeling that there's probably more out there, just tucked away in various archives and not indexed in any substantial way on the internet. At the same time, I don't really have a ton of proof to back that up, other than the NYT source and a handful of other things, much of which are put out by organizations associated with Cunningham.

So unless someone can provide sourcing, I'm leaning towards a delete. I don't want to make an official judgement call on my end because I'm admittedly hoping someone will find something. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a review of the book in the Saskatoon Daily Star, Feb 1913. Does that help? Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every bit helps! I'd like a little more ideally before I'd be super comfortable arguing for a keep, but this is a good step in the right direction! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saskatoon + NYT are ok. I also found this from the Newark Advocate. The Army and Navy Register bit seems ok. Found an article on NewspaperArchive (NewspaperArchive is kind of annoying so they're hard to read but you can if you use the resource and zoom in), clipped here [22]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an interesting discussion and you all have uncovered some interesting sources. But we still have to have some arguments for a particular outcome. But y'all have another week to consider where you stand on this article or whether you might refocus it to be about the author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dynasty

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

I don't see how WP:NCORP is met given the sources in the article, and I wasn't able to find sources that would be enough to establish notability either. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Underground

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

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[23][24] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --wooden superman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is notable enough (though the article could use some sources that help establish this fact, like the ones my colleague above found).TH1980 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to meet NCORP, but could do a redirect to William Lustig as a compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Lustig as a viable ATD per nom. and KH-1. Fails WP:NCORP. WP:NOPAGE applies. Sal2100 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. Most home video lines have already been deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination), etc.) --wooden superman 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; as for notability, the release of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay has historical value and a chronological list of those films helps document what has been recognized as a valuable contribution to the history and preservation of film: the page documents that in a clear way. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the label itself is notable, the list of films that they licensed for release is not. This is just a catalogue, and largely unreferenceable. It's not like they had any hand in the production of any of these films. Catalogues of way more notable reissue labels have already been deleted, see the linked discussion above and many more similar ones. This is just WP:FANCRUFT. --wooden superman 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but my point is precisely that the list itself has value. I could add references to every item and remove those ”unsourceable” if indeed there are any. Later maybe. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cyberpower7 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Note: Struck comment from blocked user. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; @Cyberpower7 you might want to elaborate if you wish that your !vote receives attention, though. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how encyclopedic is the listing of their 2003 DVD re-issue of The Railway Children for example? Sure, examples of their really notable releases can be and are approriately included at Anchor Bay Entertainment, but including their entire WP:CATALOG here is WP:LISTCRUFT. --wooden superman 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note the following other examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 88 Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Video USA Releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Film Institute releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. No reason to make an exception to WP:NOTCATALOG here. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete useless listcruft. This is not original releases, hence no lasting value. --Altenmann >talk 19:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This distributor simply does not produce any original content themselves. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must insist here: The history and timeline of the releases of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay is encyclopaedic and no "fancruft", whatever that word is supposed to mean. The fact that the films were obviously not original Anchor Bay productions is totally irrelevant! The timeline and scope are of historic value....https://deadline.com/2024/02/anchor-bay-entertainment-relaunched-1235827165/

new iteration of Anchor Bay Entertainment with the goal to curate a new library of films for distribution, projects that range from new release genre films, undiscovered treasures, cult classics, and remastered catalog releases.

(Bloody disgusting!: https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3800174/anchor-bay-entertainment-label-resurrects-with-new-horror/)

See list of articles in Variety; https://variety.com/t/anchor-bay-entertainment/

the company’s trademark to reboot it and release genre films and cult favorites, after Anchor Bay was included in Starz’s 2016 sale to Lionsgate.

(Variety; https://variety.com/2024/film/news/anchor-bay-entertainment-cursed-in-baja-1236078418/

The only thing that could be discussed imv is whether this can be merged back into the article, and I don't think that, sizewise, it should.

Also see GBooks where individual or grouped releases by AC as a project are covered; and open, New Blood: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Horror. (2021) University of Wales Press, p. 115.

Just having a brief look, seeing it's a list and dismiss it as "Listcruft" is certainly not enough. Yes, there's work to be done. But that's not a reason for deletion.Mushy Yank (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources seem to indicate the topic of the list was covered as a set, meeting Wikipedia:NLIST, by the way. Mushy Yank (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I must insist that this is textbook WP:NOTCATALOG. As I mention above, giving examples of individual notable releases in the main article is encyclopedic. Listing every release WP:INDISCRIMINATEly is not, as you can see from the large number of precedents in the other discussions I have mentioned. --wooden superman 12:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

giving examples of individual notable releases is not what I did (your question above, on the other hand, was about one particular film's release...). The large number of AfDs you listed may or may not be comparable with the present one; but that does not change the fact that my point is that this list is encyclopaedic in my view as offering a timeline of the history of the release of rediscovered film and the sources mentioned by me are meant to prove just that (the quotes are about the topic of the list as a set not about the individual entries and just read the page 115 of New Blood and other GBooks hits, please, thank you). I'm leaving it that that because I have the feeling that I am repeating myself here. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Stickell

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

I don't think that this character is notable. This article has 10 sources, of all are not reliable and passing mentions. It was recently tagged for notability and there is no help at all. My WP:BEFORE failed to show anything about him. If he isn't fixed, i recommend a redirect to List of Mission: Impossible characters or at worse, Ving Rhames.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Fictional characters. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mission: Impossible (film series) as an WP:ATD. The List of Mission: Impossible characters is for characters from the original TV series; it omits the late-80s revival let alone the film series. The film series article is a better redirect target. oknazevad (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear a few more opinions on this article. By the way, the nominator didn't sign their statement but it was Toby2023.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Woody

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

Completely unreferenced article about a short film, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all automatically notable just for existing, and have to show reliably sourced evicence of passing one or more notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the attempted notability claim here is an unsourced table of awards from minor film festivals whose awards aren't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have sources. (And the most notable film festival in the table is one where it's pulling the "nominee for film festival award that was wide-open to every single film in the program and didn't actually curate any special shortlist of finalists" stunt that Wikipedia editors often pull to oversell a film's passage of "notable because awards" -- which, therefore, also cannot be an "inherent" notability freebie without sources explicitly stating that the film was actively "nominated" for the award either.)
The film, further, also cannot claim "inherent" notability just because you've heard of some of the people in the cast list -- notability is not inherited, so even a film with famous people in its cast still has to pass WP:GNG on its sourcing. A Google search, further, turned up nothing useful, finding only directory entries, primary sources and a single glancing namecheck of this film's existence as a prior work by the director in an article whose primary subject was a different later film rather than this.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage exists in various languages. See GBooks please. Mildly notable awards and nomination. Extremely notable cast and director. A redirect to the latter is totally warranted. Willing to improve this later. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did check Google Books: I'm not getting WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the film, I'm just getting glancing namechecks of its existence in filmographies and directories.

An award only supports a film's notability to the extent that said award can be referenced to GNG-worthy media coverage that treats the award presentation as news. An award has to itself be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so an award only supports notability if it's referenced to WP:GNG-worthy media reportage, and does not support notability if it's either unreferenced, or referenced solely to primary source content self-published by a directly affiliated entity (such as either the film festival's own website or the film's own marketing materials). But the awards here are all completely unsourced, and my BEFORE searches did not find any GNG-worthy referencing that could be added to support the award claims.

"Nominations" also have to be properly supported by GNG-worthy media coverage, because that's highly prone to promotional manipulation. I see this happen all the time with the Toronto International Film Festival, for example: films frequently try to make the notability claim that they had been "nominees" for the People's Choice Award, but that's not an award that actually has "nominees" — every feature film in the festival program is automatically eligible for People's Choice by simple virtue of being present in the festival program at all, so being eligible for that award is not a meaningful or notability-bolstering distinction. There are obviously some exceptions, such as the Palme d'Or at Cannes or TIFF's Platform Prize, where the film played in a special competitive program that was curated to compete for a special prize that most other films at the festival weren't in contention for — for awards like that, "nomination" is a valid notability claim, but for a regular non-competitive "every film at the festival was automatically eligible for consideration" award, "nomination" is not a distinction, so an award nomination requires GNG-worthy sourcing to demonstrate that the award was a special competitive program with a curated shortlist of nominees, and not just an "every film in the program was automatically eligible for consideration" award.

Neither the notability of cast members nor the notability of the director constitute inclusion freebies that exempt a film from having to pass GNG just because there are notable people being wikilinked in the body text, either. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now sufficiently well-"GNG-worthy"-sourced to show the featurette meets NFILM ("The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career, for example") and GNG (has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources) and that there's no apparent reason for deletion. See for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I am obviously talking about Grant Heslov when I mention the film is an important part in their career (not Clooney or Aniston.... See the two LA Times articles, one by Mary McNamara, a Pulitzer Prize winner.) Mushy Yank (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the nominator, I am getting only brief mentions. The most that I could find was the nice but short paragraph in the Pratt DVD book. Unfortunately the other books that are listed as sources in G-Books are ones with no preview, and a web search turns up IMDB and various user-created film sites. There is a source only for one of the awards. As for Clooney and Aniston, their roles (listed in the Pratt paragraph as cameos) aren't enough to make this short film significant. Lamona (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the Pratt DVD book, I found a newspaper article about the film in the Palm Beach Daily News. It's fairly brief, but detailed and entirely about the film. Toughpigs (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons

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

Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or delete other articles~~ First, note on the reason this article was created. The material in this article was transferred from MeTV Toons, which made the article as noted "too long to comfortably read the main article". This article/list is not any different from others on Wikipedia. It contains references provided by other editors for verification. This article is directly the same as others under the category: Lists_of_television_series_by_network. Please visit this category to confirm. If we limit articles/lists to original programming and not list rerun programs, we will need to delete a lot of articles/lists such as ION or Antenna TV for example. Thus, what do we consider as "notable"?. This is not the only channel that is currently listed on Wikipedia as per quote "Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability." Msw1002 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: standard list of programmes by network,: can be trimmed, but at least please see Category:MeTV_original_programming. WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: previous recent AfDs for similar lists have resulted in deletion or redirection: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by HTV (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by QTV (Indonesia), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Pogo (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Colors Kannada, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Green Entertainment Fram (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I participated in at least one of the ones you linked (and a relist would not have hurt in that particular case) and I would obviously have !voted Keep at the other ones if I had been aware of the discussions.

But those 6 AfDs -FXIW: One was in 2009- do not invalidate the arguments above and 1) the tremendous majority of similar no-consensus/kept/unchallenged pages is a hint that 2) should anyone take further actions to delete similar pages a more general discussion would perhaps be useful. At the very very very least Redirects would indeed seem to be an obvious ATD in each and every case except when he network has no page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, didn't mean to include that 2009 one, wanted to list to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by Vinh Long TV (THVL). I'll leave it in the list, but it of course is no evidence of any recent AfD trend on the matter. But on the other hand I see no evidence for "the tremendous majority of similar no-consensus/kept" articles (unchallenged ones are just that, nothing more or less). For channels with little or no original programming (something like the above AfDs or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Pop (UK & Ireland)), the result is nearly always delete / redirect. The keeps are usually for major channels with lots of original programming, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by ITV, and I wouldn't argue for deletion of such ones. Fram (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Illinois. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Largely acquired programming with next to no original content. Also inadequately sourced. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I might be missing something here, but where does it say originals has notability, but reruns don't? The owner of this channel Weigel Broadcasting has better viewership than Hallmark, A&E networks or AMC that do have original programming. https://www.nielsen.com/data-center/the-gauge/#viewing-by-distributor

One thing I do say about this list article, it does need some cleanup. However, deletion doesn't sound correct. Rivertown (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every television channel that exist doesn't get to list every single program they show. These are shows someone else created for different channels. Only one original program, so no need for a list for just that. Dream Focus 15:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As someone mentioned above, where does it say a list qualifies as notable when it only lists original programs specifically? I can see the concern over a list, especially not referenced. I did not create this list, just moved it out of the main article, which was becoming too long with this list included. The lists such as List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV and others have been on Wikipedia for over a decade with no issues at this point. Just mentioning....
Msw1002 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This channel has already proven to be very popular for its iconic selection of toons. I think it totally deserves to have an extension with a list of programs page. Voicebox64 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Viewers should know what airs on the channel. 12.28.52.122 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the average Joe is going to look at what programs are broadcasted on the channel on Wikipedia. Procyon117 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The channel's programming is better summarized in a paragraph in the main article about programming than yet another adverty WP:NOTTVGUIDE violation. Nate • (chatter) 22:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hopefully, you will start or support a deletion of List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV as well. This is the same type of list with this kind of violation. :)
Msw1002 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreliable sources and no reason why it should be a separate article. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The channel, like most diginets, has little to no original programming. A reasonable summary of channel programming and more detail of any original programming can be provided in the parent article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Last comment (I promise!), because this list is headed for deletion. Why are other similar list articles not up for deletion? No one seems to want to mention or address that. 🤔🤫🫣Msw1002 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This channel largely exists to show reruns of older television shows. Wikipedia should not serve as a guide for what one can watch on random television channels. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to show any original content. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --wooden superman 12:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, they do, see above; but even if that was not the case, a list of programs may be considered notable even if not (completely) original ( =coverage on the topic as a set includes https://www.animationmagazine.net/2024/05/metv-toons-unveils-debut-programming-schedule/ https://www.fastcompany.com/91152142/metv-toons-max-cartoons-looney-tunes https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/metv-toons-network-launch-weigel-broadcasting-warner-bros-discovery-1235988916/ https://www.pennlive.com/entertainment/2024/06/metv-officially-launches-new-cartoon-channel-on-your-dial.html; and other guidelines may apply anyway) Mushy Yank (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be trimmed to original content only. --wooden superman 21:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm repeating my comment to you, since you are the only one who responds to others.🙂Here is my note from above:

Why are other similar list articles not up for deletion? No one seems to want to mention or address that. 🤔🤫🫣Msw1002 (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they should be. WP:OTHERSTUFF. --wooden superman 06:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Msw1002, if other articles should be considered for deletion, then feel free to put a nomination argument together for them. WP:FIXIT. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, Thank you for the heads up and suggestion.🙂

I was planning on doing this, but was waiting on the outcome of this discussion to back any argument for a nomination of deletion for any other similar article. Msw1002 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see many P&G-based views here. The WP:TV essay says nothing about notability hinging on the originality of the programming, and adherence to GNG wasn't addressed here even once. We also tend to discard WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type votes, exemplified here with the retributive, "Keep or delete other articles". As always, a critical source assessment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Reliable sources such as ABC News and Variety Magazine covered MeTV's programming when they launched, so it barely passes WP:NLIST.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that just deserve a paragraph or two in the main article giving examples, and mentioning original programming there, rather than listing everything the channel broadcasts on this dedicated list article? --wooden superman 22:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article provides more details about the kind of programming the channel carries instead of just "cartoons". Such as it doesn't have more adult themed cartoons. However, if this article is kept, it needs to be tagged for cleanup. Right now it looks a bit messy. Msw1002 (talk)
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:31, 14 November 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