Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America
Note: This is a high level category for deletion sorting. Whenever possible, it is recommended for deletion discussions to be added to more specific categories, such as a state and/or relevant subject area. Please review the list of available deletion categories, and see this page's guidelines below for more information. |
Page guidelines: This United States of America deletion sorting page may be used for the following types of articles:
|
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. |
Points of interest related to United States on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||
related changes | ·
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.
watch |
General
[edit]- Ponytail canasta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have been unable to find significant coverage of this card game in reliable sources. I do not think a redirect would be appropriate because there's no mention of Ponytail Canasta in the main Canasta article. Also per WP:NOTHOWTO. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Uruguay, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete sadly. I could find no WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Canasta. A quick survey of google, gnews, and gbooks shows there are plenty of references to this to verify it exists, even though I see nothing to suggest it is notable. A brief mention at the main Canasta article, with this redirected there, would be sufficient invitation for anyone who likes it enough to expand, possibly spin it out later if notability can be established. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Can any of these sourcess rescue the article: [1] [2] [3] [4]. If yes, I may help. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 06:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- None of those seem reliable to me, unfortunately. The first two a labeled as WP:BLOGS, the third is an
online gaming platform
, and the fourth is from an extremely web 1.0 with no indication of who wrote it, which I would imagine is self published. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- None of those seem reliable to me, unfortunately. The first two a labeled as WP:BLOGS, the third is an
- Deadair Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage or anything more than trivial mentions. Frost 02:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. None of the sources are primarily about the record label itself. I couldn't find any coverage on the record label. Oddly enough the only news source I found was on a record shop in th UK that has the same name. Fails WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This does not get anyway close to passing notability requirement. Sources in the article have single mentions while some did not even mention it all. This fails WP:GNG and whatever criteria used to create this article. Mekomo (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanun Pyriadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously-unreferenced BLP about an academic and chemist, and have added one reference. I cannot find other coverage, however, and on the basis of what I can find, cannot see that notability is demonstrated. I accept I may be missing coverage in Arabic. Please see the commented-out section headed "Additional contributions by professor Thanun Pyriadi since 2006 up till now": I do not think that anything listed there pushes the article into notability (and it is unreferenced anyway), though would be pleased if other editors can demonstrate otherwise. I do not think there is an obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Iraq, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Tacyarg (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: There certainly are a lot of claims of notability, but a lack of reliable sourcing verifying those claims. No prejudice against recreation should such sources appear in the future, but we cannot sustain the article as is. Ravenswing 23:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Scott Helvenston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- 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)
- Keep - He is known for more than 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 [5]. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect: as above. I don't see notability outside of the event. 20 years later and there is no sourcing to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- "No sourcing?" The LA Times source has been added to the article, and there is notability outside of this one event. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I still don't see how he's more notable than any one else killed in the attack. There were too many deaths in the war, most aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- "No sourcing?" The LA Times source has been added to the article, and there is notability outside of this one event. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Home Town Hero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, other than a biography ([6]) and an album review ([7]) 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)
- 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)
- Keep The group meets WP:MUSIC with two releases on Maverick Records, and the Allmusic entries are serviceable references; they also toured nationally with Stone Temple Pilots and Linkin Park. I managed to dig up [8] this review as well, even though it's gotten very difficult to find album reviews from 20+ years ago on the Internet. Chubbles (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- According to a member of Under the Influence of Giants, Bitch City was never released ([9]; according to Discogs it was apparently self-released [10]). Regardless, notability is not inherited, and I don't see Linkin Park mentioned anyway. I don't know if ink19 is a reliable source, but even if it is, there's just not enough coverage to establish notability. toweli (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Kabir Shahani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely promotional and unsourced Amigao (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete: PROMO, he's stepped down from a job [11]. 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)
- Kanawha people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- Redirect to Piscataway people per sources like [12], which indicate that "Kanawha" is used at least in part as a synonym for the Piscataway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep. This is a real people group mentioned in history journals and books. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- I must say that the Scoggins source does not support any content in the article other than the possibility that "Kanawha" was the name of a Native American group that moved to the valley. I do not think that there is anything in the present article that can be salvaged. Donald Albury 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Your point? I said I didn’t think current text was accurate and the article should be stubified to the reliable sources we find. Clearly we could write a short paragraph based on Scoggins and the journal article provided above by the nominator. That would take all of five minutes to do.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- And it would be a sub-stub, unlikely to ever be substantially expanded. Better to be a redirect to an article that can provide context. I understand that you are concerned with Native American history being covered in Wikipedia. I am too. But, if there is next to nothing reliably sourced to say about a group, it is better to put what little can be sourced as a section or sub-section in a larger article, or even as an entry in a Boldlist. Donald Albury 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Your point? I said I didn’t think current text was accurate and the article should be stubified to the reliable sources we find. Clearly we could write a short paragraph based on Scoggins and the journal article provided above by the nominator. That would take all of five minutes to do.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I must say that the Scoggins source does not support any content in the article other than the possibility that "Kanawha" was the name of a Native American group that moved to the valley. I do not think that there is anything in the present article that can be salvaged. Donald Albury 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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,
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- There does appear to be some confusion about the issue in the literature. The Lenape and Their Legends (1885} states: [18]
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 [19]:
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete and redirect per nom. oncamera (talk page) 10:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to an appropriate article. - Donald Albury 13:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wait for input from WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America or Keep and start a renaming or merge discussion on the article talkpage. The article was originally titled Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) then moved to Kanawha valley people and then to Kanawha people. The intent here was clearly to describe a prehistoric people known from St. Albans Site and probably others. I don't think the content is very good and may be including description of the later Adena culture. The article is misnamed, probably has the wrong scope, and not very high quality but i think the original intent of the content is completely appropriate for WP.
- The confusing name has led us down the path of looking at the colonial era Conoy tribe and whether or not Kanawha is a synonym. There was some dispute about the name in sources since John Heckewelder's suggestion that Kanawha was from Conoy but i think in our recent sources that has been accepted and not really questioned. Redirects from Kanawha to Piscataway are appropriate but then we have some additional confusion to work out. That is the difference between a 'tribe' and a 'people'. I think there is widespread confusion as to peoples and subdivision such as 'tribe' or 'band' and how they are recorded and named throughout history and how they might be organized or recognized today. There were both a Conoy tribe (the Conoy proper or Piscataway) and it seems a Conoy people.pp 125-6 I think this is represented on WP as Piscataway people (Conoy people) and Piscataway-Conoy Tribe of Maryland (Conoy tribe)?
- I don't really have a whole lot of confidence for much of this, so i think input from some more knowledgeable editors is necessary. fiveby(zero) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also, i do not think it would be easy or practical to have an article that only covers the prehistoric people. The content should probably be merged somewhere but i have no real idea to where. It should definitely not be merged to any Piscataway or Conoy people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 16:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The content is frankly so lacklustre that it would need to be entirely rewritten to include anywhere. I think Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) and Kanawha valley people can be redirected to Kanawha River#History as these clearly relate more to the geographical location. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is much better content, and now i see you suggested that as a target above and i missed it distracted by the Conoy. My confusion is probably more due to distaste as to how WP titles and scopes people and tribe articles in general. The closer might have a tough time with all the confusion and redirects involved but i think you have the best plan here so Note to closer: consider my vote what Hemiauchenia says. fiveby(zero) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The content is frankly so lacklustre that it would need to be entirely rewritten to include anywhere. I think Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) and Kanawha valley people can be redirected to Kanawha River#History as these clearly relate more to the geographical location. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also, i do not think it would be easy or practical to have an article that only covers the prehistoric people. The content should probably be merged somewhere but i have no real idea to where. It should definitely not be merged to any Piscataway or Conoy people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 16:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Piscataway people: per the reasoning given by Hemiauchenia. TarnishedPathtalk 04:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
All prior XfDs for this page:
|
- Trump effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (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)
- Delete per nom and other claims. Hoax? Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 12:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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 ITalk to my owner:Online 05:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete This is a potentially legitimate subject, and there are publications about it (e.g. [20]), but the page is merely a set of random quotations. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- I agree that that the article in Reuters and a few others I saw are insufficient. Even the exact subject here is not clear. One would think this is a page about the influence of Trump on US society and politics (and it is enormous!), but this is not how the subject was framed on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: For all the reasons above. — Maile (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Speedy Delete, and WP:SALT, as per most of the above.TH1980 (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Roy Shattuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep - he was indicted, so there was probable cause of election fraud. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:PERP, a criminal accusation is not in and of itself enough to secure the permanent notability of a person who wasn't already notable for any preexisting reason prior to being charged with a crime. We would need to see verifiable evidence that he was convicted, not just indicted, and we would need to see a lot more detail about what the purported election fraud entailed, and evidence that it had a verifiable long-term impact on anything. (For instance, an election fraud conviction that had the effect of influencing major changes in election fraud law would have a stronger basis for notability than one that just disappeared into the ether afterward.) Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Kai Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted/redirected at AfD. Recreated by a new user and honestly the coverage doesn't look any better than it did at the first AfD, so I can't see it warranting a standalone article. Serious issues with WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (EDIT: I am also fine redirecting back to Family of Donald Trump) as per the consensus of the last AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Redirect as done previously and lock it to prevent repeated disruption. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- Redirect per nom., Iggy pop goes the weasel, Traumnovelle, and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: meets GNG. See my comment above. C F A 💬 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 [21] [22] [23] [24], 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)
- 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)
- Comment I have two comments to make here on this AfD after already giving my "keep" opinion a little further up.
- 1. Firstly, I would be concerned that a merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump would destroy a lot of potentially important encyclopedic information in the article, such as Trump's RNC speech and her recent coverage of election night, as well as information about her name being related to her grandfather and such. The current Family of Donald Trump article has only a short section on grandchildren, and it would be difficult for me to see how a redirect/merge would fit in with the format of that article. I think that merging to "Donald Trump Jr." would be preferable, but the problem there is that Kai Trump does not actually have any significant activity directly related to her father; appearing at the RNC and her social media and golf activities all seem very unrelated to her father, especially considering the fact her parents are divorced and she actually lives with her mother. It also seems to perpetuate stereotypes relating to patriarchy to redirect to father. I therefore find a redirect or merge to be less than ideal in this circumstance.
- 2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[25]] and [[26]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- What you call "a crying shame," I call the entire point of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Fame and popularity are not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not about her age, or profession (many influencers with huge followings are nevertheless not notable), it's about this: Wikipedia summarizes sources. For a Wikipedia biography article, the sources are other biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish someone's biography. So to vote keep on a biography, I'm looking for at least 2, preferably 3, totally independent (of each other and of the subject) full-length biographies. That's what gives us enough source material to write a Wikipedia biography article that meets NPOV. Kai Trump doesn't appear to have been the subject of any full biographies, much less two or three. (The RSes I've seen so far have some biographical information, but very little, and I wouldn't call any of them in-depth biographies.) As it so happens, there are many famous people who aren't the subject of biographies (athletes, influencers, famous people's kids); they don't qualify for Wikipedia articles IMO. And everything we have to say about Kai Trump--all the info in RSes that's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT--can be said in a paragraph or two that can be part of the family article (which could have multiple mini-biographies about various not-quite-notable members of the family). The RNC speech, for example, is one sentence, that says she gave a speech at the RNC. That's all there is to say about it. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to the family of Donald Trump. It doesn't need an independent article. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Notability is not inherited. This is, at best WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Susan Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable actress. Could not find SIGCOV about her. Natg 19 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep: There is moderate coverage, ranging from only trivial to beyond trivial, across multiple reliable sources, which supports weak notability. But sources from Deadline and Cinema Daily US passes WP:ACTOR.--— MimsMENTOR talk 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Which sources are you looking at? I do not believe Cinema Daily US is an RS (seems like a film blog), and the Deadline articles that I have found are simple casting announcements. Natg 19 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- National Association of Colleges and Employers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article from 2008 about a professional association. A WP:BEFORE search reveals scattered media, e.g. [27], 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Raw ("Hopsin" album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Hopsin discography. Lack of usable sources on the album. Ss112 14:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:NALBUM. Raw (Hopsin album) already exists, so no need for a redirect. मल्ल (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "Public art depicting Donald Trump," perhaps. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Will anybody remember these that didn't live in Philly or Portland in a week? A month? A year? Grahaml35 (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per GNG, subject has received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Milan the Leather Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The 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 ([28], page 26, bottom right corner). toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Bill Wylie-Kellermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. In addition to the sources in the article, here are a couple book reviews from SAGE: [29] and [30]. Best.4meter4 (talk)
- Keep: Would seem to pass AUTHOR with the reviews given above, needs a bit of a rewrite though. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The Cane as a Weapon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neither the book nor the author appear notable. This is a book summary. ZimZalaBim talk 02:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN,
- 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)
- Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I was afraid that would be the case, but wanted to ask. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 [31]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Dragon Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- 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)
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)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Blue Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[32][33] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --woodensuperman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Unlikely to meet NCORP, but could do a redirect to William Lustig as a compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTCATALOG. Most home video lines have already been deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination), etc.) --woodensuperman 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. --woodensuperman 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Keep Cyberpower7 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Note: Struck comment from blocked user. --woodensuperman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- 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)
- 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. --woodensuperman 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. --woodensuperman 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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. --woodensuperman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
- delete useless listcruft. This is not original releases, hence no lasting value. --Altenmann >talk 19:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This distributor simply does not produce any original content themselves. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. --woodensuperman 12:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a more substantial rationale for why this doesn't meet WP:NLIST? I see we have a lot of precedent here, but that's mostly just people saying "WP:NOTCATALOG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Luther Stickell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Fictional characters. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)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)
- Comment Doing my usual source hunt. This article on ScreenRant seems to address Luther Sticknell specifically. [34] (Maybe this one in CBR too: [35]) Allowing WP:NOTCRYSTAL, there may be more interest and more sources after this movie comes out if they do kill the character off. So if we convert to redirect, which preserves the previous history of the article, we should prepare for a revert in that event. Now to hit Google Scholar... On first blush, there seems to be plenty of material here: [36]. If someone with a JSTOR subscription or university access can get past these paywalls, it may be possible to add enough critical analysis of this character to establish notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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 no consensus. Owen× ☎ 14:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Waiting for Woody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)"Waiting for Woody was a documentary-style idea that Heslov had been trying to put together for some time. Its premise was that of an actor trying to win an audition in a Woody Allen film. Along the way various stars, all playing themselves, are interwoven with scripted character parts. Josh, played by Heslov, is awkward and arrogant by turns with the talent around him, despite having last worked as the candlestick in the Disneyland electric light parade. George comes off worst, mockingly called 'Batman' throughout. Richard Kind lends his weight as a doorman and Thom Mathews appears as a bike messenger (and co-produces). Tommy Hinkley was a driver on the set, George's assistant Amy Cohen associate produces and Sanchez is thanked in the credits. But The Boys aside, there was also the small matter of people like Jennifer Aniston, owner o the most famous hair in Hollywood at the time, taking time out to appear in the film, too. It's just possible she heard about it from a guy who played a doctor in the first series of Friends . . . Now, that's a player."
- in Hudson's biography of Clooney (p. 180). More than a brief mention, I should say. Mushy Yank (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Has enough sources currently cited in the article to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
Sorted by State
[edit]Due to overflow, this part has been moved to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/sorted by state