Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

Shortcuts

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:

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

John Rote (field hockey)

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

WP:LUGSTUB that fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:SPORTSIGCOV. Aneirinn (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Netherlands, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GameDaily

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

I don't believe this website is notable. 11WB (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Video games, Websites, and United States of America. 11WB (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not meet WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CyberRebate

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It does not have the major, independent, and non-routine secondary sourcing needed in an independent article. The business is non-operational since it existed between 1998 and 2001 and can only be covered by the news of short durations on its bankruptcy and rebate practices. No long-term significant effects are also evident.. SanneMonte (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2026 (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/2026 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 20:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easy keep. The business might not have been notable, but the "fraud" and subsequent bankruptcy sure was. [1], discussed ina book here [2], [3], [4]. It's got coverage in psychology journals [5] and a law journal [6]as well. Article needs to be rewritten to focus more on how the company failed miserably, but that's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of notable coverage as shown by Oaktree b.

Calwatch (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KGCA-LP

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

No secondary sources since creation nearly two decades ago. No evidence of meeting WP:NORG or WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Organizations, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in U.S. territories#Guam: this is the standard alternative to deletion for non-notable radio stations. This is a remnant of the lower inclusion standards of 2008, but this topic area still maintained those dreadfully-low inclusion standards pretty much until a 2021 RfC that discredited misinterpretations of the NMEDIA essay that (though not explicitly put this way) were based more (if not outright entirely) on existence and the inclusion of similar articles (neither of which contribute toward notability in any way) rather than significant coverage (which does). We don't tolerate sourcing stubs exclusively to the FCC anymore (indeed, this article has been tagged as a potential GNG failure since 2022; it's not much better than sourcing a geostub to GNIS, also now considered unacceptable and subject to eventual AfD), especially since it is increasingly clear that if that's all you can find, it's probably run-of-the-mill anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Rock

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

Although the band is notable, I cannot find any reliable sources from my WP:BEFORE which fulfil the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. I suggest that this article should re-direct to The Features. sk satsuma 14:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. sk satsuma 14:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and redirect to The Features#Discography. I could also find no WP:SIGCOV, just a lot of WP:ITEXISTS. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 17:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Features: Fails WP:NALBUM. No SIGCOV in RS. Discogs, Spotify, and Bandcamp are not reliable, secondary sources. Red Shell Momentum 20:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Trumpetrep (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect (Princess Superstar song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; YouTube and Discogs are not reliable or secondary sources. The song did chart in Australia, but charting does not establish notability on its own. Should be redirected to its album. Red Shell Momentum 00:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. Red Shell Momentum 00:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Perfect (Exceeder): This is a really interesting situation where the remix/mashup has much more coverage than the original. I have done a WP:BEFORE, and from what I can tell all significant coverage of the subject discusses it in the context of Perfect (Exceeder). I don't think there is standalone notability here, so a re-direct or merge seems like the appropriate choice. sk satsuma 14:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. @Sksatsuma: I found the same thing, but came to the conclusion those would support keeping this - or maybe changing to be about the remix? Between the charting and coverage of the remix in DJ Mag (on Youtube), I feel like this meets notability. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 16:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your logic! although if we just keep on that basis much of the content would be a repeat of what is in Perfect (Exceeder), in which case I'm leaning towards merge but can see arguments for both. sk satsuma 10:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beto Altamirano

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

Entrepreneur and former San Antonio mayoral candidate. There are a lot of citations in this page, but nearly all of them are either run of the mill campaign coverage or articles about one of his businesses that don't really go in-depth on him as a person. I'd suggest a redirect to 2025 San Antonio mayoral election. (Also, not that this is relevant to the notability, but the article reads like a promotional bio commissioned by Altamirano himself) BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Texas. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 16:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I left a comment below explaining where I was coming from in writing the article. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it, and I'm down to change it or add as much as we need to make it better. HeroicXiphos15 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi y'all. This is the original writer of the article. I get the criticism (it was my first time writing an article like this, so I was definitely prepared for it to need amendment), but I object to its deletion. I'm all for editing the language and content to make it more balanced (I came from a place of largely liking the guy, and a lot of the coverage was positive), but I still think there should be an article about him. He has been all over San Antonio politics these days, even after the mayoral race, and San Antonians should know about him and what he's doing, in both positive and negative ways. I'm happy to collaborate on this further. HeroicXiphos15 (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Audrain

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

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG adequetely. Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Cycling. Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTSIGCOV. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Another Lugstub with no WP:SIGCOV / indicative of WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Monterrey Fury

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

Unsourced since 2004. Nothing came back in a search in newspapers.com or google books or scholar in searches in English and Spanish. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Organizations, Mexico, and United States of America. Svartner (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Major Indoor Soccer League (2001–2008)#MISL teams – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. [7][8][9][10] There was probably coverage in Mexico as well. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability (although I can't access the Baltimore Sun article). Giant Snowman 19:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cartography of the United States

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

Too broad to have significant coverage. ~2026-37187-9 (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC) Administrative note: nomination rationale copied from the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Geography, and United States of America. Primefac (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG[11][12][13]. The article should be expanded, not deleted. The scope being too broad is also not a reason to delete. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: certainly a notable topic, even if the current article is lacking. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly an underbaked article but this isn't really a valid deletion rationale for a notable subject. ScalarFactor (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs expanded not deleted. The Taylor and Francis references are spot on. That could grow into 200k article. scope_creep^Talk 11:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic certainly meets notability, therefore, keep. Retro music11 (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to the point I'd almost say speedy keep. I think this a good case for why AfDs aren't decided based on the current status of the article. It's clearly a notable topic that could be thoroughly expanded with sources (plenty of history books on this). Someone just needs to take the interest and time in fleshing out the article. KoA (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Patch Hotline

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

Fails WP:GNG, does not seem to have any reliable secondary sources whatsoever Kora ^^ (she/her) ^{say hi!}/_{what I've done} 07:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and United States of America. Kora ^^ (she/her) ^{say hi!}/_{what I've done} 07:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of newspapers in North Dakota. I did find this passing mention, which I think justifies inclusion there, but not enough for a standalone. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys

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

Fails WP:NORG. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Redirect to United States Attorney. Longhornsg (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Organizations, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Attorney, there's really nothing much here to salvage. Marquardtika (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Code name Geronimo controversy

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

This article fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NEVENT, representing the transient spike in coverage from the immediate aftermath of the Killing of Osama bin Laden that never translated into lasting historical significance. Fifteen years later, the "controversy" remains a minor footnote, a nothing burger in long-term academic or geopolitical impact. Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is not a repository for every passing media stir. Redirect to Killing of Osama bin Laden#Code name, where this already gets the proper two-paragraph coverage in this encyclopedia. Longhornsg (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Military, Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This has actually come to AfD before, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Geronimo name controversy (the article was renamed not long afterward); the nominator at that time did not actually offer a deletion rationale and it ended as "speedy keep". (That was in May 2011, right after this happened, so any failure of SUSTAINED would not have been immediately apparent at the time.) No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Killing of Osama bin Laden#Code name. "Controversy" articles generally fall under WP:NEVENT, and this controversy fails multiple criteria:

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: All sources in the article are from a one-week period in May 2011.
WP:GEOSCOPE: While a few Native American leaders protested, I don't see any significant impact over a... widespread societal group.
WP:LASTING: The controversy does not seem to have had any lasting effects - no official change in US government policies or even a formal government response.

Astaire (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article on the killing of Osama bin Laden already has this information, and coverage of this wasn't sustained. Cortador (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A brief WP:BEFORE search reveals a couple scholarly sources:

Codename Geronimo: settler memory and the production of American statism, published in 2015
Insecure Hegemony: The Cultural Construction of 'Righteous Retaliation' in the Hunt for Osama Bin Laden, a doctoral thesis from 2018, discusses from pages 195-199ish
Unsettling America: The Use of Indianness in the 21st Century by C. Richard King, published in 2013, apparently discusses this to some extent (according to this review, anyways)

From my view, this article definitely doesn't fail WP:NEVENT, but I'm not sure whether it should be merged to Killing of Osama bin Laden Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Killing of Osama bin Laden#Code name. Does not seem to be enough to merit its own article, but anything useful not there can be merged there. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Killing of Osama bin Laden (merge useful content). This is a narrow subtopic and a standalone page creates an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Agree that any useful material can be merged into the main article. HerBauhaus (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Lyu Collins

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

The page does not meet Wikipedia's notability rules WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Notability needs several reliable, independent news sources that talk about her in detail, not just short mentions or her own words. Right now, the references are mostly from Naga websites, her own uploads, YouTube interviews where she speaks, local Northeast India papers reporting her statements or press releases, and a few blogs or opinion pieces with only brief quotes. There are no big stories about her in major international media, no books, no major awards, and no deep profiles. The coverage is mostly routine, one-sided, or from small/local sources tied to Naga politics. This makes the article more like promotion than a proper encyclopedia entry. Delete because it fails the notability guidelines or redirect/merge to National Socialist Council of Nagaland if that page has better sources. Notedolly2 (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nagaland and United States of America. Notedolly2 (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports in Iraq

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Longhornsg (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This was one of several similar articles created by an editor (using multiple accounts, from memory) to develop WP:SYNTH estimates of the fatalities of the various conflicts in the war on terrorism during the 2000s. This wasn't a valid or useful approach to developing encyclopaedia articles then, and it definitely isn't now. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick D. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden

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

WP:POVFORK of Operation Cyclone that fails the criteria for a standalone WP:SPINOUT. By isolating these allegations from the broader historical context of the Soviet-Afghan War, this is a WP:COATTRACK that grants WP:UNDUE weight to a specific viewpoint already integrated into the parent article. Maintaining a separate entry for these cherrypicked claims also violates WP:NPOV by stripping away the context (such as the role of the Pakistani ISI) necessary for a complete historiography. Longhornsg (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conspiracy theories, History, Military, Terrorism, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chris DeArmitt

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

I would like to nominate the article for deletion for the following reasons (non-notable academic; fails WP:ACADEMICS; fringe theory promotion; self-published books; insufficient independent secondary coverage; conflict of interest indicators), detailed below.

The subject fails to meet any primary criteria under WP:ACADEMICS:

No highly-cited recent research (Criterion 1 fails)
No pioneering contributions to plastics chemistry (Criterion 2 fails)
Promotes fringe/marginal theories contradicting mainstream consensus (explicitly excluded from Criterion 7)
Insufficient independent secondary coverage (fails WP:N). BTW: Media appearances for controversial positions are not the same as an interview with an authoritative expert
No independent academic recognition (e.g., major awards, elected fellowships to prestigious academies, named distinguished professorships)

The three sole-authored books cited in the article are self-published and lack independent reviews, not meeting WP:NBOOK criteria. His three books are marketed to a general audience under titles suggesting mainstream science is wrong ("Plastics Paradox," "Shattering the Plastics Illusion").

Together with the following, this pattern mirrors what Wikipedia identifies as problematic promotional activity masquerading as academic authority:

On his website, he claims Dr. Chris DeArmitt is the leading authority on plastics, microplastics and the environment.
He founded a nonprofit organization (Plastics Research Council) framed to suggest new/authoritative research.
Media appearances positioning himself as correcting scientific consensus.

The article exhibits promotional tone and structure inconsistent with Wikipedia's neutral point of view, likely paid editing suggesting possible conflict of interest editing, as already noticed by User:Dreamy Jazz. ~2026-36945-7 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Posted this here on behalf of the above temporary account. For context on my COI tag, private checkuser data suggests that the creation of this article was suspicious but won't get into why per WP:BEANS. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Chemistry, Sweden, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is too full of unreliable sources, unverified claims and promo to be in main. I started to do some cleanup such as removing that he had reviewed more than 5k papers, then decided that most of the article would have to be deleted so stopped. Much of the page cites articles at Phantom Plastics and the Plastics Research Council which are self-published non-RS. Some of these appear to be attack pieces on other scientists which certainly are inappropriate. Quite a few of the sources appear to fail to verify the claims they are attached to. Most importantly, his FRSC does not rise to the level of a pass of WP:NPROF, and I find no source that verifies his FIMMM except for self-published declarations.Ldm1954 (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., based upon this Google Scholar search he has some citations, but not rnough for WP:NPROF#C1. As mentioned by nom self-published books dont pass WP:NAUTHOR, and the media appearances dont provide WP:SIGCOV. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any reliable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnieszka653 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find the scholarly citations or reliably-published book reviews that might allow him to pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. FRSC and FIMMM both appear to be too low-level to count as the kind of selective fellowship that would pass WP:PROF#C3. The only sourcing that looks even close to what would be required for GNG is the "plastics today" puff piece and it's basically just a re-linking of a non-independent industry interview with the subject, so no pass there either. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Holding patents and appearing in media are not notable. Most of the sourcing is in marginal/orange sources per Cite Highlighter. Doesn't appear to have a high enough citation index to get captured by Gscholar. This appears PROMO, with ref bombing in almost every paragraph. Oaktree b (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keynote speaker pops up more times than I can count and his own website is the very first Gsearch result... This was the only book review I could find [14], but it's paywalled and I'm unable to get a copy. That still wouldn't be enough to meet AUTHOR even if it was SIGCOV Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad al Muqtadir

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO. Impossibly poorly referenced. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, Bangladesh, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very poorly sourced. I could find no WP:RS, just lots of promotional stuff. The three articles in The Daily Star also seem promotional/primary. One is a very short interview and others read like fawning announcements of a new song. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 02:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources uncovered below. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 05:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources that I can add regarding his music career. Agnieszka653 (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Article is without WP:RS and the subject doesn't seem to be covered by reliable sources elsewhere. Retro music11 (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very popular musician in Bangladesh. Dhaka Tribune describes him as one of the most popular musicians in Bangladesh [15], The Business Standard describes him as one of the best musicians to emerge in Bangladesh since the 90s [16]. Several sources exist in Bangla newspapers as well [17], [18], [19], [20]. Music.laboratory (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC) — Music.laboratory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The first 2 sources linked by Music.laboratory plus, for example, the intro of this interview plus coverage like this [21] seem enough for a GNG pass, as they show sustained and significant coverage independent from the subject. Also see 2nd Afd (sources had been identified although 3/4 are now dead links). Redirect and merge into Bangladeshi hip-hop could be another solution--~2026-39810-2 (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC) — ~2026-39810-2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NMG as per Bangladeshi-American popular singer. Search shows enough reliable sources of him. But the article is not well written with enough information and needs to be improved. ~2026-40654-9 (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC) — ~2026-40654-9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Meets WP:NMG although I do think the reliable sources should be added and that this article should be improved. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep- though I do see the handful of sources praising the artists innovation in the industry, the articles so far pointed here after some spot checks show emphasize more on his health issues, so a few more sources specifically featuring his works and why they are notable would be helpful, did find this that again "praises" him, but more of an interview.Lorraine Crane (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American businesspeople in finance

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

Per WP:CROSSCAT, there is no reason for this to be a page. Furthermore, the presentation of this article may reinforce the antisemitic "Jewish banker" trope. It is difficult to interpret the creation of the article in good faith as it was created with a single-use template that reads "This is a partial list of notable Jewish American business executives in the finance industry..." accompanied by an American flag defaced with the dollar symbol. (It is uncomfortably reminiscient of the "ZOG" conspiracy theory.) It would be best if this page were deleted. Bremps... 19:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Lists of people, Finance, Judaism, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For this article to stay, we need sources that specifically cover Jewish American businesspeople in finance, not just individuals on the list. Cortador (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note There are a few other pages with the aforementioned issue (i.e. List of Jewish American businesspeople in retail), though none (as far as I can tell) went "American flag defaced with dollar sign" far. Still a problem. Bremps... 21:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything the article creator touched going by their contribs history, Tnnnbm (talk · contribs) (last edited in 2021), screams that their sole microfocus was on finance and Jewish finacier topics, often only in a negative light. This should be a category and also reads as 'adding someone because they have a Jewish name'. This is a BLP minefield, and the article Bremps pointed out was also a Tnnnbm creation. Nathannah • 📮 21:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PEOPLELIST anyway. Longhornsg (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Synthetic cross-categorization and, as pointed out above, a BLP minefield as it plays on a racist trope. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In particular because, as mentioned above, the stereotype of Jewish people and wealth. — Maile (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PEOPLELIST Agnieszka653 (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weird list, anyway, fails WP:PEOPLELIST Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very specific, unique list which is unencyclopedic. Calwatch (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Next Steps in Strategic Partnership

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

Can argue that it does not meet WP:N for its own page...there is minimal coverage other than the announcement on both countries' state pages when it was initiated and completed. There is a mention of it on the India-United States relations page, which feels sufficient. Schwinnspeed (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to India–United States relations#Post–Cold War era (1990–2014) as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to India–United States relations#Post–Cold War era (1990–2014) – Per Kelob. Svartner (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kelob2678 Lova Falk (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to India–United States relations#Post–Cold War era (1990–2014), as suggested above, under WP:ATD-R. BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

China Current

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

Promotional article with little significant coverage beyond primary sources. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, China, and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I did a search for other sources, couldn't find any. Lijil (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to James Chau, the host of China Current, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The sources I found were all passing mentions about James Chau's hosting of China Current. Example sources: 1, 2, 3, and 4.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Go D. Usopp (talk · contribs) and Lijil (talk · contribs), would you support a selective merge (likely of a sentence or two) to James Chau per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Alert Response and Notification Act

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

I just put the information in Westmoreland tornado, and it easily fits. This separate article is not necessary. ~2026-35518-9 (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC) Administrative note, this nomination was copied from the article talk page following a request. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Westmoreland tornado § Death and WARN Act as this is a substub and I cannot see it getting all that much larger. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Eckenrode

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

Fails WP:NBIO. There's not multiple pieces of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS about Eckenrode himself. Coverage is passing mentions as part of his association with Logan Paul. The only coverage is in Unilad -- not really a RS, but also one SIGCOV does not establish GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Comics and animation, Internet, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unilad was brought up at RSN, and an editor voiced an opinion that it is not good enough for BLP, I agree. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly sourced; one possibly unreliable citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. My roommates have included a R & B recording artist and a backup singer for Andrea Boccelli, but that doesn't make me notable. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSolid VPN Unlimited

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

Sources are only passing mentions and reviews of their products from tech sites (they mention that they will receive a commission when you use their links, meaning they probably fail WP:AFFILIATE). Appears to be an article created for promotional purposes. The only source that looks to be reliable is https://www.techradar.com/news/keepsolid-vpn-lite-app-comes-to-android-and-ios. Ternera (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and United States of America. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 15:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article about a product that received reviews[22](PCMag [23]) [24](WP:IGN)[25](TechRadar [26]), this makes it notable. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeon, Indiana

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

This is an odd case in that it was added from a highway map, but it in fact shows up on some of the oldest topos, and then disappears until re-added from GNIS in the 2013 reformatting. Those topos show a few buildings, but this was certainly a rail point; whether there was a town here is unclear; searching is obscured by the much older settlement further north. So not sure about this one. Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Indiana. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 14:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Pigeon, IN doesn't show up in the CDP gazetteer file for Indiana, but a place called Pigeon Township shows up in the county subdivision gazetteer file. Pigeon, IN doesn't meet the GNG by itself, and it isn't notable according WP:NPLACE.^[1] AnonymousScholar49 (talk)
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the many hundreds if not thousands of articles on places that don't actually exist. Looking at satellite images there's nothing there. Not a legally-recognised place so fails WP:GEOLAND. Insufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSolid

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

Sources are either passing mentions, broken links, reviews of their products from tech sites (they mention that they will receive a commission when you use their links, meaning they probably fail WP:AFFILIATE) and others with WP:ORGIND issues. COI template was randomly removed by a new account, which may confirm that this article was only created for promotional purposes. Ternera (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Ukraine, and United States of America. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 14:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nontrivial articles fail WP:CORPIND. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Falk

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

Article as of nomination has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage on this driver. Could not find any SIGCOV in Google, Google News, and NewspaperArchive searches. Fails WP:GNG. Ecourter (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and United States of America. Ecourter (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2001 NASCAR Busch Series – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose redirect. A target page should be closely related to and contain some level of detail on the subject. A sports season where he made four starts doesn't satisfy that. MSport1005 (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is precisely because those four starts in 2001 are the greatest achievement of his career. Svartner (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the 2001 Busch Series is relevant to him. But not vice versa. The article doesn't cover him. He's listed in it... as are 165 other drivers. MSport1005 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. I think it might also fail Wikipedia:NMOTORSPORT as well. — MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC) (updated 01:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy delete - essentially unsourced; there is literally not a single inline citation about the subject. That is untenable for a BLP. Ping me if you find and rapidly add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stanwyck Cromwell

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

Non-notable artist. He has had exhibited works in some galleries but I can't see evidence of WP:RS that support WP:ARTIST. Fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, South America, United States of America, and Connecticut. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:ARTIST. See source table below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20250224235611/https://fac.umass.edu/Online/default.asp?BOparam%3A%3AWScontent%3A%3AloadArticle%3A%3Apermalink=StanwyckCromwell&BOparam%3A%3AWScontent%3A%3AloadArticle%3A%3Acontext_id=		Artist biography from a show at the Fine Arte Center UMass Amherst	✘ No
https://www.stcc.edu/about-stcc/news/artist-stanwyck-e-cromwell-featured-in-black-history-monthexhibit-at-amy-h-carberry-fine-arts-gallery.html	Springfield Technical Community College	listing for exhibition on campus	✘ No
https://spsact.org/color-and-identity-a-visual-conversation/		Press Release for for a panel event	✘ No
https://canvasrebel.com/meet-stanwyck-cromwell/		interview on Canvas Rebel website	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Weak delete - I found this exhibit in New York, but that's the only new source that I found. Thus it's not quite enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add two reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep I find dozens of announcements of exhibitions, some at museums (e.g.). These articles in the Hartford Courant two are promising but I can't get beyond the paywall. There is an article about him in the New Haven Independent. It's not actually "too soon" because he's in his 70's, so he has been painting for quite a while. Lamona (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here are more articles about him:
- ART SMART - From Humble Beginnings September 15, 2016 | Hartford Courant, The (CT) Author/Byline: SUSAN DUNNE; sdunne@courant.com via newsbank.
- Republican American (Waterbury) "When lives are changed in an instant."
- Island echoes of Stanwyck Cromwell
I think he passes GNG Lamona (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mamie Birdwhistle

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

No significant coverage. The included references do not mention Mamie Birdwhistle, or have passing mentions. JohnMizuki (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, United States of America, and Colorado. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it has problems, especially with the formatting of the citations, but I've seen much worse. She's long passed on, so I'm not concerned about BLP issues. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per Bearian. Considering that the subject has long deceased, there's no scope of new sources being generated. Similarly, there's a thin chance of improving the issues as reflected from maintenance templates. Retro music11 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond region water issues

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

Per WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT, and the previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the January 2025 Richmond water crisis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impacts and response to the January 2025 Richmond water crisis, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftermath and investigations of the January 2025 Richmond water crisis.

SYNTH: As far as I can tell, there is no source that links together all of the "water issues" in the article - from Hurricane Isabel in 2003, to the multiple issues in 2025.
NOTNEWS/NEVENT: The events in the article are not encyclopedic, with little to no long-term lasting effects, widespread geographic impact, or media coverage from outside the region.

Propose a selective merge or redirect to Richmond region water system. Astaire (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Engineering, Environment, United States of America, and Virginia. Astaire (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. This is largely a collection of synthesized boil water advisories and not notable compared to the Flint crisis or something. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Should say Im not opposed to selective merging per Astaire. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Metamorphosis (Zero Hour album)

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, United States of America, and California. Red Shell Momentum 18:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reviews from babyblaue-seiten.de: [27], Metallian (along with reviews of their other albums): [28], MetalReviews.com: [29], RevelationZ Magazine: [30], and Sea of Tranquility: [31]. Red Shell Momentum 18:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per reviews above plus dprp and progarchives. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's reviews from Powermetal.de: [32] and Noise.fi: [33]. --Mika1h (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Freedom of Uselessness

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

As can be seen from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Felinton and the three other AfDs listed there, there has been a relentless effort to get this person and his works into Wikipedia. This film seems to be similar. We get a lot of sources, but most of them are not reliable, like websites that review every film that people send to them.

E.g. the very first source[34] is a site where you pay to get your film reviewed[35].

This article, about a film by Samuel Felinton, is created by user:TheSamF. Fram (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Fram (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. Most of the sources are either paid to review films or just review anything and everything. CabinetCavers ^{(thou shalt speaketh)} 13:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty to move it to a user page and deleted. Won't happen again. TheSamF (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it back to the mainspace, articles shouldn't be moved during a deletion discussion. Fram (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is an option to pay for a review, but there is no sign of that in any of the articles, on one of the reviews they got a .5 out of 5 stars. Not to mention, with this logic, that would mean the references, that have been used dozens of times through wikipedia, should be all be removed and we should look at the Film Threat page because of this aswell.

Also not to mention if there werent sites to review as you say "anything and everything", how would indie films, not backed by big corporations, be seen by critics? These are websites that review indie film. ~2025-38681-32 (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 11 is a RS per Cite Highlighter, the rest are not. I can only find the Film Threat review in my searches, which is a marginal source per Highlighter. Nothing else found, this appears to be PROMO. Not meeting film notability, perhaps TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Source 11 shouldnt because it is for another film, and what did you to search I used google and found three pages of content around the film although not all use for Wikipedia but there are things out there.

And how is Bluefield Daily Telegraph and Times West Virginian not reliable? ~2025-38681-32 (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't indexed bu Cite Highlighter. I'd rather see national sources, other than small local ones, when you want a whole article about the film. Otherwise, this could be a name in a list of films. You want to show this is a stand-out film, known more than the other longer films, to warrant an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a conversation to see if the film's record is verified, and if it is then it warrants a page. Under Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Inclusionary criteria it states:

The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn)

All references on the article all say the same thing about the film, and that it breaks not only the length record but the trailer length record too. Not to mention the primary source itself, the film, is publicly online for anyone to see it. On the topic of "small local ones" this film was shot in Morgantown, West Virginia, Film Threat is in California, UK Film Review is in London and One Film Fan is in Ohio they are all different locations and not local to the film, not to mention Bluefield is on the other side of the state of this film which would fall under regional coverage. ~2025-38525-24 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per NFILM, as I see at least two independent reviews (Film Threat and UK Film Review-cited on the page) and the fact that is said to be the longest film ever produced has some significance. There is also https://therealwv.com/2025/12/04/wvu-students-set-100-day-filming-record-with-the-freedom-of-uselessness/ or https://screencritix.com/the-freedom-of-uselessness-short-film-review/ for example. List of longest films is a good target for a redirect as alternative to deletion. ~2026-31842-5 (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the film should be retained because it is the longest film ever made, which in itself constitutes a notable achievement but that isnt the way Wikipedia runs things. While it is true that some of the reviews appear on platforms where paid reviews are POSSIBLE, none of the cited articles state that payment occurred. As presented, they read as independent critical opinions. In total, there are four such reviews, which support notability, in addition to the film holding the record for the longest film trailer or any trailer in that sense. Overall, the key question should be whether the record itself can be reliably verified (Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Inclusionary criteria). In this case, the sources do verify the record, as they do for many other record-based films. For example, Modern Times Forever relies largely on its record for notability and is supported by only four references, which I believe establishes a comparable precedent. Notably, when reviewing similar topics on Wikipedia, these same websites are used on other articles to demonstrate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-38681-32 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nearly all sources are non-independent (being from the site promoting the film itself or including interviews from the filmmakers), or review sites that have no clear editorial standards (reviewing every single film they are sent). Those that don't fall into these categories do not mention The Freedom of Uselessness (MovieWeb, IndieWire). Modern Times Forever is not comparable - the references used there are independent of the creators, besides the argument that other stuff exists. A film being long does not make it automatically notable. There was a draft article at one point on another long film, Three Mirrors Creature's Flashes of Flesh, but it was deleted after a while because it was considered not notable. -- Recon rabbit 21:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

”A film being long does not make it automatically notable.” Define ’long’. And a film being the longest one ever made seems to merit at least inclusion in the list of the longest films.... ~2026-31842-5 (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Three Mirrors Creature's Flashes of Flesh is 7 hours, the trailer of this film is 10 hours, and the full extended cut is 115 DAYS LONG. These two are nowhere near comparable. How are the reviews not being independent when they literally have different people writing them and different opinions, and different reviews from one another and Film Threat is on Wikipedia as a notable source aswell as Times West Virginian and Bluefield Daily Telegraph. ~2025-38681-32 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Onefilmfan, filmthreat, screencritix and ukfilmreview are all sites that guarantee a review on payment so are not independent. The other review is a student newspaper covering a student film from the university (not notable). Considering there's no reliable sources stating the length of the film and it hasn't been screened in any official way I doubt it counts as one of the longest films ever either. Idontwantaaccount (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Film Threat, Times West Virginian, Bluefield Daily Telegraph, to name three, have wikipedia pages noting there notability, but how do you know that they are "paid reviews" if you read the reviews they are all different and have different ratings, which would make them independent. Also where is the student newspaper you mentioned? ~2025-38681-32 (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Being notable and being reliable aren't the same thing, and being a reliable source in the distant past doesn't mean that this still is true. To get a review on Film Threat only four days after the release requires paying[36]. Fram (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my point. How do we know Film Threat hadn't picked it up on there own or it was a submission? We are truly assuming that they paid for this and not to mention would we discredit there recent review of Greenland 2: Migration (https://filmthreat.com/reviews/greenland-2-migration-action-disaster-2026-review/) or 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple https://filmthreat.com/reviews/28-years-later-the-bone-temple-zombei-horror-2026-review/? Which I doubt they would need the promotion.

The link you had just shared gives the option to request free review, and the paid submission is "7-10 days" not 4. But sure this could be a submission of a story but that is literally how indie films have to be recognized, is for them to give tips to news agencies, we are really thinking that this is an unorthodox method but this film isn't backed by a Netflix or a Warner Brothers, but again this does not confirm that they paid, one of The Freedom Of Usefulness reviews was a .5 out of 5 stars. In the grand scheme of things alot of news outlets get there stories from tips, would we go around disregarding them because of it? ~2025-38525-24 (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We disregard Filmthreat as evidence of notability because they post paid-for reviews, they aren't an independent source that chooses which things to review. Whether this one was paid for or not is irrelevant (though it is highly likely that it was), as the source itself is no longer valid for notability concerns. 'In the grand scheme of things alot of news outlets get there stories from tips, would we go around disregarding them because of it? " From tips as in "hey, check out this cool thing"? No. From "tips" as in payments "hey, here is money, please write about us"? Yes, we disregard these if we know that they have this practice. It's one of the reason we have things like WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Fram (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that makes sense, but Even if its to reverify things that people can check themselves? The film is on Youtube aswell as the trailer itself, the primary resource is public to view by anyone and every source linked says the same thing, if its an interview or a review they all say that it holds the record and state the obvious. This should be a conversation of if it holds the record rather then basic film notabilty as per Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Inclusionary criteria.

Not to be a meanie about it, would it be ok for me to go out through wikipedia now to delete every possible review like this now? This would be dozens gone from the site not even mentioning the hundreds in every other industry. ~2025-38525-24 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also you mention 'they aren't an independent source that chooses which things to review.' NOWHERE on the website does it say they do this, unless I'm not seeing it. And in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 96#FilmThreat.com it mentions the site of being reliable in film, then linking other sourcing behind it. ~2025-38525-24 (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you pay, you get a review. "Guaranteed Review", they claim. That they may have been reliable in May 2011 is hardly relevant, when the review-for-pay system was only introduced somewhere in 2011. Fram (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this conversation needs to be about verifying a record which can be seen, with a Google search, is public information and for the public to see. With this, it has been picked up by Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Times West Virginian and others, including Film Threat, which they all say the same information. Sure if one goes against it butting in, saying "it isnt a film" or "it's not 100 days long" this conversation wouldnt be held but they dont, they all say the same thing. Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Inclusionary criteria then gives the exmaple of The Adventure of Sudsakorn being 'The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand', this film is literally a text book example of this. ~2025-38525-24 (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this: Film Threat has and continues to be debated as a reliable source at WP:RS/N. One major issue with the site has been transparency, as they don't mark the paid reviews. They also seem to skew towards rating films more favorably, which isn't a super great sign either. It's not that they don't give out negative reviews, it's just that they may give out 6-7 positive reviews to every one negative or lackluster review.

In the last discussion (linked above) there was some talk about only considering Film Threat reliable prior to their move to paid reviews. It may be worth reopening this. At bare minimum, it looks like they were offering paid reviews as early as 2018. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know why this isnt an easy keep, as reading the above conversation and to add on, the lists List of most-viewed YouTube videos and List of most-disliked YouTube videos exsist which use there own videos as there verifiability. I don't know why this couldnt be the same thing. And before someone mentions "what constitutes this as a film", one they have an artistic statement, two film critis picked it up (payed or not), three it was accepted into a film festival, and four this is experimental. There are experimental film projects like Paint Drying for 10 hours and somone literally sleeping in Sleep (1964 film) to be even more critcal, the former record holder is a camera that was on a car, boat then train for 35 days.~2026-34232-0 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I originally added ‘’The Freedom of Uselessness’’ to the list of longest films months ago because I got a newsletter from therealwv.com that some WVU students made film history. It was taken down because of it needing more sourcing for the list, since therealwv’s article was an interview. Which makes sense, but I don’t know what much more this film can do to show its the longest ever. And the fact that it is the longest film ever at 115 days long, it should have a wikipedia page because of the achievement. I don’t think the arguments against this, that are saying, that screencritix, filmthreat, uk film review or one film fan arent independent when they are all different critics. If you stick to these rules you would remove hundreds of references off of the site. This isn't even mentioning that this article uses them for verification rather then notability and as said early in this discussion they all say the same thing.~2026-35079-3 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the longest film of all time, and it has been proven on multiple different references ~2026-43645-8 (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoru Watanabe

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

Non-notable musician. Nothing to indicate subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. Cabrils (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, Japan, and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 06:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my WP:JAPANBEFORE, Other than the examiner, no other English source is usable, the Japanese name search only yield result results a horse jockey, he also has no Japanse Wikipedia article which is a redflag. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

American Dreams: Lost and Found

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

Non-notable film. Fails, and at this point some 40 years since its release woudl seem impossible to fulfill, WP:NFILM. Cabrils (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 06:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found more legit sources about the film itself Espngeek (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espngeek. Covered in this book and in this magazine. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Sources cited are sufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Retro music11 (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DPZ CoDesign

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

No significant secondary sources provided. Promotional copypasta already removed, no real evidence of notability. Jdcooper (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, United States of America, and Florida. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 02:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Duany Plater-Zyberk (its former name) is famous for pioneering New Urbanism. Even I've heard of Andrés Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and I'm not an architect. I'm traveling or I'd dig for sources; I'm absolutely they're out there. We need this article --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All By Students Notebooks

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

Evidently defunct company that never seems to have gained WP:SIGCOV or met WP:GNG. Marquardtika (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and United States of America. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 17:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. It was nominated in 2008, which it survived merely on the basis of WP:V. There is a list of sources on the talk page, but I don't think they are good enough[37]. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really only use the "Sustainability" journal article to show notability, but that seems to be all there is. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was very likely PROMO for the product. I don't any mentions of it in the news now, or in other sources for that matter. Sourcing in the article doesn't seem to show GNG. I suppose with better sourcing it could be notable, as it was a student initiative, but we don't have much to show that it was notable... Oaktree b (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the previous comments. Also, since the All by Students Notebooks web site no longer exists and there seems to be no sustaining coverage, it can be surmised that the organization may have only existed for a few years. Also, paper notebooks probably have been superseded by various varieties of computers. Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Stephenson

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

Non-notable composer. Article likely created by paid editor account. No indication page meets WP:MUSICBIO, ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 04:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty obviously promotional, as are most of the sources. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 06:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as does have a staff-written AllMusic bio here, haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Duriel Hardy

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

Non-notable academic and athlete. Page created by since-banned sock puppet, so certainly at least COI. Fails WP:GNG, ANYBIO, NPROF, NATHLETE. Cabrils (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Sport of athletics, and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 04:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTCV. Svartner (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly without notability. OrangeWaylon (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I note that the competition for the Marathon and 50k trials are not that extraordinary; my triplet brother has done so more than half a dozen times. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. His athletic accomplishments are unimpressive but I think they meet the bar of WP:GNG: in-depth coverage in multiple reliable and independent publications over multiple years. (To me, this is an argument that publicity-based criteria are not always a good way to determine notability, but this AfD is not the place to change back to an accomplishment-based sports notability criterion.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: [[38] and [[39]] has the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG as they each provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree that there is enough coverage to meet N: the main articles are all interview-based local pieces from early 2020 and thus do not qualify for SUSTAINED, and the one from 6abc doesn't have much secondary coverage at all on him--just 3 sentences. JoelleJay (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Hankins

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

After review this appears to be someone who ran for office twice and could not find any significant coverage or any sources really at all to find more information on this person. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, and Indiana. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 02:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed candidates for political office rarely, if ever, meet WP:NPOL. Would not meet GNG with current sources, one of which is the candidate's website and the other being WP:MILL Campaign coverage. Not opposed to redirect to the election article, but it would depend on which election is more relevant. Bkissin (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if they can credibly claim to have established notability on other grounds besides having been election candidates per se. This claims nothing of the sort, however, and is not sourced nearly well enough to even attempt to claim that he was somehow exempted from NPOL on grounds of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very poorly sourced. Zero claim to notability. Wasn't even a general election candidate, he ran for and lost a primary election. AusLondonder (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG

EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2026 (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.

List of sources for John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC value for this list when we already have a list of references at John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. The only time I could see a list of this sort having value is for something where the historicity is in question and where sourcing may be slim, i.e., I could see a list of sources around the historicity of Jesus potentially having value. However, as the historicity of the raid is not in any kind of question, an independent list of sourcing does not have historical or encyclopedic relevance. Fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and possibly WP:NLIST depending on whether you count libguides. The previous AFD focused on whether this should be merged back into the main article rather than whether it was of value. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Virginia and West Virginia. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Talk:John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. In over 21 years I have never made such a suggestion, but post the sources on the talk page. However, this is clearly not material for a Wikipedia article. Geschichte (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Agletarang (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, although I would not be opposed to Delete. This feels like duplication at best.Intothat darkness 15:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a mere list of references cited by another article, but a commentary on sources that have a bearing on the topic. It doesn't duplicate a reflist, and is likely too long and detailed to be merged into the article about the raid without a significant loss of content, which is its primary purpose. The policies cited in the nomination are completely inapposite: WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE describes valueless lists of random data (song lyrics, sections of telephone directories, lists of parts from a catalogue), which this is obviously not (and I have never seen it cited for what it actually says; it's only ever cited because it sounds like it means whatever nominators want it to mean). WP:NLIST does not say that list articles may only exist if reliable sources describe or present the contents as a list; it is enough that the individual items on a list are meaningfully connected in such a way that they can logically be presented as a list. WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC is a conclusion presented as an argument.

I would say that a summary or description of historical documents relating to a specific event is potentially encyclopedic, and while I haven't seen many articles like this before, I see considerable value in the way this one is presented. Could it be better? No doubt. That's not an argument for deletion; it's an argument for improving the article just as we would do with any other. Merger would be appropriate if it were just a content fork and could be incorporated into the other article without the loss of significant information; trimming would be acceptable if the material to be removed would have been properly removed without a merger. Here we have details that are relevant and significant, but which would be excessive in a merged article; if the contents were merged there it would become a candidate for splitting, and what we have here is what would result from such a split. Thus, the best solution is to leave it as a separate article, and improve it through ordinary editing. P Aculeius (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a list of sources is only applicable if the historicity is in dispute? The historicity of the American Civil War is not in dispute, so are you proposing to delete Bibliography of the American Civil War? What about literally any other article listed at Wikipedia:List of bibliographies? Please familiarise yourself with the basic encyclopedic relevance of sourcing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there's a difference between a sourcecrit of bibliographies across a major period, which has RS backing in its compilation, and a list of primary sources for an event which is based on references to individual sources? Your point that that the nom was too narrow in saying that was the "only" time it could be applicable is fair, that's my mistake. If the article had been based on scholarship analyzing the sources as a whole and (for example) how they affect our read of the history, it would make sense that would warrant an article, but I've been unable to find sources like this. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a serious misunderstanding of the criteria for list articles: there is no requirement for a source describing the contents as a list or which itself provides a list containing all or most of the contents. The only criterion for items constituting a list is that they share some non-trivial intersection that is sufficiently notable to be the subject of an article. For instance, an article listing American generals in World War II doesn't require the existence of or citation to a reliable source stating, "the following were American generals in World War II". It's sufficient that reliable sources exist indicating that individual members of the list were American generals in World War II, even if none of them give a list.

For purposes of a list of sources relevant to the raid on Harpers Ferry, inclusion in a bibliography relating to the raid would be fine, with discussion of the sources in a text ideal, but if a source itself is or includes a significant discussion of the raid, then WP:PRIMARY clearly states that it is a valid source for its own contents; not an analysis of those contents, but a plain description of them, and certainly to justify inclusion in a list. But no source needs to be analyzed together with other sources simply in order to be included in a list. That has no basis whatever in Wikipedia policy. P Aculeius (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm admittedly not super experienced with list-discussions and NLIST, I've previously avoided it because inclusion criteria is much less straightforward and even explicitly without consensus in some areas. Clearly any arbitrary collection of sources does not necessarily warrant a list, correct? I'm struggling to see what makes this particular list of sourcing encyclopedic or relevant. For example, in bibliography of the American Civil War, the relevance is clear: the lede cites meta-analyses of these sources and why its a relevant collection. Could you point me to the specific part of WP:NLIST/WP:STANDALONE that you believe gives this list assumed notability here here? Per NLIST, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. I understand you're saying is not the relevant criteria here, but it would be helpful to understand where the assumed notability is coming from. Admittedly, as I said, this is an area I'm less experienced in, but I don't see an inclusion criteria that seems to apply here. I'm just not seeing what this list adds that the reference and further reading sections of the primary article do not; the only thing offered here is commentary, for which we want secondary sourcing, which was my point above. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because John Brown's raid is a major topic of the Civil War, a discussion of the sources relied upon for accounts or analysis of it is part of a notable topic. If it were feasible to incorporate that into our article on the raid, then there would be no question of notability as a subtopic of the raid. However, the size and detail of the list exceeds what would normally be appropriate for a subsection of another article, which is why this is a stand-alone list: it's essentially a subtopic that's been split off from the main one because it's too lengthy and detailed to be treated as a subsection within the article about the raid. Its notability comes from the fact that the topic it concerns is notable, and because at least some of the sources listed are themselves discussed in reliable third-party sources.

A history book that discusses the raid, for instance, and then comments on some of the sources upon which our understanding of the raid is based, also shows that an extended discussion of sources is a notable topic. This would not be necessary for each individual source; for example, if all that the list says about a particular source is a brief summary of what it is or says, without analysis of the source, then the source itself can be cited for its own contents, per WP:PRIMARY. Analysis, of course, must come from independent sources—but normally, if the sources cited are insufficient, one should first look for additional sources that support the claims, and then delete the unsupported material if no such sources can be found. That, of course, is ordinary editing, not deletion of the entire article.

At this point the phrase "inherited notability" might occur to you. A person, for example, does not become notable merely because he or she is adjacent to a notable person; the father of a celebrity is not notable merely for being the celebrity's father. But in this case, the notability is not inherited, because this is part of the topic "John Brown's raid", and its notability is largely identical with it. It's a subtopic that's too extensive to be treated as part of the main article, and therefore has been split off, which is why merging would not be productive; if merged, it would instantly become a candidate for splitting off, bringing us right back here. P Aculeius (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or move to a subpage of the talk page of the main article, without leaving a redirect. Don't merge to the article itself. There is no reason to list all primary sources for any somewhat notable event, no idea why we should make an exception here. The event is notable, the list of sources isn't. Fram (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a "list" of sources; it's a discussion of the sources with information provided about each of them explaining their significance to the topic. That would not be an appropriate addition to a talk page; it's encyclopedic material, not a duplicate of an article's reflist. P Aculeius (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's an annotated list of sources, which would be perfect for a talk page. I see no evidence that as an actual mainspace article it satisfies WP:LISTN though, and this version of the page certainly doesn't, as it seems as if all entries on the page are simply sourced to themselves: again, perfect for a talk page subpage, making it easier to find these sources, but not appropriate for an article at all. Fram (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This 35K article should not be merged to the 120K article John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. Valid split off article. We're an encyclopedia, we have no limit of space, this is something people studying history can make use of. Dream Focus 15:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing to merge it to that article. Fram (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied and pasted my argument from the first time this was at AFD, updating the size of the articles since they've both grown since then. Nothing else has changed since then. Dream Focus 05:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are like, three merge votes above, plus some people who want to merge it into the article's talk page, where it'd be hidden from casual users—thereby defeating its purpose as a resource for readers, and treating it as something just for Wikipedia editors to access. But it's not a reflist, it's an annotated bibliography. It's fine to cite the sources themselves for their own contents, though it would be better to cite independent sources so that the article can speak to their importance instead of just explaining their contents (relevance tends to be somewhat self-explanatory for most of these sources). Adding sources is ordinary editing, not grounds for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All the above merge votes are for "merge to the article talk page". Those votes seem to agree that it is indeed unwanted as a page for readers (because not a notable subject, only primary sources, ...) but is a useful source for editors, hence instead of deletion the move to talk space. WP:ITSUSEFUL is rarely a good reason to keep things. Fram (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Wong

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

An apparent autobiography about a non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG WP:NBIO and WP:V. He got a bit of media attention for a blog many years ago but at best it's WP:BLP1E. The blog had an accompanying book self-published on Amazon without apparent reviews. The other sources here are WP:IMDB and an article that does not confirm whether he was involved with the film the article claims. (No source in the article or in my BEFORE search even confirms whether Nguyen is operating under the stage name the article confirms.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Vietnam, and United States of America. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Retro music11 (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Federal investigation into Jerome Powell

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

Too soon for a page. Investigations usually do not warrant articles and much of this content is already in the Powell article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft and wait to see if another shoe drops. If this never results in charges against Powell, or some formal response to the investigation, then it will not be independently notable in the sweep of history. BD2412 T 02:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jerome Powell#Second presidency (2025–present). Come on folks, you don't need to create new articles this quickly when the content is largely background and duplication and little substance is known. Please contribute to the main article propose a WP:SPLIT when appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 03:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Better to redirect if this just ends up in nothing but we should wait to see if the investigation end in a trial. Wikitalovin1 (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the article now is not mostly background. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jerome Powell#Second presidency (2025–present): per Reywas92 Jcgaylor (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to draft if necessary. This may have been moved into mainspace too soon, but it appears to be a developing topic that will likely warrant its own page rather than remaining a section of the Jerome Powell article. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 03:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft as it is too soon to know if there is an actual criminal probe around Powell. Yes, there are talks around charging him with something, but let's wait and see. haruka amaranth 03:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. This investigation could take any number of turns one way and ten another. — Maile (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. The information about the renovation of the Eccles Building should be included in that article. --Oneiros (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the notability guideline for events; multiple, independent, and reliable sources on the investigation in both the Jerome Powell article and the proposed article all indicate that this investigation is, in fact, occurring.

Independent and reliable sources on reactions from members of U.S. Congress, former Fed Chairs, U.S. Treasury Secretaries, and professional economists indicate that the investigation is likely to be a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance (i.e. potentially ending the Federal Reserve's independence as a central bank if Powell is criminally indicted and removed from his position; future Federal Reserve Board nominations including for Powell's scheduled vacancy in May 2026 could be blocked; potential political implications for the Trump administration in terms of influence over GOP members of Congress) with significant impact of wide geographic scope (i.e. potentially significantly higher inflation in US and worse macroeconomic performance of U.S. economy—which will have global repercussions given how interconnected the U.S. economy is with the global economy and given the continued, although increasingly reconsidered, status of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency).

It has already received both national and international coverage per the sources cited in both the Jerome Powell article and the proposed article, is not routine coverage or sensationalism, has continued past the 24-hour news cycle, and is not mentioned in passing in the sources but instead is the focus of the sources cited. Given Trump's longstanding desire to diminish the independence of the Federal Reserve that began during his first presidency (per the First Trump administration (2018–2021) and First presidency (2018–2021) sections of the Jerome Powell article), during his 2024 presidential campaign, and during his second presidency (per the Lisa Cook and Trump v. Cook articles), this proposed article is clearly not an example of recentism but is part of a long-term pattern of Trump's that will likely be discussed when secondary sources are written about both of his presidencies. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an unprecendted escalation in the erosion of central bank independence in the United States. Even if this investigation goes nowhere it will still have many effects. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not a policy-based argument. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is the most unprecedented attack on the Fed in the US ever, will be a massive story for decades ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RecentlyRyan (talk • contribs)
Redirect to Jerome Powell#Second presidency (2025–present): This should be incorporated into the current Jerome Powell article or its DoJ investigation section. This doesn't have enough encyclopedic value to warrant its own stand-alone article (see: WP:WHENSPLIT), at least not at this time. The perceived potential of a section being split into an article is not enough to split it preemptively. ~2025-40901-54 (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overlapping content from other articles can be merged into the main article on the topic, Federal investigation into Jerome Powell. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Convinced by CommonKnowledgeCreator. At the very least, a clear example of An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance. If there's not an active deletion discussion on this then I'd feel better about moving most info currently at Jerome Powell#DoJ investigation over here and doing a Template:Main thing there, which would cut duplication Placeholderer (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CommonKnowledgeCreator. Sal2100 (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This easily passes WP:GNG. It cannot be emphasized enough the impact this is already having. The last three Fed Chairs called this "an unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial attacks to undermine that independence" (between the Fed and the Government).[40]

Cfgauss77 (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Placeholderer and CommonKnowledgeCreator. Article needs some cleanup, but the topic passes notability and has received sustained coverage. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jerome Powell. Coverage exists, but a standalone article is premature and overlaps with content better covered in the main biography. If the investigation later develops into charges or clear independent notability emerges, a split can be reconsidered per WP:WHENSPLIT. HerBauhaus (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jerome Powell: WP:TOOSOON for an article on this, also verges on violating WP:BLPCRIME.–DMartin (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC) –DMartin (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
verges on violating WP:BLPCRIME Nope. WP:BLPCRIME primarily addresses crimes, criminal investigations, and allegations of crimes by persons who are not public figures, and Jerome Powell is a public figure, and the investigation has been extensively covered by dozens of independent and reliable sources over the past 10 days. Also, WP:TOOSOON is an essay rather than a policy or guideline. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Bis

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. All sources given are incidental to the subject; they give either passing mentions of the subject's opinions or of the subject's comments in her role as a spokesperson. Nothing focusing on her specifically found. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 06:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Media Relations is very unlikely to be notable. Most of the sourcing I find is from Newsmax, very much not a RS, or other blogs/websites complaining about the current administration. Most items used for sourcing in the article are about what this person's opinions are, not really helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved USRA locomotives

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

As far as this list is concerned, no United States Railroad Administration have been preserved: some later locomotives which were copies of types used by the USRA previously have been preserved. That they were previously USRA designs is a very minor aspect only (e.g. this source doesn't even mention it), and no source seems to treat these as a group, so it fails WP:LISTN. Fram (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Technology, Transportation, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination is just flat-out unnecessary, because there are multiple USRA originals and USRA copies preserved, this is because this list a work in progress. You can always improve a list, rather than just nominating it for deletion. Insomniac187 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "no United States Railroad Administration have been preserved", I'm struggling to find what you mean by that, which also supports my keep reason. Are you refering to your claim saying that no original locomotives of the USRA are preserved? I'm confused. This nomination is so confusing that it just feels indeed unnecessary. Insomniac187 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't quote out of context, I said "As far as this list is concerned, " at the time of nomination, when neither the list nor any of the sources mentioned actually preserved ones. Fram (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just as Insomniac187 says, there are authentic USRA locomotives in preservation. Not having any originals upon the lists initial creation is not enough to support that claim. Also, the recency of the list can allow for more to be added. Southern 4501 fan (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of preserved locomotives in the United States. I see no reason why this content cannot be covered at the target article. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of preserved locomotives in the United States This agency existed for 2½ years, pretty much a rounding error in the history of railroading, and were designed by the same people in charge of private railroads, so a three-year 'national design' was impossible, and there are absolutely no notes to what any of the sections mean as far as 'light mikado', 'Pacific', '0-6-0' or '2-8-8-2', which is unreadable WP:JARGON. A note in the redirected article is proper. Nathannah • 📮 23:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of preserved locomotives in the United States. This list does not accomplish anything that cannot be handled by that list article, the existence of Category:USRA locomotives and details on preservation in the articles for each individual USRA locomotive class. NLIST is not met. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Telosa

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

A bombastic declaration in September 2021, after which nothing happened. IdanST (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Marc Lore#Telosa. Don't need a standalone article for something hypothetical without continued progress or coverage. Reywas92^Talk 16:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dezeen covered this as recently as August 2025. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per GNG. I do not agree with the opening argument and the subject is discussed in multiple reliable sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Another Believer; the subject is discussed in multiple reliable sources and is clearly notable. VidanaliK (talk to me) 22:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:GNG. Multiple independent reliable sources including Bloomberg, Guardian, CNN, Dezeen, Fortune, Vox, provide substantial coverage about Telosa itself. Notability is based on coverage, not on whether a project ultimately moves forward. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. police officers killed in 2010

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL and as discussed in the deletion discussion for the main list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American police officers killed in the line of duty, a list should only include notable officers. While I've since expanded this to officers who died in the line of duty during notable events as I believe that has encyclopedic value, this and the other yearly counterparts are just memorial lists. As such, merge into List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States. Raskuly (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, and United States of America. Raskuly (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States per nom. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I am not sure the sources are even that great for this, so I am hesitant with a merge, but I think the general idea is probably NLIST valid, and maybe should be by decade instead. Also, the two could have been bundled. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. police officers killed in 2011

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL and as discussed in the deletion discussion for the main list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American police officers killed in the line of duty, a list should only include notable officers. While I've since expanded this to officers who died in the line of duty during notable events as I believe that has encyclopedic value, this and the other yearly counterparts are just memorial lists. As such, merge into List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States. Raskuly (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, and United States of America. Raskuly (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States per nom. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: as suggested elsewhere seems fine. Most of the individuals listed don't have an article in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I am not sure the sources are even that great for this, so I am hesitant with a merge, but I think the general idea is probably NLIST valid, and maybe should be by decade instead. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Next Generation Action Network

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

Fails WP:NORG. Sources are either primary or do not cover the subject in-depth beyond a trivial mention. GTrang (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Texas. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect with history to Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf#Aftermath (or perhaps 2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers#Protests), but do not delete history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are mostly primary and not much here to show notability or coverage. ← Metallurgist (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Metallurgist:, then why not redirect? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it redirect there vs anywhere else? ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Killing of Austin Metcalf is the most recent decent target. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Meyer (political strategist)

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NPOL or GNG. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, United States of America, and Missouri. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don’t see the in-depth coverage we would need for a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify — I have written and created plenty of these articles. This is an indiscriminate collection of roles, bolstered by primary sources and duplicate references that do not prove notability. Nothing against creating the article in the future, but even I likely couldn't find enough references for Meyer.

Responding to your claim that Meyer is a significant figure on your talk page Damianerico: The lack of conjunctive references—that is, citations that work off of each other, rather than random sources showing information at various points in time—is a clear indicator that notability has not been met. If you're looking for good examples of articles on political actors in the Trump administration, take a look at James Braid and James Blair, both of which I wrote. A director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs is not entitled to an article, and if you look at the past officeholders, they all have some claim to significance beyond the office. Meyer, as far as I can tell, does not. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Per the comments above, Meyer does not seem to be especially notable, but my opinion is that it would be OK to allow the article's creator to continue to improve the content and add more citations if they want to demonstrate that the is subject is notable. Yenistardom (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a BEFORE search turned up no suitable sources and the subject doesn't appear notable, the creator can't actually fix these problems in draftspace. Meyer might become notable a year or ten years from now, but we can't predict the future. There's nothing preventing anyone from recreating the page at that unknown time. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is an oversight since nothing prevents the creator from improving the article from the draftspace. A subject's notability is not pegged on timelines as stated... Damiano (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a question of whether there's any point of draftifying an article that can't be improved by normal editing. I really don't think you (as the article's creator) could have done better given the lack of sources, and I also don't think that this has any chance of passing AfC. The easiest option is for you to recreate the article in the future if something unforeseen happens to create notability. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Essentially, his role is that of an internal government lobbyist, and we need to discuss if that role is notable enough for NPOL. Bearian (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While discussing the applicability of his role as per NPOL Damiano (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know you spent a lot of time creating this article, but you have to demonstrate that he meets NPOL since no one else has found evidence that he does. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. The coverage in the article (and I couldn't find better with a google search) doesn't meet the GNG and his political appointments aren't sufficient for NPOL. Not (yet) notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." As noted "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." AusLondonder (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eluchil404. I think the consensus is that he's not inherently notable by dint of his position. Bearian (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify or Draftify This article has potential to be improved as a stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damianerico (talk • contribs) 06:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States politicians by generation

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

Seems like a novel combination of two characteristics, and some rather free use of "generation" (e.g. first group goes from 1706 to 1774). Unclear what the basis is for inclusion or exclusion ("some prominent recent" ones apparently?). Fram (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid navigational list that satisfies WP:NLIST ([41] [42] [43] [44]). Unclear inclusion criteria is a problem solved by using the talk page of an article, not the delete button.
Older 'generations' can be removed if they aren't discussed as a group in reliable sources, but Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials and Generation X have all been discussed in relation to politics in numerous reliable sources for decades Katzrockso (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear inclusion criteria is not something that necessarily can be solved by using the talk page, "United States politicians" is so all encompassing as to be completely unusable for a list. Fram (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"United States politicians" is clearly a notable category/topic that passes NLIST with flying colors. Katzrockso (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Katzrockso. The scope can be tightened to be only include prominent example of a politician in the generation as highlighted in reliable sources. Examples:[45][46][47] Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:40, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure what the point of this page is or what the selection criteria are. We are all capable of looking at birth dates of politicians, and this is highly duplicative of List of presidents of the United States by age, List of vice presidents of the United States by age. The simple concept of linking politicians does not make this a valid or necessary page for navigation, and the conceptual links above do not establish notability for a list like this (e.g. [48] is specifically about List of current United States representatives). If the keep editors above would like to re-scope the list for discussion of the first people elected from a generation or Generational representation in the United States Congress, they can do so in a draft, but that's a far cry from the mere birthdates currently in the article. Reywas92^Talk 15:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is still under construction. Buaidh talk e-mail 15:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is the point of this? "some prominent American politicians" Geschichte (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear selection criteria. It may be possible to create individual pages for each generation, but a larger list is necessarily going to have some scoping problems. Now, it could be possible to very narrowly define the subject to include only firsts (such as first state rep/senator, first member of the House/Senate, first Speaker/Senate Majority Leader, first President/VP), but that would necessarily change the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frankly, this list is so all-encompasing that it would quickly become untenably large if anyone tried to make it even somewhat comprehensive. Perhaps if someone wanted to start breaking it down by decade or something that would make a bit more sense, but even then, I have my doubts. This might as well just be a "List of US Politicians", which is already well covered by categories. nf utvol (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reaffirming my delete recommendation here. Even after paring it down to Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Speakers of the House, dividing by demographic generations is a bad way of sorting since the definitions of generations vary (in some cases wildly), and intermingling modern demographic generations with seemingly arbitrary generations before the Lost Generation just creates confusion. nf utvol (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is now being expanded to include seemingly random state representatives and governors. This just demonstrates that the constraints on such a list are so ambiguous as to make the it unmanageable and of limited utility to users. nf utvol (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: The initial construction of this article is now complete. This article has been moved to the List of United States politicians by birth date. Many of the objections raised during the construction of this article have been addressed. Perhaps we should begin our examination of this article anew.
This article is of interest to WikiProject Wikipedians aged 70 and older regarding Wikipedia's handling of ageism and sexism. Buaidh talk e-mail 23:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A. Please don't move articles during an AfD, it ruins all kinds of templates and makes the discussion harder.

B. I have no idea what that project has to do with this AfD, nor why ageism and sexism come into play, as the list has nothing to do with when people actually got elected or what gender they have. Can you please explain why you think this project and these labels are in any way relevant and had to be raised here? Fram (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, conceptually useful list as reconstructed. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirm deletion after page move, and things like "Generation Alpha (2013–): The best is yet to come." (and the above raising of "WikiProject Wikipedians aged 70 and older", ageism and sexism) make me wonder if the editor is trolling or just needs autopatrolled yanked. The only -ism I see in that article is recentism, with the standards for inclusion way higher for older generations than for recent ones. Fram (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reverted the page move, which is inappropriate to do while the AFD is ongoing. A possible renaming and rescoping can always be discussed as part of this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
possible renaming and rescoping can always be discussed as part of this are outside of the scope of AfD. The proper remedy to this AfD would be to keep the article, discuss on the talk page the rescoping/renaming and if this does not succeed in providing clear inclusion criteria, renominating at AfD. Deletion should never be the first resort.

At worst, draftify the article to work on the scope issues rather than delete (why AfD was the first option proposed by the nominator instead of using the talk page is unclear). Katzrockso (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such things can be and often are discussed as part of an AFD. But here, the scope issues are unfixable, so I'm not sure what a draftification would accomplish. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this article while it was still under construction. The sorting by generation is rather silly. Buaidh talk e-mail 20:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regardless of the title. A list of all US politicians ("politician" is a little fuzzy to begin with) (even just the notable ones) is far too broad to be useful. Sorting by "generation" doesn't exactly help matters -- named generations are not well defined and causes WP:CROSSCAT issues. Trying to recast this by birth date would just duplicate an already inappropriately broad list. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant scope here could (and should) be politicians whose age has been a salient factor of their political representation. Mamdani and Ocasio-Cortez have both had their campaigns analyzed as a generational shift, I'm less familiar with other examples but I'm sure this would offer a much more specific list. Katzrockso (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely different topic than that of the list that was nominated for deletion. I'd still advocate for deletion of such a list anyway, per vague inclusion criteria. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article states that all Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Speakers are included. The other entries should be by consensus. If future maintenance is a concern, we can remove all non-historical entries (entries lacking an office number), although these are valuable links for contemporary use. Buaidh talk e-mail 20:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Such criteria are completely arbitrary and blatantly fail WP:NLIST. Even worse, adding further entries "by consensus" is not a valid process. Consensus can be used when there's disagreement over whether or not an entry meets inclusion criteria, but it's not there to decide what gets included in the first place. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding @Deacon Vorbis here. These arbitrary criteria absolutely fail NLIST, especially the inclusion of "other notable politicians." Why not Senate and House Majority Leaders? Why not Secretaries of State? Why not President pro Tempore of the Senate? What makes some governors, mayors, and state representatives worthy of inclusion, but not others? Why are some cabinet holders included? Do you see how this could get unreasonably unwieldy? There are already lists of all significant office-holders in the US, there is not any benefit to adding a poorly constrained list that sorts them by arbitrary birth eras. nf utvol (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly states the four criteria for required inclusion and suggests that other notable politicians may be added. This does not seem arbitrary. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 18:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for inlusion for politicians from the 18th-19th century are obviously completely different from those used for Millenials and Gen Z. The difference is arbitrary. Fram (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is quite deliberate. Younger politicians are still in the midst of their careers. I think this list would be much less useful if we only listed dead politicians. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 23:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Fram means that the bar for what's considered notable is much, much lower for Gen Z and Millenials than earlier generations... The older generations are mostly Federal office holders, whereas the Millenial and Gen Z lists are chocked full of state office holders that have largely never been heard of outside of their districts. In other words, the difference for notability between Gen Z/Millenial and everything else is seemingly arbitrary. nf utvol (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but should be renamed. This would better fit under the title Chronological list of politicians from the United States. It could be split when it gets too large into multiple pages by century. The term "by generation" has too many issues in my opinion to be a usable term.4meter4 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Several of these American politicians are immigrants, so Chronological list of United States politicians or List of United States politicians by birth date would be better. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has endless potential that makes it a mess. And while there is some generational notability, that would probably require separate articles, which again has scope concerns.... ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ross (actor)

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

In addition to failing WP:GNG due to lack of significant independent coverage, this article has a long history of repeated additions of unsourced or overstated claims that do not align with reliable secondary sources. These include implications of official franchise succession, inflated or inaccurately characterized roles, résumé-style credit listings, and anecdotal biographical material inconsistent with WP:BLP.

Much of this content has been removed through routine policy enforcement (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTRESUME), and examination of the edit history shows a recurring cycle of promotional additions followed by cleanup. After removal of this material, the remaining content does not demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Editors may find the revision history informative when assessing the article’s stability and sourcing issues.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by StillTweetingAboutMultiversus (talk • contribs) 00:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and California. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 19:31, 6 January 2026 (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/2026 January 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to flag a related pattern that becomes obvious when you compare the edit diffs across multiple pages this user has been working on.

On Batman Forever, an editor recently inserted Daniel Ross into a list of actors considered for the role of Robin. The diff is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%20Forever&diff=1331287145&oldid=1330634558

The added claim gives the impression that multiple mainstream sources discuss Ross in connection with the film’s casting history. In reality, the only source tying him to the role is a self-promotional horror-fan blog interview from 2010; none of the other cited publications mention him at all. His name is placed in front of actors like Matt Damon, Ewan McGregor and Jude Law to appear equivalent, which is misleading and not supported by the references. This mirrors the same upward-inflation pattern seen throughout Ross article’s history with characters like Grimace and, Lucky the Leprechaun.

There is a similar issue on the Donald Duck page. Here is the talk-page thread where the same editor justified a rollback by appealing to Tony Anselmo’s supposed views rather than policy or sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Duck#Revert_restored_incorrect_and_unsourced_material;_request_for_review

For clarity, the edit that was reverted was not a content removal. It reorganized the Donald Duck voice-history section to comply with infobox hierarchy, removed duplicated paragraphs, corrected malformed citations and dead links, and placed alternate/one-off performers in their proper subsection. The restored version reintroduced broken sourcing, trivia, and promotional framing (like insinuating Daniel Ross was more than a temporary or fill-in). The justification for restoring it relied on unverifiable claims about “Disney policy” and “Tony Anselmo’s” personal opinions, neither of which are valid substitutes for citeable sources.

Taken together, these diffs show a consistent pattern across multiple articles: inserting Ross into established franchise histories with sources that do not support the implication, resisting cleanup that removes resume-style framing, and defending these additions through personal assertions rather than policy. The issue isn’t isolated disagreements; it is a long-term promotional narrative that conflicts with basic principles of verifiability, sourcing, and neutral presentation.

It’s also worth noting that in the last several days, the same account has added a large amount of new material across multiple pages. Much of it unverifiable, improperly sourced, or framed to exaggerate Ross’s industry significance. The sudden volume and the consistent direction of these edits reinforce that this is not a one-off mistake but an ongoing promotional pattern — Preceding unsigned comment added by StillTweetingAboutMultiversus (talk • contribs) 01:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He voiced Donald Duck and won an Emmy award for that. Clearly passes WP:CREATIVE. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Creative notes: " Such a person is likely to be notable if: (my bolding added for emphasis)

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or

-not really

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or

-hasn't done so

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or

-not a major role, a single episode and I don't see him as being well-known for it.

Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Likely to be notable" means that editors are entitled to their "delete" vote, nothing more. I think his collective body of work is impressive enough[49]. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He won the award, but I'm not sure that satisfies notability, due to the lack of coverage for anything else... [50] Could be briefly mentioned in another article, but I don't think the career that his person has had meets our notability standards for a stand-alone article. Winning an award shows he might be notable, not a guarantee to an article here on Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He voiced a secondary character in a TV episode that isn't widely known, that's not really meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mickey and Minnie Wish Upon a Christmas, where his award is already noted. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mickey_and_Minnie_Wish_Upon_a_Christmas#Accolades where the subject is mentioned. RangersRus (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Independent coverage remains insufficient after nearly two decades; notability is not inherited from franchise affiliation. StillTweetingAboutMultiversus (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speeches of Joe Biden

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

The article is unreferenced, rudimentary in comprising only a list of links to where his individual speeches are discussed and the date of delivery. I believe that Biden's speeches are not notable as an independent topic and I can't find sources that discuss his speeches in general, rather than calling one of them "his best speech" or something like that. HKLionel TALK 16:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. HKLionel TALK 16:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brought to AfD because I don't think this will be useful as a redirect, nor is there anything to merge. HKLionel TALK 16:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Lists. aaronneallucas (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not an appropriately compiled list. He gave many more speeches than these, and this doesn't seem necessary. Links are already in the navbox as well. Reywas92^Talk 17:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The concept of a directory is not bad. This is the reason we have Categories though. Carrite (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The content is already covered in the template at the bottom of the page. As an article, rather than a list, this fails core notability guidelines. Jcgaylor (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't really see the need for this, could have a category page for the individual articles that would accomplish the same thing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And we do. This is needless duplication. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I'm the only person here who sees this as a valid WP:LIST page as written, even as it is currently unsourced, as it includes links to only his speeches which are bluelinked, which is valid under our list notability guidelines. I don't share the viewpoint that this is unnecessary because it contains more speeches than are in the template, and infoboxes aren't great navigation tools on mobile devices. SportingFlyer T·C 13:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's valid, I believe it doesn't meet WP:NLIST because, as I stated in my nom, I believe that Biden's speeches are not notable as an independent topic and I can't find sources that discuss his speeches in general, rather than calling one of them "his best speech" or something like that. HKLionel TALK 17:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST does not require the group to be discussed as a set, or notable as an independent topic, though, just that it is an accepted reason why a list would be notable. Per WP:CSC, a grouping which constitutes a clearly related list of notable entries should be fine on notability grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 11:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I take NLIST to mean if part of the list is in RS, all of such a list can be on here. Like if you had "list of Bidens best speeches". ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUPE and WP:NLIST. The topic has received coverage[51][52][53][54]. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE / WP:TNT. The sources identified by Kelob2678 do demonstrate a pass of WP:NLIST. We could have an article here. However, this article is so badly constructed that it's an eye sore. It's an over-bloated navigation tool that is redundant of the Joe Biden NAVBOX (and that NAVBOX communicates the same thing in one line of text rather than taking up an entire page). The article currently offers no real content and takes up tremendous size while simultaneously offering no substantive prose. If we are going to have an article here, we would need either a better formatted table (rather than subsections that don't say anything beyond the date of the speech). Or subsections with actual summary content. As it is the article is incompetently made and has zero benefit to the encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting would be easily fixed, though, and there's no time limit. I'm not sure I understand the navbox argument. SportingFlyer T·C 11:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a bullet list in Joe Biden. A bunch of headings and hatnotes is not an article. Revolving Doormat (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Useful page but add sources and correct formatting.User:Sharnadd (talk) 06:41,11 January 2026

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seems to be no one specific format on lists of speeches. Please see Category:United States presidential speeches — Maile (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Maile. This list is not unprecedented. Azuredivay (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. List of speeches by x is a valid list topic, and US presidential speeches tend to get extensive coverage as a set (WP:NLIST, as evidenced by the aforementioned Category:United States presidential speeches). The area appears to be undercovered, unfortunately. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename List of speeches by Joe Biden. ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of political disinformation website campaigns in the United States

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

This article is an example of misinformation itself. 1) The criteria for inclusion in the list is not objective and seems based on the opinions and accusations of journalists, not in facts. The point of view is not neutral. It does not seem an appropriate criteria to categorise websites. WP:NPOV, 2) Many of the included websites have been accused of promoting a candidate, but there is not reference to misinformation. In fact, the Columbia Journalism Review article, which is referenced over 500 times (!), clearly states that is talking about websites that are "not necessarily fake news". JohnMizuki (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment The article is a copyvio of the NYT and CJR sources. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It could only be copyvio if we had copied one list or the other with no additional commentary, which is not what this article expresses. Katzrockso (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the selection of items for the list is creative work and is protected by copyright, the republication of it in any form is prohibited. I don't see how commentary changes this. The NYT table contains the name, URL, category, and location. The table in the article contains the name, domain, status (empty), notes (basically the location), and source. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The protection for creative selection is relatively thin and would not apply here simply to the fact that we include particular websites in the list, largely because the list collates information from multiple lists and sources and adds additional information.

The specific organization of information you describe might come closer. Katzrockso (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So that specific organization should be removed if the article is to be kept. Ultimately, this is not a reason for deletion, so I retracted my initial comment. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Status column is meant to include whether each site is Active or Defunct. I've been meaning to fill it in, but if anyone would be willing to help, that would be great. I'll get started on that.

For what it's worth, some sites in the table are from the NYT but not in CJR, and vice versa. There's also one that's from neither. TotalVibe945 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The table in the article primarily came from the GitHub repository linked by CJR, which is open source under an MIT license. The table in the repository contains mostly the same fields (title, geolocation, domain, network, subnetwork). I don't believe WP:COPYVIO would apply here. TotalVibe945 (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 14:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Kelob2678. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: This article is a WP:SPLIT of List of fake news websites (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fake_news_websites&diff=prev&oldid=1197755321). The journalists in question who are reviewing these sites are writing in WP:RS, so their perspectives matter.

The Columbia Journalism Review article in question is the last of a four-part series, so I cited it because it was the last in chronological order and because it links to a GitHub page related to the series that lists all of the sites. The first article in the series about the sites explicitly states, emphasis added: "An increasingly popular tactic challenges conventional wisdom on the spread of electoral disinformation: the creation of partisan outlets masquerading as local news organizations."

Similarly, The New York Times article that lists the sites and is also cited here is part of earlier reporting from the same outlet on those sites that says: "Yet the network, now in all 50 states, is built not on traditional journalism but on propaganda ordered up by dozens of conservative think tanks, political operatives, corporate executives and public-relations professionals, a Times investigation found."

So both sources explicitly link the sites to misinformation. TotalVibe945 (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, despite what you have said, the criteria used for this list is not objective. The views of those journalists might be important and valuable, but still they do not constitute an objective criteria. JohnMizuki (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider to be objective criteria for inclusion in such a list? TotalVibe945 (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to clarify any confusion about the name of this article: the word "campaign" was originally meant to refer to disinformation attacks, not political campaigns. However, the word "disinformation" is too specific because it requires intent. So I propose to rename this article to List of political misinformation websites in the United States to make it more general and more clear. TotalVibe945 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this whole list is WP:OR. It is too problematic to salvage in its current form and deserves WP:TNT. Marquardtika (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain your reasoning or give examples? TotalVibe945 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear definition of what "political disinformation website campaigns" means. Leaving it up to the subjective opinion of editors, rendering article contents WP:OR and unencyclopedic. Without objective criteria for defining what belongs here, we have no workable article. Marquardtika (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See my first comment about where this article came from and my earlier comment about renaming this article.

The intro of this article currently states: "The following is a list of websites, separated by owner, that have both been considered by journalists and researchers as distributing false news - or otherwise participating in disinformation - and have been designated by journalists and researchers as likely being linked to political actors in the United States." That's not dependent on the subjective opinion of editors at all, but what the sources themselves say. TotalVibe945 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But what defines "journalists and researchers"? Whose opinions are notable here? There is no clear standard about whose opinion carries weight on these matters. Not to mention the difference between "distributing false news" and "otherwise participating in disinformation" (what does that include?) Marquardtika (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists can be anyone from news outlets like The New York Times or fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact. Researchers can include academics or organizations like Graphika. Because this is Wikipedia, it goes without saying that the sources should be from WP:RS, so their outputs are the ones that have the most weight here.

Regarding your last question, see the ABC framework of disinformation by Camille François (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY21/20190926/109980/HHRG-116-SY21-Wstate-FrancoisC-20190926-SD001.pdf ), which asks: Is this source owned/operated by manipulative actors? Has the source engaged in deceptive behavior? Has the source published harmful content? In other words, disinformation is not strictly defined by false information with bad intent alone. TotalVibe945 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's what reliable sources are for. Are you saying we would be unable to state something is false or disinformation in wikivoice? Katzrockso (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per TotalVibe945 and WP:BABY Patternbuffered (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective, uncompletable list. See also: Timbo's Rule 14: "Rule 14. Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." —timbo //// Carrite (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neither "subjective" nor "uncompletable" (something characteristic of many lists, hence Template:Incomplete list) are deletion reasons. Katzrockso (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the last sentence in the lead paragraph about pink slime, that sentence was added after a disagreement on whether pink slime sites should be included in the list. The footnotes were added to show that WP:RS support their inclusion. However, the sentence doesn't need to be in the opening and could easily be in a separate section. TotalVibe945 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I’m a bit too new on this rules governing this type of article to be able to weigh in significantly on whether these types of lists should be structured in this format (Very long!). But a quick scan of the references through Cite Unseen shows the vast, vast majority to be considered reliable on RSP (little check marks), which are obviously considered credible as places to site for the rest of Wikipedia. Many of those that don’t have little icons probably should, and I asked for Semafor to be categorized as a news outlet. And is aggregating information from different places, so it doesn’t seem like WP:OR? This is the kind of page that could benefit from an active community around it, and it does look like there has been a lot of editing history. I’ll dig in a bit more and comment more later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny8lee (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to see analysis from some of our more experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this needs to stay for now, if for no other reason than its information and citations on Alpha News, the Minneapolis online news outlet which released the Jonathan Ross cell phone video today. There doesn't seem to be much else out there about them, and a Google search for "Alpha News wiki(pedia)" brings up the article.

Patternbuffered (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; however, I think the title should be changed to something like "List of news sources linked to partisan campaigns" or something like that, to avoid the word "disinformation". List was spun off the totally unwieldy List of fake news websites, serves a navigational purpose (to the campaigns and the higher-profile news sources in the list, though most do not have or deserve articles), and is sourced to RS who describe the outlets as partisan actors, so there is no widespread OR going on here. I do think there are NPOV issues here and there but that is editable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The political misinformation is happening in the US, and there are people and media that are described in RS as conducting it. My very best wishes (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Importantly, all items in the list seem to be reliably sourced. If a few were not, this is a matter for discussion on the article talk page and removal from the list. Or maybe more items should be added. This goes not justify deletion of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a collection of subjective WP:OR which also violates our policies on lists. To be member of the list of X (especially if X is something pejorative like this one), we would need a source calling that member X. Here X = "political disinformation website campaigns" which few, and perhaps none, of the organizations on this list are referred to with that exact terminology. Yes, an organization might have been accused by an RS of publishing misinformation about science/pseudoscience, but it's not overtly political (is any source calling it that?) and who is also calling it a "website campaign"? But it gets included on the list of X anyway, because it has maybe 1 or 2 of the 4 required characteristics of X. If per WP:LISTV, "lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations"[55], this page should be deleted. BBQboffin^{grill me} 02:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the terminology, see my earlier comment on renaming this article to List of political misinformation websites in the United States. These websites were grouped together in List of fake news websites and then later WP:SPLIT into a new article because of the observation that reliable sources have also showed them to be linked to political actors. This is the case not just for the United States, but also for Russia and elsewhere around the world. These are not based on value judgments, but what the sources themselves say.

Do you have any examples of websites in this list that are not linked to political actors, per WP:RS? TotalVibe945 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ONUS is on the "Keep" proponents to show that the list meets our guidelines. But to answer your question, consider CNSNews (which is WP:GUNREL) which purportedly "journalists and researchers" are making allegations against. The line item is: "Identified by the Center for Countering Digital Hate as a major distributor of climate change denialism." There is no WP consensus that CCDH is an RS, and no "journalists and researchers" are cited. Nor are there links to "political actors" established. It's WP:OR to assume that there is political motivation behind climate change denialism: it could just as easily be Big Oil money driving the messaging. If there were, would you want to keep a List of economically-driven misinformation websites in the United States with 1,000 groups where no one calls any of the list members by that name? BBQboffin^{grill me} 02:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you assuming that the political connection for CNSNews is related to their climate change denial? This is a straw argument, and is not the case at all. In this case, it has to do with their connection to Intermarkets, a political advertising firm.

CCDH is considered a research group by NPR, and, conversely, a search of the RSP noticeboard archive shows no evidence that CCDH is considered by the Wiki community as an unreliable source. Besides, that's not how the Perennial Sources list works. It only includes sources that have been discussed repeatedly, which is a tiny fraction of sources, reliable or not. Per WP:RSPMISSING, "A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability has not been the subject of serious questioning yet." It does not mean that sources outside of that list cannot be cited.

In any case, I added supporting sources from PolitiFact and Snopes, which are fact-checking journalism organizations that are both considered WP:GREL. Even if the inclusion of CNSNews on this list were incorrect, it does not justify deleting the entire article. TotalVibe945 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
NPR calls CCDH a "research and advocacy organization" in the NPR article you cited so CCDH's objectivity is an open question. No text about Intermarkets was included in the list when I posted my comment, just a cite to the marketing website, which obviously isn't RS, it's just a red herring. You added a Politifact source, which examines a particular claim by CNSNews and rates it False, but does not give CNSNews as a website any name that would qualify it for this list. Your newly added Snopes source calls CNSNews a "Conservative website" which clearly qualifies it for the List of Conservative websites in the United States but Snopes does *not* call it a "political disinformation website" (with or without the campaign), so an RS calling it that still remains to be found. As this list was created without any verifiability that the listed organizations meet the criteria (it's got "United States" in the name, yet there's entries like "Guatemala Business Daily"), it's best to WP:TNT the whole thing and start populating it with entries for which we there is strong sourcing, rather than leaving in disparaging information about organizations and people, awaiting challenges to the false stuff to happen on an ad hoc basis. BBQboffin^{grill me} 23:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to BBQboffin: Intermarkets was already included in the sub-paragraph header before my last edit: "Intermarkets is a digital advertising firm that has received funding from the Republican National Committee.[20] In addition to the following lists below, other sites that have partnered with Intermarkets include...", with the other sites including the Media Research Center sites. Intermarkets is the marketing website in question. It was added as a primary source, which is valid per WP:ABOUTSELF to show that CNSNews is part of the Intermarkets portfolio. Both Snopes and PolitiFact show that the site spread false information, which is one of the criteria for inclusion in this article.

Guatemala Business Daily, despite the name, is owned by Metric Media, which in turn is owned by an American person known to be involved in politics in the United States, Brian Timpone. All of the Metric Media sites have been explicitly tied to both politics and misinformation by both NYT and CJR (see my top comment above).

Regarding the terminology, the term "political misinformation websites" (along with "political disinformation website campaigns") is just a descriptive name to group the sites together because of what they had in common, per the cited reliable sources: 1) websites that 2) are involved in misinformation and 3) are tied to political actors 4) in the United States. It could hypothetically be called List of websites involved in misinformation that are tied to political actors in the United States, but that would be far too unwieldy. If anyone has a different way to describe such sites to rename the article, suggestions are welcome. Another editor made a suggestion above. TotalVibe945 (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's textbook WP:SYNTH: Guatemala Business Daily, despite the name, is owned by Metric Media, which in turn is owned by an American person known to be involved in politics in the United States, Brian Timpone. All of the Metric Media sites have been explicitly tied to both politics and misinformation by both NYT and CJR. Similiarly, it's doing WP:OR to say: If (1) Snopes cites a claim in one of XYZ news' online stories as being False, (2) the act of publishing false information = misinformation^[dubious], (3) XYZ news is linked to an American person involved in politics^{[whatever that means]}, then "XYZ news is a political misinformation website". BBQboffin^{grill me} 18:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be a topic here, but this a list of websites similar to List of fake news websites and looks very disjointed, synthesized, and original research.← Metallurgist (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For context, this list is similar to List of fake news websites because it is a WP:SPLIT from that page that was first proposed in 2024. I would hypothetically support a merge back to that page, but that would bring us back to when that page risked being too large. TotalVibe945 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only problem that I see is that there's no differentiation between misleading information and hidden agenda. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is why I proposed renaming this article to List of political misinformation websites in the United States to make the article more general and better fit the content. TotalVibe945 (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leetonia Exempted Village School District

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

Information on this page all is concurrent with Leetonia High School and a seperate page is not needed for the school district Porfiriotorres991 (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, United States of America, and Ohio. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Shell Momentum 21:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Partial duplication is no reason to delete an article. Perhaps the school district's information could be moved into the high school's article and then the district could become a redirect to the high school, but I would prefer to keep both articles as they are. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, there is either no reason to have two separate pages or articles could be merged per WP:Merging once again there is no reason for a whole separate page explaining the school district when all information can be found on the high school page. Porfiriotorres991 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is simply pointless duplication to have two articles covering basically the same topic. Does that serve our readers? No, and we've moved beyond simply saying "X is notable just because it is". AusLondonder (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reno Pro Soccer

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

Not much significant details are known yet; WP:TOOSOON for an article. Vestrian24Bio 05:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and United States of America. Vestrian24Bio 05:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is sufficient sourcing, see e.g. 1, 2, 3 etc. Giant Snowman 08:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per GiantSnowman sources. Svartner (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is sufficient sourcing, otherwise you would have to delete Atlético Dallas, Santa Barbara Sky FC, Ozark United FC, Milwaukee Pro Soccer, USL Pro Iowa, all which have sufficient sourcing and are listed on the USL Championship website [56] Roberto221 (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NOTPROMO / WP:CRYSTAL. Entirely based on promotional sourcing. This is exactly the type of thing that would get called out WP:ORGCRIT. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for promoting an up-coming organization that hasn't even done anything yet.4meter4 (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite sources being presented, there are concerns as to whether they are promotional. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 4meter4. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep re: WP:SOURCESEXIST. I'm not convinced that the sources mentioned by GiantSnowman are WP:PROMO. In addition, I found [57] and [58]. I'm sure many more exist, as I did not do a deep dive. I think we have enough here to meet WP:GNG in any case.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My understanding is that clubs at this level are inherently notable. Sources clearly exist so there is no reason to draftify. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL applies. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My own WP:BEFORE has returned similar sources to those noted by others above. Including things like this. While somewhat speculative, the volume of coverage, largely independent nature and seeming reliability of the sources would suggest that WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV are met. If there is consensus that the title be kept I would suggest that, for the time-being, a "ground" or "stadium" section be created. And Reno Soccer Stadium redirected to that section. Rather than having two standalone titles on things that don't (yet) exist.... Guliolopez (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2026 (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

^ https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/time-series/geo/gazetteer-files.html

[1] ttps://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/time-series/geo/gazetteer-files.html

[1]

Värsked postitused

Most Used Categories

Jüri Ratas: maksutõusud kahjustavad inimeste elujärge

General

Sorted by State

Lisa kommentaar Tühista vastus