Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Shortcuts
Main page Talk
Assessment Talk
Collaboration Talk
Help
Newsletter
Outreach
Portal Talk
To do / cleanup lists
Project organization
Article alerts
Articles for creation
Automation
Deletion sorting
Members
Popular pagesTalk
Project bannerTalk
Project category Talk
Quality content
Recognized content
Requested Articles
WikiProject embassy
Related projects
National
Regional
States
State-level WikiProjects
Territories
Caribbean

Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Micronesia

Guam
Johnston Atoll
Northern Mariana Islands
Wake Island
Polynesia

American Samoa
Borders
Governments
Culture
Society
 · related changes
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. 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.

Purge page cache watch

General

[edit]

Darryl Cooper (podcaster)

[edit]
Darryl Cooper (podcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted after a discussion in September and there are no new sources. 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also tagging @Hemiauchenia @Tsarstvovanie @Ekozie @Sweetstache @Kungigult from old page. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a point of order, the previous version was not deleted – The result was redirect‎ to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. I'll look at the newly created version and sources a little later and get back. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore there are already Darryl Cooper articles in German and French 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.
TFD (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The three "events" are two podcast appearances and a bad tweet. We do retain articles on notable nazi podcasters like Christopher Cantwell this guy just isn't as significant as him. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ihsan Isik

[edit]
Ihsan Isik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are not independent and reliable. Kadı Message 17:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails on notability. I could not find a single publication on google scholar. Also all links on the page just lead to the front page of the university, and the website on charter schools mentions him only in passing. So basically, the entire article is uncited. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts of restrictive abortion laws in the United States

[edit]
Impacts of restrictive abortion laws in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to adhere to Wikipedia’s core Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy and reads more like an advocacy piece than an encyclopedia article. It presents a highly one-sided narrative, focusing exclusively on negative consequences of restrictive abortion laws without offering counterbalancing perspectives—such as legal, ethical, or public health arguments made by supporters of these laws. For example, the article contains emotionally charged and anecdotal accounts (e.g., detailing the deaths of Josseli Barnica and Nevaeh Crain) in a manner more consistent with journalistic storytelling than encyclopedic writing. It uses loaded phrases like “doctors refused to help”, “hide or ignore the problem”, and “significant suffering for the child”—language that conveys bias rather than neutrality.

Additionally, there is no discussion of constitutional, legal, or moral arguments in favor of abortion restrictions, nor any mention of differing interpretations of maternal or prenatal rights. The article also heavily emphasizes phrases like “birthing people” and “pregnant people," unlike most Wikipedia articles of a similar nature, without acknowledging that this terminology is itself a subject of sociopolitical debate—another example of ideological slant without proper context.

Further, the content of this article could easily be incorporated into one of the many existing articles, such as "Abortion in the United States" or relevant articles relating to abortion laws.. if it can be completely rewritten first. DocZach (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
To your points:
1) I don't view this as a one-sided narrative. The name of the article is "Impacts of restrictive abortion laws in the United States," and the things contained in the article are impacts of restrictive abortion laws in the United States. (It's just exactly what it says it is.)
You mention adding "counterbalancing perspectives" of supporters of these laws, but I don't think *perspectives* are in the article - even of those opposed to the laws. It's not really about what the supporters of these laws *believe,* it's what are the *impacts* of the laws. If there are any positive impacts of the laws, that have reliable sources, that aren't in the article, then anyone is welcome to add them.
2) Listing some examples of notable deaths that experts say were caused by these laws is appropriate on a page about the impacts of these laws. (Whether it charges some people's emotions or not is immaterial).
3) To the few phrases you pulled out that you don't think are neutral a) I made small edits to clarify spots about doctors refusing to help, expanding slightly one specifically what that meant so it was more based directly in specific facts b) I got rid of the sentence that included "hide or ignore the problem." And "significant suffering for the child" is pulled directly from the source and doesn't seem like a biased phrase to me (especially since it came from an expert; I don't think we usually have to use attribution and quote marks for a usage of a 5-word phrase, but if you think the quote is long enough and you want to put quote marks on it and cite the expert, that would probably be another acceptable way to do it). If you have small NPOV issues, the article can be edited to use some different language. That doesn't justify deleting the whole article
4) The article doesn't "emphasize" phrases like "birthing people," it merely uses them. Gender neutral language when it comes to pregnant people is listed in the AP Stylebook, and I haven't found any wikipedia guidelines saying that Wikipedia is in opposition to the AP Stylebook
5) The article does not need to be "completely rewritten." It has several reliable sources and gets across a lot of relevant information. It doesn't make any sense to add it to "Abortion in the United States" as I put the "Abortion in the United States" article into a word counter and it said it was over 17,000 words. 20:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not make more sense to have "impacts of restrictive abortion laws" under the specific article about that law? Anti-abortion laws vary significantly in their extent, application, and scope. Some anti-abortion laws are poorly written and don't clearly outline exceptions, others do clearly outline exceptions. We already have articles for specific laws against abortion (and even articles about abortion in each and every state), so would it not make more sense to include the aftermath of such laws in their designated articles instead of attempting to generalize the laws of 50 states in one article?
Much of the content in this article is already addressed in the Impact section of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization article. I don't see why a completely new article is needed when this topic is already addressed in many other articles. It would be as if I decided to make an "Impact of restrictive drug laws in the United States" article and attempted to synthesize and form a conclusion on the complicated drug laws of all 50 states. It doesn't seem encyclopedic or sensical at all. DocZach (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) I just took a look at the impact section of Dobbs v Jackson and 2 things -
A) Since this is probably the most salient, the article looks to already be over 13,000 words. And while I know the above mentioned size rule is not absolutely hard and fast, anything above 9,000 words "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." If anything, I would say we should consider taking some things in that article (they have things I think could be considered impacts in nearly every section) and putting them here, and then putting a link to this article for further reading on that page.
B) The way that article is set up now, after a quick look, it seems to me like most of the things talked about with any depth in the "impact" section are mainly legal impacts where I think this specific page is broader than that. (But again, I do think we could take some things from that article, both legal impacts, and also things that seem like impacts in the "legacy," "international," and/or "reaction" sections and put some of that in here, to make the length of that page more manageable and focused and to make this page more comprehensive.)
2) I feel similarly about adding this to any of the other long articles about abortion in the United States. They're all very long and so, to me (not only for size, but also for other reasons I'm mentioning), it makes sense to have a standalone article.
3) To your point that this topic is already addressed, I think it needs a place where impacts can be synthesized and written about in depth instead of people having to piece together a little impact here and a little impact there across several pages on Wikipedia. Also, I don't think everything in this article is addressed in other places. So, I think it does make sense to synthesize it here, instead of spreading things out to different articles. Also, if you put it all in one article, the overall impact across the United States becomes clearer as opposed to trying to do smaller impact sections in each state and have people piece it together on their own.
4) To your example about drug laws - abortion used to be federally protected up to a certain point and now it's not. So now there are impacts across the United States. (Yes, some states are impacted more than others, but impacts are happening across the US and states are affecting each other (with people leaving certain states for healthcare or medical training, etc., so they are interconnected.) So, to your drug example, if there were a federal law that invited states to criminalize insulin and a lot of states did, and then that outcome affected a number of things (e.g. made it so people with diabetes were at much higher health risks in certain states, and certain specialist doctor training programs were no longer able to teach about using insulin as part of a treatment plan for diabetes, etc., and it was spread out among multiple states and also affected multiple states in that people were traveling to different states to get insulin or to get trained as medical professionals on how to use insulin), I think it would be perfectly reasonable for you to make an article about the impact of that throughout the United States. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Kramer

[edit]
Lance Kramer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced biography from 2006. Could not find SIGCOV about him. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is the same person. IMDB (not RS, I know) has several Lance Kramers: 01:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't follow WP:GNG and the lack of sources seems like grounds for deletion. Cottagechez (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Fonseca

[edit]
Fiona Fonseca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

An early- to mid-career liaison psychiatrist with some research fellowships, but doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC nor general notability criteria. Scopus impact of 2, based on 3 publications; prizes aren't sufficient to reach notability; fellowships are routine ones in the profession (no honorary fellowships). Journal editorships are insufficient. Klbrain (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAGA Communism

[edit]
MAGA Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Twitter fad. Remsense ‥ 论 20:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me why this article is scheduled for deletion? LaparohMesa (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LaparohMesa, the nom said it’s a “Non-notable Twitter fad”. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 21:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that it isn't "Non-notable". I think it is important to note people of the misinformation these fascists spread. LaparohMesa (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t usually just right great wrongs. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 00:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and agree with the "Twitter fad" comment from OP. The article is based on sources that are not particularly reliable or notable: a Substack, some Youtube videos from a channel that barely cracks 30k views per video on a good day, and a couple of websites that look more like blogs. It doesn't deserves its own article. Could also be redirected to Jackson Hinkle who, from my understanding, it's their main "representative". Paprikaiser (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jackson Hinkle - aside from the article currently being in a questionable state, it itself already seems to acknowledge at multiple points in the span of merely five paragraphs that "MAGA Communism" has a near-zero number of serious supporters and no real presence outside of the internet (seriously, about a third of the article is currently dedicated to explaining how unpopular its subject is), and the sources, as already stated by another editor, don't seem to be particularly excellent for proving the subject's notability. I fail to see how this is notable, or any reason to not redirect this page to Jackson Hinkle, which was already the case when it was created.
FiveInParticular (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is kept, then the appropriate title should be MAGA communism without the unnecessary capitalisation. Yue🌙 18:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Walker (musician)

[edit]
Donald Walker (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. As always, neither writers nor musicians are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about their work -- but four of the nine footnotes here are just his own work being cited as metaverification of its own existence, two are blogs, one is a mere directory entry, and the only two nominally reliable sources in the bunch (one book and one improperly cited newspaper article) both just briefly namecheck Donald Walker without being about him in any sense, which is not the kind of coverage we need to see.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McInerney

[edit]
Ryan McInerney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources to establish notability beyond routine coverage of his professional role. Most sources primarily focus on Visa Inc., rather than McInerney as a notable individual. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Gokey

[edit]
Tim Gokey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources that establish notability beyond his corporate role. Most references focus on his position at Broadridge Financial Solutions rather than demonstrating substantial independent recognition. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this CEO of an S&P 500 company cearly crosses the WP:GNG threshold. There is plenty of "independent coverage" to note, as you can see here, This article got into rowing and his Rhodes scholarship too, among others. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
none of the sources has independent reliable focused on the person deep coverage. only wp trades and passing mentions. 2A02:1210:682F:6200:F106:A38B:B5BD:B50 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject of this article seems to have support from various sources, receiving coverage from media that focuses on Gokey as an individual, rather than just on his company. A quick look at the reference list shows that he is extensively covered in secondary sources (also independent), including his years before Broadridge. I don't understand why this article is being considered for deletion Fenharrow (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's a "Keep" vote for me too, just for the record. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the sources is reliable with significant coverage; only Gokey said, Gokey commented (the best I found is: CEO Tim Gokey says Broadridge’s technology helps its clients simplify their operations, enabling financial services companies to make their products more innovative. “New mutual funds, ETFs, managed accounts, app-based trading, and zero-commission trading” are just some of the offerings that have emerged, Gokey says. Gokey notes that Broadridge is also using technology to increase investor engagement and provide access to information about their holdings, which he sees as an important part of empowering individual investors. The company has enabled something called “pass-through voting,” which enables asset managers to give retail shareholders a say in how they vote on proxies, rather than having the investment manager simply cast a vote on their clients’ behalf. He believes some investors will seek out this kind of capability. “Maybe there are certain topics that you care about, and if it comes up, notify me [because] ‘I want to vote on that,’” he says. “I think that will be a whole area of exploration over the next few years.” --2A02:1210:682F:6200:F106:A38B:B5BD:B50 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to be annoying, but that's not really true. Per HR Dive, in the reporter's own words, "CEO Tim Gokey has been passionate about the sport since he rowed at the University of Oxford while a Rhodes scholar..."
    This is all original reporting from Chief Executive:
    "Fresh out of Princeton where he was a co-captain of the university’s sailing team, Tim Gokey went to Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship to study politics, philosophy and economics, while captaining his New College Oxford Boat Club to its most successful season in 40 years. How did he and his teammates do it, and what is the leadership lesson to apply from this situation? The answers are one and the same. Gokey, who is now the CEO of Broadridge Financial Solutions, practiced the highest form of servant leadership by removing himself from the boat and putting in a better rower..."
    And this from Finance Magnates is all independent reporting, under the section "Tim Gokey’s extensive career":
    "57-year-old Gokey joined Broadridge in 2010. He is a veteran in the financial industry with more than three decades' worth of experience. Initially, Gokey joined the team to lead the firm’s growth initiatives. In 2012, he received a promotion to Chief Operating Officer and in August of 2017, he became President. During his time with the company, Gokey has been responsible for the expansion of Broadridge’s potential through investments. According to the statement released by the company, this has helped position the firm as a global leader in Fintech. Before Broadridge, Gokey worked at H&R Block from 2004 until 2009. Here he was the president of the firm’s retail tax business. Prior to this, Gokey worked at McKinsey and Company from 1986 until 2004..."
    More 16:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Male TV Star

[edit]
Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Male TV Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been tagged since 2011. Although numerous edits have been made, none have added citations. Recommend merging with larger article on Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards Variety312 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Durusau

[edit]
Patrick Durusau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

While certainly accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that he meets WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eigen

[edit]
Michael Eigen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Of 11 refs, almost all are from his own works; one is an interview with him, one is an entry from Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide. He has written 45 books. It is not easy to find reviews other than publisher abstracts or Goodreads blurbs or equivalent; one of his better-known ones (caveat: I am not knowledgeable about this) appears to be Toxic Nourishment, and a 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His main works are Psychotic Core and Psychoanalytic Mystic.
I disagree strongly with him not being notable. Eigen is a major figure, and the fact that, e.g., Routledge published an introduction to his work (which is rare for a living person) testifies to that fact: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003002871/michael-eigen-loray-daws
His works are widely cited, as a search on Google Scholar indicates, with many of his papers and books having several hundred citations (which is significant for an individual). So disagreed w/r/t notability of Eigen.
However, I think you are rightfully calling attention to --- if implicitly --- to another issue: The page on Eigen has an insufficient number of external sources. Purely based on a cursory reading of this page one will likely --- and thus correctly --- come to the conclusion that Eigen is an isolated figure. In actuality, he is an important member of the psychoanalytic community, and he teaches worldwide (as his Seoul seminars indicate).
The article does not reflect that, however, and I am grateful for you bringing this to my/psy-community's attention. Once I have more time, I will try and add some external sources and appraisals.
But I strongly object to a deletion, Eigen is important, and the literature reflects that clearly. Honigfrau (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wig wag (washing machines)

[edit]
Wig wag (washing machines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a nearly 20 year old article, but it's remained basically completely unsourced. There's no content to demonstrate that this mechanism is independently notable. Performing a search only results in links to repair forums and product listings, not encyclopedic coverage. MidnightMayhem 23:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Waheed

[edit]
Adam Waheed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO and no reliable references provided/avaialble. Only here for promotional purpose. Agent 007 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Pantheist Society

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Universal Pantheist Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

I thought that this could be cleaned up, and I thought that I had found an actual source on the subject, an encyclopaedia article on this very thing — only for my hopes to be dashed when I checked the article author Harold Wood Jr in the author listing of ISBN 9781441122780 and found that xe is the founder of this organization.

The one real claim to sourcing in the prior AFD discussion was that Special:Permalink/153980923#External links means that the article "is referenced". It was not. It is not. The article itself pointed and points solely to the organization's own WWW site and what used to be the personal WWW site of one of its directors. On the organization's own WWW site is 17:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big (gamer)

[edit]
Big (gamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable sources; given sources are routine coverage and in most he is mentioned only briefly or in passing. No significant achievements in tier-one leagues or tournaments during his career. Yue🌙 22:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Sinai South Nassau

[edit]
Mount Sinai South Nassau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing indicating this hospital is notable. This article has not been improved since it was created nearly a decade ago. The corporation fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. An alternative would be to have it redirected to its parent corporation, Mount Sinai Health System. Aneirinn (talk)

Oppose. Firstly, NCORP is the wrong criteria for physical structures like hospitals. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE, because a quick search shows clearly that the hospital has significant third party news coverage 17:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hospitals in the United States are corporations, this is a well known fact. This one particularly is a nonprofit corporation, so WP:NCORP, which applies to corporations and organizations, does apply. The WP:DOGBITESMAN routine coverage and press release that is mentioned above from your "quick search" does not do anything to contribute to its notability. Per WP:NOTADVERTISING, " Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." The nomination has been changed to reflect the possible alternative to deletion. Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is an article about the company the runs it, or is it about the facility? Northern of those are "dog bites man" unless you think every news story that's not a national headline is such (and they're not, by longstanding consensus that local news contributes to notability). oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, it is commonplace for hospitals to operate as their own entities, for tax purposes. Aneirinn (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address my question. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge >>>Mount Sinai Health System (location, history, size). Djflem (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hanashi Media

[edit]
Hanashi Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find evidence that this publishing company meets WP:NORG. The mentions it gets in news coverage all appear to be WP:ROUTINE announcements along the lines of "Hanashi Media is publishing X thing". There seems to be only one plausibly significant coverage, 19:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough sources to establish notability. 4 articles from Anime News Network, count only one time towards notability.Darkm777 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe0nHead

[edit]
Shoe0nHead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. She has received some brief mentions due to her roles in promoting conspiracy theories about Balenciaga[20] and tweeting about online influencer dramas, but has not been relevant enough to get multiple sources providing her WP:SIGCOV. Maybe this page could be merged to Balenciaga#Child advertising controversy.

  • [23] Very brief mentions of the subject, little to no original commentary about Lapine herself.
  • [24] Only one paragraph worth of original commentary about Lapine.
  • [25] No original commentary about Lapine, the article only describes her opinions about someone else
  • [26] Unreliable, apparent content-mill source. It presents no meaningful original commentary on Lapine, beyond a single sentence introduction of who she is.
  • 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent Singapore source (which is unrelated to The Independent), besides paraphrasing her opinions, does also paraphrases the opinion of another youtuber about her. Technically, that is some form of third party commentary, but it is not reliable (WP:NOTRS directly talks about sources that heavily rely on unreliable opinions). Badbluebus (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the article can be moved to the draft namespace and get cleaned up? I'm not incredibly familiar with that process but given that the article is about a public figure who some may consider significant, it may make more sense than completely deleting it. In my opinion, it makes the most sense to convert the article into a stub and remove the unreliable sources. Azeelea (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should remove Vaush, Kyle Kulinski, and others’ pages too, then. 205.178.91.134 (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Badbluebus (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She seems to have notability even if the sourcing of the article is terrible. Agree with Azeelea that the unreliable sources should be removed. /Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 19:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any sources, or any WP:N policy or guideline, to establish that this subject is notable? In my BEFORE, the sources not in the article also lacked WP:SIGCOV 02:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur with Lollipoplollipoplollipop, the sourcing ain't good but the solution should be to fix the article, preferably without moving to draft. Flimbone08 ; talk 21:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Editors arguing to Keep haven't provided any additional reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Moses

[edit]
Marsha Moses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has requested the page be deleted. Jesswade88 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally re-listed as the original nom didn't make it to the AfD log. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Davis

[edit]
Hayden Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, apart from being a massive WP:BLPCRIME violation, doesn't meet WP:CRIMINAL. A merge is not appropriate per BLPCRIME. This guy was not high profile before the ongoing scandal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Media attention: he's only received any because of the scandal. Using that media attention to establish that an individual is high profile would undermine WP:BLPCRIME because that implies that any person publicly accused of a crime that receives media coverage would be per se high profile.
  • Promotional activity: I haven't seen any evidence of that. Indeed, TheStreet piece cited in the article states: "It's a pretty staggering climb to notoriety for Davis, the CEO of Kelsier Ventures who was a relatively unheard of Liberty University graduate in crypto media circles before his LIBRA token attracted so much attention that he had to start making the rounds in damage control interviews."
  • Appearances and performances: again, I haven't seen evidence of appearances other than what TheStreet called "damage control interviews".
  • Eminence: obviously not.
  • Behavior pattern and activity level: this factor basically requires that the subject meet BLP1E, which Davis does not.
voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the last two messages to the talk page. Hope it's ok to continue there since it's not really about deleting the standalone article. Giannini Goldman (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the discussion here. Merging is an ATD that can come out of an AfD. RE Special:Diff/1282188829: I don't think there's a contradiction. Media attention needs to be related to someone doing notable things; BLP1E and BLPCRIME make clear that committing a run-of-the-mill crime (in this case, allegedly some sort of fraud) isn't enough. Otherwise, every subway pusher in NYC would be high profile because they'll have been covered by the NY Post, Daily News, 1010 WINS, channel 11, Newsweek, the NY Times, etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I'm a bit biased considering I wrote the article. I see plenty of arguments to merge the article to the $Libra cryptocurrency scandal, which is unfortunate for me, but I agree with Giannini Goldman in one regard: there's plenty of RS & good info within those sources to create a potential LeBaron family page & list him there as well. (Redacted) If he is not independently notable now, I am very confident that this article will be restored in due time. I'm willing to accept if this assessment is incorrect, but in my opinion, his activities & resulting controversy with multiple governments (American & Argentine) felt notable. A majority of the information on this page should exist on Wikipedia in some regard, especially considering Davis/Kelsier's role in multiple variations of the same scheme, considering the publications reporting on this. 30Four (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, now that we have a strong Keep, I see no consensus. Ordinarily, I'd close this as a Merge but the nominator has strong objections to that outcome. How about the Redirect option? Does that cross a line for editors sensitive to coverage of low profile indidividuals?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Bao

[edit]
Damian Bao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

Casting directors are rarely ever notable. He has one producer credit and one associate producer credit, no significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER criteria. Mooonswimmer 10:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casting directors are becoming more notable. Last year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced the creation of an Achievement in Casting Oscars, which will be awarded at the 98th Academy Awards for films released in 2025. Damian Bao has more credits listed on his IMDB. I added more references from respectable sources like Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, Paper Magazine, WWD. He was interviewed by Hollywood Reporter for his unique casting work in the film Port Authority, in which the casting made history for trans and queer representation. Other casting directors on Wikipedia have only their IMDB listed as reference. For Damian, you can find articles about him or mentions from actors and other filmmakers crediting him. Bluepaperboi (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Casting directors can be notable, but they still need to have significant coverage, awards, widespread recognition as pioneers, or extensive credits. An interview or two isn't enough, even in Hollywood Reporter. Mooonswimmer 13:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Diar

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nicole Diar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. Previous AfD from 2014 only considered mentions in news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is written just, disastrously, but there are some non-news sources. It may however need to be "eventified" or shifted scope. not sure, because the notability seems to be mixed between the crime, her conviction, and elements of her as a person which is why this case is notable, so I think it may be the best choice to write it as a biography. However I would not object to someone nuking most of this page because we should not be using FindLaw on a BLP!!
There are several pages of discussion on her using her as a case study in the academic book 23:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some in this law book as well 23:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I removed everything cited to FindLaw. I think the sourcing above is enough, so I'd vote keep. I would advise it not be moved because with given how this is covered (an immense focus on her personal life leading up to her actions and guilt) this makes the most sense and we have latitude on how to structure articles. There is a lot of newspaper coverage as well which is less important for showing notability but helps flesh it out PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breech clout

[edit]
Breech clout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This page only contains information on the word's usage, with only a brief description of what it is. loserhead 14:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Deleting entries is like burning books. If information is factual and non-offensive why delete it?
I was curious about the item and went to some trouble to research it. It's not an opinion and fully referenced. There will no doubt be other curious people who will be glad for the entry and the links.
Two similar items Loincloth and G-string have entries. What's the difference?
If you go around deleting stuff people won't bother to add entries to improve wikipedia. Robw49 (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robw49 If information is factual and non-offensive why delete it?
I'm not requesting deletion because it isn't factual and non-offensive, because it is. I'm requesting deletion because it's unencyclopedic. It's good information, and well sourced, but the only information given is that "Breech clout" is an English name given to a garment, an early description of the garment, old records of the word's use, and that breech meant backside and clout meant cloth in the 18th century. The article would be better (and more suitable for Wikipedia) if it gave information on how the garment itself was used, and it's history, not just the word. Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Two similar items Loincloth and G-string have entries. What's the difference?
The difference (specifically with Loincloth) is that it focuses much more on it's history and their use in culture, not just the word "Loincloth".
I think that the article should either be deleted or merged into Loincloth because they are close enough to the same thing that it should just be one article. loserhead (contribs) 13:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Loincloth, as it was before this edit because breech clout fails WP:GNG. This article fails the General Notability Guideline because the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Specifically, secondary sources have not addressed the topic directly and in detail and the coverage in the sources referenced are not more than a trivial mention. The Loincloth article is the appropriate redirect target because it mentions the topic of this AfD in the first paragraph: "Loincloths which are held up by belts or strings are specifically known as breechcloth or breechclout." - tucoxn\talk 17:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debby Kerner & Ernie Rettino

[edit]
Debby Kerner & Ernie Rettino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

This is unreferenced, sole footnote is broken. Not seeing how this duo meets WP:NBIO. There is a chance they meet NBIO individually (for example, Ernie Rettino had a Grammy nom? 08:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor on talk pointed out to some coverage in 01:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably should be deleted now, but can anyone comment on point raised by User:Piotrus?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.J. Whelihan's

[edit]
P.J. Whelihan's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

An ip user put this up for AfD, I am just relisting it for them. The same user also put an AfD on P.J.W. Restaurant Group. I think any information in this page can be on the other page instead. I haven't decided if that one should be deleted yet or not though. Doing the searches I just saw the bog standard promotional news of "new restaurant opening" etc. Moritoriko (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 27 March 2025 (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 no consensus‎. I see a clear shift towards Keep once RebeccaGreen's sources were introduced. I'm not comfortable discarding the earlier, valid Delete views, but there's clearly no longer consensus to delete the article, landing us at the No-consensus outcome. Please do not renominate for at least three months, by which point hopefully there will be no need to do so. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay detainee uniforms

[edit]
Guantanamo Bay detainee uniforms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

Another piece of Guantanamo cruft. Fails WP:GNG, as these are just prison uniforms at a notable prison. We don't have an article about ADX Florence uniforms. There's no WP:SIGCOV on the prison uniforms themselves to establish notability. Only WP:PASSING. And the article is a collection of WP:SYNTH. WP:ARTICLEAGE or WP:HARMLESS are not valid arguments for notability and thus keeping. Longhornsg (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sentence explaining the "compliant" and "non-compliant" uniforms is about all you need to know, the rest appears to be fluff and many photos. I really don't even see the point of a merge, prisoners wear uniforms in prison. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly creepy 'trivia' that is of no importance to any average reader, even for someone who regularly studies incarceration. Nathannah • 📮 23:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have edited the article and started adding more sources and info. Many of the arguments presented so far seem to fit WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and/or WP:ITSCRUFT. However, this topic is the subject of a chapter in a book published by Indiana University Press, 4-5 pages in a book published by Bloomsbury Publishing, and an article in The Washington Post, in addition to less substantial coverage in other articles. For other topics, I believe this would be considered WP:SIGCOV. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give participants an opportunity to review RebeccaGreen's added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:40, 20 March 2025 (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.

Jeffrey Gitomer

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jeffrey Gitomer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: scholar · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure if he is notable. Most of sources seem to be either primary or only tangentially related to him. I am unsure whether he meets WP:CREATIVE; points 3 and 4 are relevant. I am not sure if the attention he got was critical and whether his work has been covered in enough periodical articles. (I see 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see plenty of good sources. I remember the incident that lead to his being banned from the airline, so BLP1E doesn't apply. There are issues with the article, but they can be resolved through ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearian: Do you think he meets points 3 or 4 of WP:CREATIVE? I did not express that well, but WP:CREATIVE was intended to be the main point of my nom. I am willing to withdraw this nom if there is a convincing argument that he does. Janhrach (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that he meets factor #3 as having written several related books. Bearian (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but it also says that:

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);

I don't see multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, but I haven't really done a thorough search. Like I have written, I have found 12:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (may return with !vote) This is a typical promotional article for someone whose main skill is promoting. He writes those books a friend of mine calls "business porn": which promise great wealth not unlike that of megachurch leaders. I removed some irrelevant promotional statements, but there are undoubtedly more. I am not sure that the speaking awards (e.g. "Certified Speaking Professional (CSP) Award") are of value because the organization appears to be a speakers' bureau. Two of the book awards (IPPY) are indeed awards but he is among other winners, in one case one of 66. A fairly snide article in Time magazine was used for one "cute" quote but ignored 4 paragraphs of negative review of his work. (I fixed some of that.) The reviews by Jack Covert seem to be in a personal blog, albeit a pretty ambitious one. His books have sold many copies, and I can see some presence in library collections. I confess that I have little regard for this category of output, along with all of the self-help books. I just thought I should be honest about my prejudice. Lamona (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/United_States_of_America&oldid=1282576113"

Follow Lee on X/Twitter - Father, Husband, Serial builder creating AI, crypto, games & web tools. We are friends :) AI Will Come To Life!

Check out: eBank.nz (Art Generator) | Netwrck.com (AI Tools) | Text-Generator.io (AI API) | BitBank.nz (Crypto AI) | ReadingTime (Kids Reading) | RewordGame | BigMultiplayerChess | WebFiddle | How.nz | Helix AI Assistant