Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

Note: This is a high level category for deletion sorting. Whenever possible, it is recommended for deletion discussions to be added to more specific categories, such as a state and/or relevant subject area. Please review the list of available deletion categories, and see this page's guidelines below for more information.

Page guidelines: This United States of America deletion sorting page may be used for the following types of articles:

AfD discussions about people, organizations, companies and other entities that are known for activity or have a presence on a national level in the United States can be listed on this page.
Topics and subjects that are U.S.-based, whereby the article does not provide a specific state of origin or where activity occurs.
Media such as films, television shows and books that have national distribution in the United States.
Products that have national distribution and a significant presence in the United States.
Multinational companies that have a significant presence in the United States, whereby the article does not provide specific state(s) of location.

Dear reader/writer of this WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America. The present page was above the template_include_limit. As a result, the bottom of the page was not displayed correctly. For this reason, the transclusion of the deletions sorted by US states has been moved to WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/sorted by State.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to United States of America. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|United States of America|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to United States of America. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

General

The Kristin Brooks Hope Center

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

Can't find SIGCOV Jay Cubby 17:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Psychology. Jay Cubby 17:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to Bearian @Bearian, who preferred I nominate this for deletion after Christmas, though I'm quite sure why prodding or XfDing a suicide crisis center on the holidays would be as controversial as he describes. Jay Cubby 17:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Self harm peaks in December and early January. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it's after Christmas and early January. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some coverage and folks can discuss if that's significant or not. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man's World (periodical)

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

Don't think it passes WP:GNG, only a casual mention in one independent secondary source (The Guardian), can't really find any additional secondary sources via Google search Reflord (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to its publisher Jonathan Keeperman (well, he owns the publisher) since the only good source used is about him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Country Demos (Bret Michaels album)

AfDs for this article:

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

AFD in 2008 resulted in a WP:SNOW redirect. Article has now been recreated as a refbombed coatrack for Bret Michaels biography. The EP is still non-notable; none of the sources demonstrate significant reliable source coverage. Restore redirect to Bret Michaels discography#Extended plays. Jfire (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Jfire (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massive WP:BOMBARD/WP:REFBOMB situation. I'm not seeing what sources are actually supposed to be helping it pass the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De-Trumpification

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

Super POVy and synthy. Lumps together a bunch of disparate ideas, and is basically just an excuse to compare Trump to the Nazis. Of the six sources cited, five fail as WP:NEWSOPED Golikom (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2025 (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/2025 January 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-established term, has had a Wiktionary entry for nearly a decade as well. --Tataral (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term itself fails WP:NOTDICT, and the underlying concept, i.e. the proposed process of addressing, mitigating and dismantling the political, social, and cultural influences associated with Trumpism, is vague and mostly hypothetical. As explained by the nominator, various sources use "de-Trumpification" to refer to different ideas, such as rolling back Trump's policies, investigating Trump and his associates, and removing Trumpism from society and the government. The broadest definition of "de-Trumpification" is only used in thinkpieces, which we should not base an article on as they are not reliable sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The article in its present state is just a collection of quotes that use the term, though it seems there's likely more to be written about the concept. – MW_(t•c) 22:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be acceptable. The article was recently created and is still being developed. --Tataral (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Mallorca

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The article only cites one news source. Apart from that, the only sources I can find are from the DEA's own website. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Police. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not looking everywhere that you can. The World Wide Web is not the whole world. There's a paragraph on this that is more detailed than this article, that can be used to expand it, at USDEA 2008, p. 180 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUSDEA2008 (help); and also coverage in the entry at Kleiman & Hawdon 2011, p. 764 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKleimanHawdon2011 (help). At worst this is a merger to some larger article about USDEA anti-money-laundering operations, as at least one other source lumps it in with the likes of Money Trail Initiative, Operation Cali Exchange, and Operation Plata Sucia, showing that being part of a larger subject is how the world knows it. Uncle G (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Kleiman, Mark A. R.; Hawdon, James E., eds. (2011). "Tandy, Karen". Encyclopedia of Drug Policy. Vol. 1. SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781412976961.n336. ISBN 9781412976954.
- United States Drug Enforcement Administration (2008). Drug Enforcement Administration: A Tradition of Excellence, 1973-2008. United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
Delete: Fails WP:NEVENT since it lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage. It made the rounds as part of the regular news cycle in June [1], and there's a tiny paragraph a few months earlier [2]. but not much else. If the only significant coverage afterwards is a paragraph in the USDEA's own publication, that's not enough for NEVENT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colombia and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lake George (film)

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

Not to be confused with the 2024 film with the same name, this does not meet notability (WP:GNG or WP:NFILM). Due to the timing/editing here and at the related Hamid Castro and its AfD, seems like this could be promotional or undeclared COI. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, United States of America, and New York. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until release. And then see. -Mushy Yank. 19:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until notability can be established. There's just nothing out there that can establish how this film passes NFF or even really give off the impression that more coverage will come about after it releases later this week. It's entirely possible that it might, but it's also entirely possible that it won't. Indie films are particularly prone to getting overlooked by media outlets when it comes to coverage from independent, secondary reliable sources. I'll try and come back later this week and see if there are any reviews, but just based on current coverage I don't see where this passes NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the other film passes NFILM and doesn't currently have an article, so I'm going to create one for it. I'm going to give it a bit of a disambiguation (probably Lake George (2024 film)) but after this is closed I recommend moving that one to this title. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until release, then notability can be decided. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Article creator and another editor that made a small addition have been blocked for sockpuppetry, though the article is ineligible for speedy deletion G5. Wikishovel (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Official portrait of General Mark A. Milley

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

Coverage not WP:SUSTAINED, coverage is WP:ROUTINE, and exemplifies WP:TDS (Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article). Not independently notable and could serve as a footnote or two lines on any given Donald Trump article. Literally, the content is "the US government put up a portrait of a general, and then right after Trump took office, it was removed". WP:NOTNEWS. Barnt Toust 02:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-publicized artwork and political incident with significant media coverage and public interest. --Tataral (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So maybe your topic is relevant, but that doesn't mean it deserves its own separate article. It may well be best served as a short paragraph in an existing article – Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Barnt Toust 03:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Strong Delete per ROUTINE, NOTNEWS, TDS – the page creator needs a thorough lesson in these tenets. I mean this is just ridiculous 🙄 YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a trout, master Yoda? I'll invite the next editor who sees fit to, to deliver to Tataral—the page creator—a good WHACK. Barnt Toust 03:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plain old strong delete, then. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A poorly thought-out article creation. The removal of a portrait, as politically-overtoned as it may be, does not grant notability to the portrait. Mention this in "Second Presidency of Donald Trump" or whatever the article name about that is. Not worthy of a standalone. Zaathras (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mark Milley#Second Trump administration where this is already covered sufficiently. This article unnecessarily stretches two sentences' worth of content into five paragraphs. As a second choice, just delete per nom with a strong dose of WP:TDS. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per BT. 2600:2B00:9639:F100:89DA:72DA:5ADF:68C8 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect info to Mark Milley as per Metropolitan90... only notable for how mark milley is being treated during second trump admin. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Military, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's just a portrait. That's it. It's just a portrait... Norbillian (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom RamHez (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This can easily be covered in Milley's own article. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golikom (talk • contribs) 2025-01-26T07:31:30 (UTC)
delete a blatant WP:COATRACK to make sure that every single petty thing Trump does gets an article publicizing it. a sentence in Milley's article can handle the matter perfectly fine, not to mention actually contextualizing this wrt the animosity between the two. Mangoe (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. There is nothing noteworthy or controversial about the portrait itself. Its only "claim to fame" is Trump's petty vindictiveness for having it removed from the Pentagon hallway where the portraits of all former chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are displayed, including having the wall painted over to hide the holes where the painting was affixed. It's mentioned in Mark Milley#Second Trump administration and in Second presidency of Donald Trump#Other actions. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 20:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mark Milley#Second Trump administration as an alternative to deletion, where it is already discussed. It's a valid subtopic and search time, so outright deletion is not optimal nor warranted by policy. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeside Holding

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All news articles about this company are routine announcements and press releases. Badbluebus (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, China, South Korea, United States of America, and Illinois. Badbluebus (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a normal routine for all companies because their updates called their news Beverlyhaley (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the company is registed in Nasdaq US stock exchange and notability reference url available in page, I think the deletion is not the solution of page improvment, kindly allowd company to improve their page with stability

secondly the {{Promotional}} and {{COI}} tags are removed by mistake due to i am not very professional in wikipedia editing and i am creating this page for my own company Beverlyhaley (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to discuss here one most important issue and that is paid services of wikipedia

Because you are not allow page owners to create their pages with your guide lines. Then they hire and pay for someone to the same work. I think for the solution of this issue you are requested to allow owners to improve their own pages without deletion Beverlyhaley (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have the mistaken idea that the article in question is "your page" or "the company's page". That is not correct (although it is a common error). The page is Wikipedia's article about the company. Neither you nor the company is the "page owner"; Wikipedia is the page owner. If the company does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there is no reason to have an article about it, regardless of what the company might like. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the correction of my words Beverlyhaley (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message is only for Administrator (Bearcat) (R'n'B) (GoingBatty) I also pointing out one thing that I notice during in creating my this page, Some accounts Editors (extended confirmed) and some just new accounts do this activity and mark every page for deletion and after that contact with page owners for page creation services. you are requested please check the same at your end, thanks Beverlyhaley (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and also possible one person handle all these accounts for this type activity (Bearcat) (R'n'B) (GoingBatty) Beverlyhaley (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beverlyhaley: I'm not an administrator. If you want to report an issue to administrators, feel free to post at WP:ANI. GoingBatty (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your guidance Beverlyhaley (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm extremely confused by why I was pinged above, as I've never had anything to do with this page, but I'm even more confused by what the editor is even trying to ask me for.
That said, the issue is that notability, for the purposes of qualifying for a Wikipedia article, is not established by the company's own self-published press releases about itself — it's established by media coverage about the company in sources independent of itself, such as newspapers, magazines or books. We're an encyclopedia, not a free advertising or public relations platform. We're not looking for simple evidence that the company exists — we're looking for evidence that the company has been the subject of third-party coverage and analysis in reliable sources, to establish that its corporate activities have been externally validated as newsworthy or historically significant by sources that didn't have a vested interest in promoting it. For example, Lenovo doesn't have an article because its own press releases verify that it exists, Lenovo has an article because its activities and operations have been written about by the media as news.
But this is referenced to press releases and directory entries, not GNG-worthy coverage or analysis about the company. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see WP:NCOMPANY being met. E_F⁵ 18:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator blocked for UPE. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and Wikipedia is not the place for a company to promote itself. Acceptable articles about companies are overwhelmingly written by volunteer editors, not paid editors. Cullen328 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make America Rock Again

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

Article about a concert tour, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NTOUR. As always, concert tours are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they happened, and have to have a significant volume and depth of reliable source coverage about them to establish notability "in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms", while "sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." (Both of those are direct quotes from NTOUR.)
But this is not showing any of the required type of content or sourcing: the article is clearly from the "this is a thing that happened" school of concert tour articles rather than the "adding any NTOUR-compliant context" school, and it's referenced to just six footnotes of which three are primary sources that cannot support notability (the tour organizers' own self-published website and a ticket sales platform), and the other three are just basic announcements that the tour was happening, with absolutely none of the detailed analysis of its creative, cultural or financial significance that NTOUR requires.
As always I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if somebody with more knowledge of contemporary hard rock and heavy metal than I've got can improve the article, but a concert tour needs a lot more than just simple verification that it happened. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's some basic announcements around it, but there's nothing there meets WP:NTOURS. It's a pretty run-of-the-mill tour by a bunch of bands well past their time in mainstream popularity, that caught a couple headlines because they aped a popular catchphrase at the time. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Utopes, Jax 0677, Tavix, and Schützenpanzer: Courtesy ping the participants of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Make America Rock Again to make them aware of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep article which has a sufficient number of references. Otherwise, redirect to either Scott Stapp or one of the other bands on the tour. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:VAGUEWAVE response. What sources help us add what content to satisfy WP:NTOURS? Simple tour announcements are not enough. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted above, it is not sufficient to merely show a small handful of sourcing to verify that a concert tour happened — making a concert tour notable enough for its own article requires showing a significant volume of analytical content contextualizing why the tour was important, such as showing evidence of creative, cultural or financial impact. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the only commentary I've seen, is in the article - that the tour was put together in hopes of rejuvenating the stagnant rock genre. As someone who reads/writes a lot about modern rock music - it didn't work. None of the artists involved found any particular commercial success in the years following (or to date) from this, nor was anything "inspired" or "rejuvenated" by this. They apparently scrounged up enough to warrant a second truncated iteration the following year, but that's it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scott Stapp, who's not only notable but was formerly of Creed, an infamous band. We have redirected concert tour articles often, although not every time. WP:DCOI: I confess that I liked one song he sang, and saw Creed in concert many years ago when I was young, innocent, and thin. See, I can separate my musical tastes from politics! Bearian (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michéal Castaldo

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michéal Castaldo (2nd nomination)

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

Refbombed promotion for non notable singer. Lack independent coverage in reliable sources, see talk page for an earlier discussion adding that 4meter4's three sources were in order a dead what's on announcement, a PR reproduction for an album release and a short feel good fluff. Nothing good for GNG. Claimed charting is not for him and not on the countries main chart. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Italy, Canada, and United States of America. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Belleville, Indiana

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

Possibly the second least reliable source used in GNIS updates would be state highway maps (NOAA charts are worse and fortunately very little-used). The spot in question is next to a now-abandoned PRR rail line west out of Cartersburg, and it may have been a rail spot, but tthere is just nothing there on any map. I can't image why the Indiana DOT felt the need to label an unimportant T intersection next to the tracks which appear to have just been taken up, but in any case I find no real testimony for this as a settlement. Baker seems to be just reading the name off the map as there was certainly nothing there when he wrote his work. Mangoe (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 00:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baker on page 244 says a "village" that is literally north of Belleville, Indiana, but gives no dates. The 1895 Lippincott's should have this on page 2009 with the other "North Something"s, but does not. It has Belleville proper on page 620, also giving the name of the railroad that it was on. There's no North Belleville anywhere in the Arcadia Publishing books on Plainfield (ISBN 9780738594484) and Hendricks County (ISBN 9780738598970).
Looking backwards in time, however, the Indiana State Gazetteer and Shippers' Guide for 1866–67 has North Belleville "on the Terra Haute & Indianapolis rail-road, 1 mile north of Belleville" but does not say what it was. The 1854 Baldwin and Thomas A New and Complete Gazetteer of the United States has North Belleville on page 831 and says that it was a "village" located "19 miles W. by S. from Indianapolis". So Baker and the contemporary mid-century gazetteers agree that this was a village on the railroad. It's in a 1856 Lippincott's as well, but has dropped out of Lippincott's by the end of the 19th century, whereas Belleville has remained listed, despite the implication of Baker and our Belleville, Indiana article that North Belleville was where the railroad was re-routed to.
There definitely was a village there, and it was definitely on one railroad. The gazetteers confirm it; but they give almost no detail, not even the usual listing of some buildings, and the histories (I also checked Hadley's 1914 History of Hendricks County, Indiana.) are mute on it entirely.
Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a social para in a newspaper from 1915 (The Reporter-Times, Martinsville, Indiana) [3] that says a family called Garshwiler were moving to their new home in North Belleville. Before that date, there are reports that a station was opened there in 1890 [4] (if that's the same North Belleville - it doesn't help that there were also places of that name in other states!); a man died there in 1881 [5]; someone was injured trying to jump onto a train at North Belleville in 1886 [6]; and someone was killed there in 1896 while riding on top of a night express train that went under a bridge [7] (those 3 are pretty definitely the Indiana North Belleville). So it sounds like it had homes, a station and a bridge over the railway line. Not much help, sorry! RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk's arm gesture

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Musk has been in many controversies of similar nature recently, e.g. the whole Alternative für Deutschland situation. I don’t think this one specifically warrants its own article when it’s already covered in both in Elon Musk as well as Nazi salute appropriately. There also doesn’t seem to be a dedicated article on the man’s controversies or even, surprisingly, political views, which would probably be a better starting point. Mystic Cornball (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this gesture has received enormous attention from traditional media and non-profit organizations. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's been the only thing in the news for days, and has caused a rather large social media storm against Twitter/X and Musk himself. It's large enough to warrant its own article, I think. Korkon1 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has received a great deal of media focus and attention from respected news sources such as the BBC. The article could be better, but this incidence of is of political significance and definitely warrants an article. Pax Brittanica (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's received a lot of media focus and definitely warrants its own page. 168.212.64.194 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HARD Keep: this event clearly passes WP:GNG. Furthermore, this event will clearly be WP:LASTING and must have its own article. Incalculable sources, academics, diplomats, NGOs have denounced his act. This is the worst dog whistle to ever exist and I am calling a spade, a spade. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 22:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, international media coverage from respected news sources. Skyerise (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Second inauguration of Donald Trump This happened within the last week and maybe there will be continuing coverage, but I feel it makes more sense merged into (probably) a general article about the inauguration events. And the article is large mostly because people in WP can't write short, not because every single reaction made to his acting out has to be included. We need to take WP:NOTNEWS more seriously and not write articles on every single Trump or associate acting out. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: It was until recently included in Views of Elon Musk but removed on the argument that it is not a 'view' - but I question that as it does support views which are outlined in a section of that article. Skyerise (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, that was me. Please take this to the talkpage discussion as this has nothing to do with this AfD. CNC (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration I'm committing to a merge. THis discussion has already lasted longer than the interest in his gesture. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Within the last 24hours: [8] [9] [10] 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this event had happened outside of the Trump inauguration it would likely have had the same coverage, because the reason for the coverage was not related to the inauguration or Trump. There are over 50 given sources which talk about the incident exclusively, and it is continuing to be covered by both media and commentators and politicians. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Second inauguration of Donald Trump and to Elon Musk Is WP:NOTNEWS dead? We don't need articles for every single viral controversy involving Elon Musk. There's no evidence that this coverage will be WP:SUSTAINED/WP:LASTING, a core requirement to being considered notable. Short-term high-volume of coverage does not count towards the notability of events. Plenty of things Elon Musk have said/done have gotten significant news coverage (like his proposal to rename this website "Dickipedia") that nobody thinks deserve articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His proposal to name this website is covered in Views of Elon Musk, which does not currently mention this incident. (Per that talk page, the "salute" was not a view but "a thing that happened"). There is Political activities of Elon Musk, which could arguably contain this. Dflovett (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS says "In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." and this doesn't meet any of the five criteria it gives fo something not being meritous. You're arguing the opposite of NOTNEWS (maybe we should change the name? It seems to confuse a lot of people who never actually follow the link, they think it means don't cover the news). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, although the Elon Musk article already has a good section on the gesture, so instead of being merged there it should be merged into the Second inauguration of Donald Trump article. ItsMeKvman (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP — highly significant political incident, which will continue to enact further influence on discourse, evidently sustained (protest display in Germany, excess press coverage, websites suspending X, commentary by world leaders). It will be a highlight of the ongoing Trump administration, as worthy if not more than occurrences such as the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph, the Dean Scream or the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident. Hauntbug (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are relevant because of sustained relevance and impact on their respective political campaigns. For example, Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph was created in April 2015, way after the photos were initially published. We don't know whether the arm gesture incident will be still relevant a few weeks or even months from now; if it is and e.g. Musk separates from the Trump administration in the coming weeks due to his continous erratic behaviour with commentators arguing this incident played a role, I don't see an issue with an own article. As it is, I don't see how this would have more long-term impact than e.g. Musk's attempts at political interference in the UK and Germany over the past few weeks. Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This "gesture" has been major news for multiple consecutive days and is not only clearly notable but perhaps the most notable event in American politics in 2025 so far (barring the inauguration) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuttlebug Jam (talk • contribs) 23:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not convinced WP:NOTNEWS applies here (it doesn't purely appear to be original reporting, news reports, who's who, celebrity gossip, diaries, or uptime tracking). Yes, it is recent and has been widely covered in the news, but recent events can certainly be notable and have articles per WP:LASTING and WP:RECENT.Wikipedialuva (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important event, has received coverage beyond just news in mainstream sources. The Donald Trump hot mic incident has an article – it is of a similar, WP:LASTING nature. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 23:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Important event, has a ton of coverage, also per above replies. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 00:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete there is no good reason to have a stand alone page for this. Supposedly this is important or lasting yet the article provides no evidence of any importance or lasting impact, just a bunch of reactions. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Second inauguration of Donald Trump as a second choice option. Given the sheer volume of coverage and responses this seems notable and likely to remain so, however I am sympathetic to the idea that we could be covering this as a sub-topic of the inauguration and not as a stand alone. We wouldn't currently have a length issue with that, but I worry that at some point we would so its just kicking the can down the road. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep. To say this is notable feels like an understatement. HalfHazard98 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally, it's all I've seen on social media for days. More factually, it's received widespread coverage not only in the US but also internationally (BBC, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, etc). I think the wealthiest man in the world giving the world's most offensive gesture at a presidential rally deserves an article. HalfHazard98 (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It's unlikely that this will have lasting notability. If it turns out that sources still regularly mention it in six or twelve months, we can restore the article.
The content could easily be condensed to three or four paragraphs without losing any relevant information. That's how it's done in the German and French Wikipedias.
Some other large Wikipedia editions don't mention the incident at all, e.g. pl:Elon Musk, it:Elon Musk, es:Elon Musk, which may indicate that internationally it's not as notable as some editors believe.
(I guess some Wikipedia users are currently shocked by Musk's gesture and want to express their disdain. I sympathize with such intentions, but that's not what Wikipedia is for.) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would almost be inclined to agree, but there have been articles made for notable flavor-of-the-month topics that were kept, even though their long-term notability at the time seemed questionable. (Example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Smith assault of Chris Rock at the Oscars). I would simply counter that what I think Wikipedia is for is to be as informative as possible to as many people that need the information as possible. Many people will be looking for the information now when it's most relevant, as well as likely six to twelve months from now. HalfHazard98 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per Hemiauchenia and Chrisahn. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Seems unlikely to have any lasting notability. The whole article is based on speculation.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with many of the other points, but I want to add that right now there are expanding sections in Elon Musk, Views of Elon Musk and Nazi salute all about this incident. If this incident gets its own page, it can cut down on all the inevitable expansions on those articles and give an article of focus for this major world news story that is probably not ending any time soon. My suggestion is that the title should be changed to something like "Elon Musk arm gesture incident" or "Elon Musk gesture or salute incident". I think the above-mentioned "Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident" is an astute corollary to this, as mentioned by HalfHazard98. The article List of -gate scandals and controversies also gives insight to the many other situations like this that have spawned their own articles. Dflovett (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:TRUMPHATE. We already have too many articles covering the minutia of these clowns. We dont need more. Cover it as a single para in one of the two proposed articles above.--v/r - T P 02:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this is a discussion, let’s keep in mind that the topic is a BLP. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: this event in it's own doesn't pass WP:LASTING, I think it should be preserved and merged (or changed) into a larger article on his alleged fascism. This is one in a series of controversies, not a unique event. Crelb (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Even if this has a WP:LASTING effect and doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS (which I am sceptical of, per Hemiauchenia and others), it's better covered in its wider context as part of a larger article rather than as an isolated event. This would not be notable at all if it weren't for the wider series of statements and actions described in Elon Musk and Views of Elon Musk. If we had an article for every time Musk/Trump/etc did a thing and everyone in the world commented on it, we'd be creating dozens of these articles that are 90% just "Reactions" by volume every week. MCE89 (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The act has received a tremendous amount of press coverage and garnered impactful responses from various political agents and groups. QRep2020 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (like, HARD Keep) for reasons listed by others above, especially User:HalfHazard98 and User:Dflovett. A VERY notable international historical event, with VERY significant coverage from a plethora of reliable sources. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is enough coverage of this nonsense in the main article for Elon Musk. He says his heart goes out to you, touches his heart, throws his heart out towards the crowd. Biased news media try to make it sound like something else happened, for political and economic reasons, does not make it significant enough to have its own article. Dream Focus 03:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus reveals their bias by calling it nonsense. One could claim it is recency bias; one could claim that it will be seen as unimportant years from now, but one can't seriously claim that it's nonsense. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense"? That definitely implies a biased view about the topic at hand that would incentivize someone to want to delete this article. Even if you don't think it was a Nazi salute, this moment has immense coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User Anomalocaris, User Paintspot Infez, please remember WP:GOODFAITH and do not malign User Dream Focus as 'biased' in your hearts. Calling this whole affair 'nonsense' does not reveal User Dream Focus' bias: this affair is complete nonsense, as so much of politics is. It is trivial to find images of countless political figures (Obama, for example), raising their arms with their palms down. It's just one of those orientations that the human forelimb tends to pass through, especially if one spends countless hours speaking to and waving at crowds. Much of the coverage of this event (reliable and otherwise), largely boils down to Godwin's law.

... However, with all of that said, I must ultimately disagree with User Dream Focus about the correct course of action, and register my opinion that we should Keep this article. The fact that this 'Roman salute' business is nonsense (and it is, undoubtedly, nonsense of the silliest kind), does not mean that it is not significant. The massive number of RS already accumulated on the page, and the oodles more that can be found by searching about it on the internet right now, show that tons of people really care about this event (silly though it may be). There's no doubt that we should have a Wikipedia article about it: obviously plenty of Wikipedia editors regard it as sufficiently encyclopedic, and there are so many RS about the event, it's a keeper. (P.S., love the name Anomalocaris) Joe (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do assume good faith. But words have meanings. Wikipedia's article Nonsense begins, "Nonsense is a form of communication, via speech, writing, or any other symbolic system, that lacks any coherent meaning. In ordinary usage, nonsense is sometimes synonymous with absurdity or the ridiculous." The article under discussion is written in ordinary English and has coherent meaning. One might argue that it is absurd or ridiculous that Mr. Musk's gesture has received all the attention it has received. But it has received this attention. The original event really happened. The attention really happened. Whatever it is, it isn't nonsense, and anyone who calls it nonsense is exhibiting either bias or a misunderstanding of the difference between nonsense and silliness. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out it disingenuous to cite other politicians (particularly those who had no ties whatsoever to the far right or neo-Nazism) and dismiss all this as nonsense (it really was nonsense in the Obama case). I am not referring only to you or to you in particular, it is a common argument I have read. This Italian article explains it well:

"Given that the four politicians [Obama, Clinton, Warren, and Harris] do not appear to have ties to the far right, American or foreign, it is difficult to link them to Nazism due to the decontextualized frames, a ploy usually used by Russian propaganda disinformation against Ukraine. ... None of the incidents cited in this article involve an obvious Nazi salute. The scenes involve greetings to the public, with the left hand, or moments in which American politicians gestured with their hands while speaking at rallies."

In other words, it is harder to use such a defense if one actually has ties to the far-right, and I do not think all this should be dismissed as nonsense on par with other politicians with no ties to the far-right who did not in fact make the Nazi salute. It is also ironic to cite Godwin's law when Godwin himself said it was justified to do so in regards to the 2017 Charlottesville rally and later in 2023 that it was okay to compare Trump to Hitler, and thus perhaps he may also argue it is okay (and not nonsense) to describe Musk's salute a Nazi salute, even though Musk is not a neo-Nazi himself or if he did not really mean it; the fact he has ties to the far-right means it cannot be dismissed as nonsense. In my view, there should be a clear demarcation line between the two. It would be justified to call them nonsense only for the aforementioned examples of politicians with no far-right ties who were just gesticulating too much.

Again, that is not say this was or was not a Nazi salute, but it is a false balance to compare Obama and other politicians (with no far-right ties) to Musk and those who have far-right ties. I am writing to you this because, apart from that, your reasoning and logic in the rest of your comment was spot on for "Keep". :-) I prefer calling it "Fascist" (or "Nazi" when done in the manner Musk did) rather than "Roman" because, even though it may be the common name, "no Roman text describes such a gesture, and the Roman works of art that display salutational gestures bear little resemblance to the modern 'Roman' salute". Most Italian sources were quick to point this out in their article about the controversy. Davide King (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS at its finest. A single gaffe does not automatically deserve a page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dean scream would beg to differ. As would Covfefe and We begin bombing in five minutes. Dflovett (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can also add Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident AlanGiulio (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Key word "automatically". This just happened, and shows little sign of long term significance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the incident only happened days ago, how could you possibly know that it doesn't have long-term significance? Cortador (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can WP:NOTNEWS at its finest result in a deletion argument? NOTNEWS clearly supports keep (as it does at almost any deletion discussion, if you're using NOTNEWS to argue for deleting a current news item you're using it wrong). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This. The widespread misunderstanding of WP:NOTNEWS as "news stories can't have articles" has always been one of my biggest pet-peeves with AfD discussions. It's exceedingly rare that NOTNEWS is actually applicable as a reason to !vote delete, but depressingly common to see NOTNEWS invoked in ways that suggests the !voter is inferring its meaning from its shortcut. This is why I'd like to see it renamed. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS says "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". This event does not qualify for inclusion per [[WP:NEVENT]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you're quoting is specifically about routine news stories. Common, recurring, run of the mill, everyday events. The sort of thing you'd see as an "and finally" story. "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs" and "sports matches, film premieres, press conferences", or a dog biting a man — things that are unexceptional, ordinary, and uninteresting. Nothing in WP:NOTNEWS or WP:ROUTINE suggests that controversies which receive sustained coverage from dozens of reliable, secondary, independent outlets are the type of news stories they're talking about. Most of the examples given at NOTNEWS and ROUTINE seem like the sort of thing you'd expect to see on local news, but we're talking about something that garnered international attention. For the nth time: NOTNEWS does not mean news stories can't have articles. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity controversies are routine. They make the news for a few weeks, then never again. This is nothing more than that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident, which is arguably less important as there's no wider political context to it, only an interpersonal conflict between celebrities. But as AlanGiulio mentioned below, this is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS example as that article is a GA, so its quality and notability have already been thoroughly vetted. Ultimately, notability is determined by sources, and there's no shortage of sources here. Vanilla Wizard 💙 12:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies are not routine by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. See WP:TDS. Elon Musk arguably has similar amounts of fame as Trump. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Incident that received significant attention, thus meeting WP:GNG. The entire context only adds to its importance. I cannot see how the claim of WP:NOTNEWS could be relevant here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's clearly news and widely reported on both domestically and internationally. 1101 (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total missunderstanding and interpretations of Musk motivation and intention,also "The Anti Defamation League stated that Musk did not make a Nazi salute, but "made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm"Empiricus (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like your personal opinion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that the ADL is not a credible source for this sort of thing. That !vote also has nothing to do with Wikipedia deletion policy. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Significant coverage by reliable sources. WP:TDS is an essay, and I am interested what the interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS is from those voting to delete on the basis of that policy. WP:NOTNEWS mostly concerns tone and wording, not notability. The only part that discusses notability is point 4, i.e. WP:NOTGOSSIP / WP:NOTDIARY, which recommends against adding trivia. I'd argue, however, that this event is not trivial, as evidenced by its coverage by sources from across the world and across the political spectrum. I can only charitably imagine that the citation of WP:NOTNEWS is an argument against this event "[having] notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." Yue🌙 08:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point 2 considers the enduring notability of events, which is my main concern specifically. If you look at the examples brought by other editors of comparable events, all of them are several years old at this point and have shown sustained and tangible impact on culture and/or the subject's respective political careers or campaigning efforts. Whether that's the case here remains to be seen.

If you look at the article so far, it's almost exclusively reactions and social media posts, but zero tangible consequences; contrast that with reactions to Musk's behavior in the past, which e.g. led companies and organizations to step down from the platform altogether. Hence why, so far, I am not convinced this needs its own article instead of being covered appropriately in the articles about himself, his his political activities, or generally the article on the Nazi salute. Mystic Cornball (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it remains to be seen why are we at AfD? We are instructed after all not to rush to deletion, but you seem to be saying that you rushed to deletion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If you look at the article so far, it's almost exclusively reactions and social media posts, but zero tangible consequences"

This simply isn't true anymore. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists celebrating; politicians in Austria and Germany attempting to ban Musk; a huge wave of subreddits moving to ban links to his social media platform. All of this is currently in the article. This isn't to say it was an intentional Nazi salute, but that the interpretation of it as one is having tangible consequences both online and offline. Dflovett (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content is enough to warrant its own article. The main article in Musk will end up WP:TOOLONG. Plus content is thoroughly cited for inclusion. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 08:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding TOOLONG: The content could easily be condensed to three or four paragraphs without losing any relevant information. That's how it's done in the German and French Wikipedias. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it could be condensed, but the English Wikipedia is generally much more detailed and descriptive than the German and French ones. While it's true that condensing the content wouldn't lose much important information and the German and French sections about the gesture manage to cover the key information, the English Wikipedia normally has higher quality standards than other language versions, containing more reactions, background information, analyses, details, etc., which is why I don't think we should orient on other language versions. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims regarding different Wikipedia editions are highly dubious. Gross simplifications at best. I'd say they're just wrong. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There may be exceptions, especially regarding articles which cover topics closely associated with German- and French-speaking countries that are not well known or documented in other languages, but in the vast majority of cases, the English Wikipedia is much more comprehensive, detailed, comprehensible, neutral, and better structured, and it's not even close. Of course, that's not surprising considering English is by far the world's most spoken and most distributed language in addition to being the de facto lingua franca in virtually every relevant domain, but the gap is generally quite big, and I say this as a native German speaker with some knowledge in French. Look at the article depth as a rough indicator of a Wikipedia language version's quality, for example. Also, according to editing statistics, the English Wikipedia has more words per article than the German one, even though it already has way more total articles. Maxeto0910 (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mangoe, Chrisahn and especially Crelb and MCE89. This is a notable event in American politics as I can scarcely think of anything like it happening however it is still running the possibility of being a flash in the pan event in the media coverage of two individuals (Trump & Musk) who end up the news extremely often due to inflammatory and absurd statements or actions. I don't see why it can't be merged and kept the same length in another article like Political activities of Elon Musk rather than being kept as it's own article (reiterating what MCE89 and Crelb stated).AssanEcho (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should have state however, that I wont be sad or happy no matter if the article is merged, kept or deleted, so I think my opinion should be viewed with a grain of salt since im much less invested in this article than the many other editors here. AssanEcho (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - Prime example of recentism --FMSky (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is worth noting that several events, which are charged with significant cultural and societal meaning and impact, are covered with specific pages, e.g. Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident, Joe Biden's farewell address, Death and state funeral of Silvio Berlusconi and others. For coherence, if we delete this page, we shall delete also the cited ones. I suggest using Template:Infobox event, which refers to "one-off event", as this event is supposed to be.AlanGiulio (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:"While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case."

Indeed, Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident points out it's presence among the Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society.

For consistent, the use of Template:Infobox event suggests that Wikipedia acknowledges and supports the creation of entries for culturally or socially significant one-off events. Furthermore, in terms of Cultural and Societal Impact, the event described in the page has greater cultural and societal significance to the cited examples, warranting independent documentation. The event has the power to legitimize and banalize a gesture with profound political and cultural implications, which is likely to be emulated in the future, providing the need for readers to find an informative page on the topic itself, thus further sustaining the opportunity for this page to keep on existing. AlanGiulio (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case."

The Chris Rock article is literally a "Good article". HalfHazard98 (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until long term significance is established or merge. Very obvious violation of WP:NOTNEWS, and I haven’t seen anyone make a convincing argument that this has long term significance and enduring notability at the moment. My personal opinion is that it will have long term significance because of how it affects the Musk-Trump relationship given that this dominated the news cycle when it is supposed to be all about Trump’s inauguration and executive orders, but that’s pure WP:CRYSTAL BALL. At the moment we just don’t know (WP:TOOSOON), and this shouldn’t be an article according to policy. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701: What I find interesting about all of these "Very obvious violation of WP:NOTNEWS" arguments is that they don't say what part of NOTNEWS has been violated or even how NOTNEWS has been violated. Do you think you could help us with that and specify the exact langage in NOTNEWS and how it is obviously being violated? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- @Horse Eye's Back: Hi, thanks for the ping, the relevant part is in point 2 Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. I think the fundamental point of disagreement is on whether it is likely to have enduring notability. Unfortunately our policy only addresses whether it has had enduring notability, and combining this with other policies and essays such as WP:RECENTISM, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:CRYSTAL BALL, we’re guided to be quite conservative regarding newsworthy subjects. Admittedly my point on long term significance was more a euphemism for whether I thought it’d have enduring notability. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - And this violates that part how? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn’t had enduring notability. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2 does not require enduring notability. That would entirely contradict "Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of all the events the news covers, this is pretty insignificant. Outside of significant events, I assume enduring notability is required. Imo there’d need to be WP:LASTING to justify an article on it, like the other instances given which had a lasting impact on campaigns. Kowal2701 (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If point 2 does not require enduring notability then there is no violation here... And certainly no obvious one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LASTING isn't a great reason to delete new articles about recent events, as WP:LASTING itself says: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Vanilla Wizard 💙 13:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep This page correctly identifies the incident as a controversy instead of a Nazi Salute. It also contains the reactions of outside media and would fit well to be with other controversies of similar caliber such as the Yaroslav Hunka scandal BarakHussan (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, A Hitler Salute is extremely offensive to the many people who have died in the holocaust. He did it with such vigor. It is so offensive. Its part of who he is. When describing him, his life, his accolades, it should definitely stay on his Wikipedia page. Afterall it is who he is. 151.205.191.98 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per arguments of Hemiauchenia, Chisahn, and MCE89 above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article is well covered in the Elon Musk#Salute at Trump inauguration, however this was a highly notable event which drew a lot of differing views that are further elaborated on in this article for those who wish to know more. Time will tell to what degree it meets WP:LASTING. So far a lot of calls to delete have stated that his (Elon Musk) intention was not to do a nazi salute, however this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the article should be kept. As for wp:notnews, I believe the high notability of the event trumps that reasoning. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This incident has received significant and sustained coverage in reliable sources, including the international media. 72.83.62.214 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article and its context is imporant to document. Articles should not be removed because of theme or who the individual is or there position in society. Erin1973 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually know that, and in any case a whole article on it isn't the only way we have of recording it here. And you aren't responding to the actual criticisms of the article. Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Highly notable!--Berig (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The mass amount of coverage and discussion this has generated makes it (to my mind) almost certain this will receive sustained coverage. Side note, have people actually read WP:NOTNEWS or are they citing it based off the title alone? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Create New Page - I believe that this incident in itself is abundantly qualified as a major event. It not only has received widespread coverage, but also widespread debate, the same as what we are engaging in on this Talk Page. However, it was still initially a subsection that I created of "Accusations of antisemitism". An entire page on antisemitism allegations that have followed Musk could similarly be a solution. However, I think the argument around the Nazi salute or Roman salute is largely about authoritarianism, not antisemitism in this case, so I think preserving the page is still the best solution. PickleG13 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough information to justify a stand alone article. Des Vallee (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems significant enough to me.

AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has received significant amount of coverage and debate, definitely noteworthy. Finlandestonia (talk)

Finlandestonia (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has significant media coverage and I've no doubt it'll be talked about for years. Viatori (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just like everyone still remembers Laura Ingraham's alleged Nazi-like salute during the 2016 Republican National Convention, right? (I get that she isn't quite as well-known as Musk, but she is still very well known and this happened during one of the most-watched television broadcasts of the year.) Partofthemachine (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Laura Ingraham was and still is a far less significant person than Musk. And even in the coverage of her alleged salute at the time, many left-leaning publications and commentators gave her the benefit of the doubt that she simply made an awkward gesture. For example: Slate, in 2016, published an article saying it wasn't a Nazi salute. This time around, Slate published an article about how it's clear it was a Nazi salute and that neo-Nazis are celebrating. This is not me saying that it was a Nazi salute, but that the discourse around this is very different than it was for Laura Ingraham. Dflovett (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are we now speculating? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe merge. This can easily be covered with a few paragraphs on the Musk and inauguration pages, as is done in literally every other language. The arguments made against deletion seem relatively unserious and not based on policy, relying mainly on ipse dixit assertions of notability (see WP:JUSTNOTABLE), claims without evidence that there will be lasting coverage of this controversy, and use of capital letters. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - As per above. I wish I can explain so much but it's already reliable, it meets general notability guidelines, and it's already independent of the subject. 20chances (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the controversy is clearly notable with international news coverage, and the content is sufficient to warrant its own article. Flat Out (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With no prejudice to recreation in the future. We can’t just speculate that this topic would have a lasting effect until it clearly does. Sources are just a bunch of “reaction articles”. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The controversy is very notable and well-sourced. Dominicmgm (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now without prejudice to a merge discussion in a few weeks or months. I would ask those who've invoked WP:NOTNEWS as a delete rationale to remember that WP:RAPID is policy (and that NOTNEWS does not mean "don't cover the news.") And I would ask those who invoked WP:LASTING as a delete rationale reread its last two sentences. I'm also a believer WP:RUSHDELETE (the essay equivalent of WP:RAPID). That said, I also generally agree with its competing essay WP:RUSHCREATE and its policy equivalent WP:DELAY, which I see as not mutually exclusive to RAPID/RUSHDELETE. Sure, I'll agree that it's generally not advisable to start new articles before we have a clearer picture about long-term notability. But "don't rush to create" is merely a suggestion, not a valid reason to delete content that has already been created. Do I feel like this will seem important enough for a standalone page in a few months? Eh, not really. But I can't switch over to delete based on vibes and predictions about its future notability (or future lack thereof). TL;DR: It's too early to be having this discussion, as deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete. Vanilla Wizard 💙 13:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the last two sentences of "LASTING", I read them more as applying to situations where it's something of a crapshoot as to whether or not the event will have a lasting impact. With this one, based on pretty much every other such similar event in the past, it's pretty clear that it won't....Sure, it's possible that some unforeseen circumstances might make it have more of a lasting impact, but I think this is rather unlikely. Regarding WP:RAPID, which you link to with the green text at the end, this is more of a recommendation to wait before nominating an article for deletion, not so much for what to do once such a nomination has been made, and it also mentions the options of merging relevant content into other articles and putting longer discussion of the event in a draftspace article (in case more LASTING impact is later established), which myself other people in this discussion have recommended. -Helvetica (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less opposed to alternatives to deletion like merging or moving to draftspace, but I think the best thing to do when it's too early to know if there will be any lasting, enduring notability is to just wait and find out. This is my approach to recent event AfDs more broadly and not just limited to this page in particular. Any comments one way or the other on what amount of lasting impact this will or will not have in future are too WP:CRYSTAL for me. Seemingly all articles created about recent events are nominated for AfD, but I think it causes less harm to wait until we know if something has lasting importance, and discuss later if it we know that it does not. The alternative to being patient is potentially deleting content that may ultimately end up being significant enough to keep based on the assumption that it won't be, in which case we would have unnecessarily deleted many editors' hard work and discouraged them from contributing to the project in the future. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it really just depends on the situation, I would say. I mean strictly following your approach would mean keeping EVERY article about an event for at least a couple months or so, even if it's quite unlikely to have lasting significance, and personally, I don't see the harm in moving content over to draftspace, from which it can then be brought back out, in the unlikely event that this is called for. And doesn't the argument about waiting until we know kinda cut both ways?...Shouldn't folks also wait to create the articles in the first place, until LASTING has been well established? Aside from this, keeping an article like this active, when WP:LASTING hasn't been established, also seems like it could conflict with WP:BLP by giving WP:UNDUE weight to this one incident with, at best, dubious lasting notability. -Helvetica (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it depends on the situation. I've !voted to delete new articles for what I considered to be serious BLP concerns (usually cases of BLP1E), but I don't think there are any obvious or glaring BLP concerns here. As I mentioned in my !vote, I also agree that it's advisable to wait before creating articles and believe that "don't rush to create" and "don't rush to delete" are not mutually exclusive, but "don't rush to create" is not a good enough reason to delete content that already exists. I am a fan of draftifying pages on a case-by-case basis and I'd like to see draftifying suggested more often as an alternative to deletion, but I think this is a case where leaving it for now makes more sense than moving it out of mainspace as there's already a lot of sources in the article, so it could be reasonably argued that it's already received a significant amount of coverage, at least enough to justify keeping it around for now. Vanilla Wizard 💙 05:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is well written and has good sources about an event that has gained large amounts of attention. Maybearidan (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a lot of coverage, and no sign of slowing down - by my judgement, this topic will keep generating additional sources worth summarizing for a while yet. That is best dealt with in a separate article. If it dies down quickly, we can still merge later on. But no benefit in hobbling ourselves by packing it into the limits of an already very large parent article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this may have gotten coverage, but its is still Newsy and is one incident. At best this warrants one (maybe two) lines in his bio. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge, for now....While the incident has indeed received significant media attention, I haven't yet seen evidence that it will have a sigificant enough WP:LASTING impact over the longer term to warrant its own article. I think it's notable enough to be briefly covered in other articles, like the Trump 2nd Inauguration one and/or the main Musk article, but my sense is that a month or two from now, when the newscyle has moved on to whatever other stuff, it won't be widely discussed anymore. Of course this could well change, and if it's still an ongoing issue a couple months from now, with evidence of lasting impact, a full article might well be warranted. but I don't think we're at that point now. -Helvetica (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another run of the mill news frenzy, will probably be forgotten about in a couple of weeks.★Trekker (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The gesture, occurring during Trump's inauguration indoor parade, is part of a historical moment. Documenting such events is crucial for historical accuracy and understanding the cultural and political climate of the time. It provides context to Musk's involvement in politics, specifically his relationship with the Trump administration, and how his actions are seen in that light. The debate around whether this gesture was intentional, accidental, or misinterpreted has led to significant discourse among journalists, scholars, and regular people. This conflict and the subsequent consensus or lack thereof are part of the narrative that Wikipedia often captures to reflect contemporary issues.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HARD Keep It is an occasion where the event is too important not to have its own article. Doing so would only minimize it. NullReason (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HARD Keep this event and the controversy around it clearly passes WP:GNG & WP:LASTING. --2A02:3038:266:C2D3:DBE7:A1E9:548B:710 (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, WP:LASTING etc. and revisit if the event ends up having long-term impact.

Big Thumpus (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an opposing argument. I would say that it should be kept, and deleted if it doesn't meet wp:lasting, rather than the other way around. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now. Whether or not this incident turns out to be a tempest in a teapot, it is notable--in fact, brutally so--because for the first time in history, a fascist salute was given at a celebration for a United States president on Inaguration Day. TH1980 (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, we don't know that Musk intended any fascist meaning, so under BLP we can't say that it was such. Also, the use of the Roman salute was quite common in the US, right up until WW2, being used, for example, when the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. So such gestures almost certainly have been used at previous inaugurations, in addition of course to Presidents and others waving with their hands high, in a way that might appear to be a Roman salute. -Helvetica (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first part. However there is a reason the Bellamy salute was discontinued, since 1942 it is now considered a Fascist salute, while Bellamy salutes would have been done prior to then, any done after is reasonably considered a Fascist salute. Also, the manner in which a Nazi salute is done, with the rapid movement of the arm from the chest distinguishes it from the Bellamy salute where the hand would be held out during the entire recitement of the pledge of allegiance. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Tempest in a teapot" is just a figure of speech for "non-notable". Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's the literal *world-wide* response that assures the notability of this; politically, the polar opposite of Kniefall von Warschau, but momentary actions can have world historical implications. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Nazi salute received a huge amount of attention, and internationally, it received much more coverage than the actual inauguration, making a merge with that article inappropriate. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it a Nazi salute is your opinion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"received much more coverage than the actual inauguration" That's false. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Initially came here with a view to delete (being vary of WP:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article [as it applies to Musk] and of WP:10YEARS), but after reviewing other similar articles on political controversies that have been listed above it appears much more significant than any of them. Perhaps a merge may also be preferable to an existing article (some have been cited above) or to an article which specifically covers this aspect of Musk's politics (Donald Trump and fascism exists). I do not however see much credence in the arguments that this is a nothingburger or that it should be deleted outright. Gotitbro (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For reasons already given by numerous other people here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I agree with the reasons above. However, I may be biased in this judgement. I am Jewish and have very strong feelings about this. (Logged out. See @3OpenEyes for userpage/talk) 74.104.160.163 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the title gets changed. While the event may be noteworthy, the current pretence in the article's title that there's any ambiguity at all about the meaning of the gesture makes the article in its current form irredeemably biased via False balance. An article that pretends that there's any ambiguity in the meaning of the gesture is effectively a form of propaganda. TKSnaevarr (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This issue can be easily fixed through rename discussion. I dont think this is valid reason for deletion. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1. The naming of an article should never be a reason for deletion when the content itself is notable. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons already given by other editors. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep due to Elon Musk being an alleged Neo-Nazi and this topic being important currently due to the recent inauguration of Donald Trump. However I suggest a name change to "Alleged Nazi Salute by Elon Musk". GetitDunne (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure, you could cover the key information about it in a section in Elon's article in 2 or 3 paragraphs, but considering how many reactions, background information, analyses, details, etc. exist about the event, most of which are covered by reliable sources, I think it's justified to have an own article for better context and focus. Trimming said content would lose much important information, and keeping it would bloat the Elon Musk article, so it's best to have an own article. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge It is unprecedented to see an American official perform such a risky political action evoking the very thing the US and its allies destroyed during WW2. This combined with Trump's expansionist ambitions makes it feel like the tables are turning. It has caused boycotts against Tesla and X.Pancho507 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well written and notable enough to stand on its own. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a relevant article discussing controversies involving or political beliefs of Musk. This is noteworthy enough to deserve its own article, I believe, at least in modern context-- it may fail the rest of recency bias in the future, though we cannot accurately predict the future. For now I believe it deserves to be here. I try to view this from an apolitical perspective despite my biases-- regardless of whether this was or was not some sort of intentional act, it is obviously a big enough event to have several large-scale consequences both intra- and internationally. User:LittleBitMoreKSP (GreebleNeebleGombleWomptus???) 21:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has generated significant enough coverage, and enough noteworthy reactions, that it couldn't be merged adequately into Elon Musk. – MW_(t•c) 22:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And rename to Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy. It was overwhelmingly referred to as a Nazi salute in the media. It was not widely referred to as a "straight-arm gesture controversy," which is a kind of language that obfuscates its commonly acknowledged meaning. The article on the salute itself is also titled Nazi salute, its WP:COMMONNAME. --Tataral (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Political activities of Elon Musk. The controversy is better understood in the context of Musk's political ascension. ^Falling_Gravity 02:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Political activities of Elon Musk or another article (possibly a rename?) to Elon Musk's shift to the far right. This is certainly not an event that is going to be "overlooked", it's not normal or good to have one of the POTUS's closest people show fascist support in 2025. ItzSwirlz (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep given the widespread impact it has had, namely the widespread reactions and the subreddit bans on Twitter/X. Second option merge to Political activities of Elon Musk, since discussion on a possible article on Elon Musk's political shift is a matter for another forum. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging would merely dilute an unprecedented event among other subjects. NOTNEWS is being improperly invoked here as some sort of ban on pages about recent events. The criterion of notability should suffice here. Plus, the account proposing the deletion was created specifically for this, which is suspicious on its own. Kiwi Rex (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suspicious? Sounds like you didn't look at the account's talk page. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page provides an explanation, but it is unusual for an account proposing deletion to have been created specifically for the purpose of proposing deletion. Dflovett (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can only propose article deletions with an account, not as an IP. Mystic Cornball (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes GNG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to Elon Musk and Second inauguration of Donald Trump. If this article is to exist, we might as well have articles for all of his controversies and the controversies of other equally notable people. Sushidude21! (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep due to the major and lasting political implications in the United States.

Roman Biggus (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Lean towards keep - It's not entirely clear if this event is notable and would pass WP:GNG, based on the fact that it's unclear if there will be persistent coverage or if this is just recency bias. I'd say it's safe to presume for now given the significant reliable coverage by secondary sources(analysis,evaluation, commentary/interpretation,etc.). For renaming, I think that the current name or some similar variation of "gesture" or "salute" would be fine although I would be hesitant to change the title to "Nazi salute"(alleged or otherwise) for NPOV reasons. Looking at the sourcing of this article, it seems that most of the sources refer to the act itself as a gesture or salute that has been likened to the Nazi salute. Some editors have put forth arguments grounded more in political argument for keeping/renaming this article, but we should avoid that kind of debate here. Originalcola (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Upon reflection existing coverage doesn't meet the guidelines for reliable secondary sources needed for WP:GNG being predominately standard news reporting with little or no analysis or evaluation. It does also seem more unlikely that likely that there will be persistent/further coverage of this event. Originalcola (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic has received significant media coverage from various credible sources both nationally and internationally, including Musk himself addressing it. LinusShapiro (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, sparked discussions from both sides, caused other newsworthy incidents of people being laid off for performing the gesture and it's a topic people will look into afterwards to get updates. avalean (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but in case of a merge, impact is what really matters, the most important sections are "Reactions from white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups", "Reaction from Jewish groups and Holocaust survivors" and "Elon Musk's response". --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: received worldwide, enduring news coverage - WikiFouf (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Checked the article and am pleasantly surprised at how long it is and the fact that is is thoroughly supported with reliable citations. I do think this event will continue to have relevance and will not be a victim of WP:RECENTISM, given Musk is now a prominent political figure and incredibly active on Twitter, where he has already had several reactions to the outrage. The WP:SIGCOV of the event is reason enough for this to have its own page. I believe a merge would drastically cut down on relevant information in the article, especially since several sections can be expanded (like previous accusations of anti semitism). jolielover♥talk 16:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : WP:NOTNEWS, and will likely be unnotable beyond a brief mention in Elon Musk within a few months if not weeks time. --AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)~[reply]

Delete - definitely a problematic article per WP:NOTNEWS. I saw one comment argue that WP:NOTNEWS might not apply per WP:LASTING and WP:RECENT. But this article is neither of those - very questionable to say it will have a lasting effect, and I also do not see how it could be consider a positive example of recentism (the page gives 2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial as a positive example). Thinking about the article, I do believe it is not fit to own up to the WP:10YEARTEST. Brat Forelli🦊 17:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 10 year test is another great example of something that's often invoked as a delete rationale when it really shouldn't be. It very explicitly asks editors not to do that. From WP:10YEARTEST: Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball. This is especially true during a news spike, when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on. and Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here I am thinking of the core of the WP:10YEARTEST - Will someone ten or twenty years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? The answer would be, per WP:CRYSTALBALL that you mentioned, "we don't know". And so in case when lasting notability is uncertain, we delete. Articles get deleted when the lasting relevance cannot be proven, rather than when its irrelevance can be proven.

We also have this passage: Furthermore, detailed stand-alone articles and lists may no longer comply with the general notability guideline, particularly the "Presumed" criterion. Content that seemed notable at the time might, in retrospect, violate what Wikipedia is not and other guidelines. And on WP:GNG, we have this: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not. And indeed, this article does violate what Wikipedia is not - WP:NOTNEWS. Brat Forelli🦊 12:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The whole page resembles a gossip article (I'm amazed by the amount of users who agree to keep it). In addition, the fact that many American users don't know what an actual fascist salute is, and are indignant at every single arm raised, is extremely detrimental to this article; Elon Musk's gesture is more articulated and complex than the fascist salute (which doesn't detract from the fact that he could have spared the gesture). JacktheBrown (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the topic is inherently a gossip article, but you're right that it's going sideways right now with how much is being added in. I just deleted William Shatner's response from the article. This is going to take a lot of watching and editing, and it already needs to be trimmed back and focused. We can't include every social media reaction, if any should be included at all. (The Reddit bans are likely the only relevant ones.) Dflovett (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into an appropriate article. Converge is still coming from many Reliable sources, across many different aspects. Seems more than a run of mill news story. WP:NOTNEWS does not in fact mean we can't have articles on things that have been in the news. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. This is a case of social media virality which I doubt people will pay anywhere near as much attention to in 12 months time. And if I'm wrong about that, deletion isn't permanent–the article can always be undeleted in the future in the (in my opinion unlikely) event this becomes a focus of lasting interest. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: create a Public image of Elon Musk article comparable to Public image of Barack Obama, Public image of Roman Reigns, Public image of Mariah Carey, etc., and merge this there. BD2412 T 01:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after selective merge to Elon Musk and/or Political activities of Elon Musk. There is no independent notability here of this event that cannot be covered in those articles. This article will simply become a WP:COATRACK in violation of WP:BLP otherwise. There's maybe 4-5 sentences total of actually due coverage and that can be easily covered in the main articles related to Elon Musk. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is a high level of notability and the article is well sourced. Saying that this article should be deleted or merged is comparable to saying that the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy article should be deleted or merged into the Super Bowl XXXVIII article. There's more than enough individual notability to keep this article. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Certainly notable in context of modern political times, as documented by copious sources as ascendant global fascism that some prefer to ignore or conceal, perhaps including by deleting this article. Maybe merge later as future developments may warrant. soibangla (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla: "...as documented by copious sources as ascendant global fascism...". The fact is that many (American) users obsessed with the word "fascist" ignore its true meaning (for example, thinking that Donald Trump and Elon Musk are fascists means never having opened a history book or a documentary, preferably in Italian, on the topic of fascism); unfortunately, this is a very serious problem for some pages of the site, like this one. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage is immense. That's all that needs to be said. Surtsicna (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What secondary sources treat the gesture as a subject? What do they say about it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does that matter? Apparently, it's enough to write a detailed article about it, clearly demonstrating public interest. Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at the very least for now, based on Vanilla Wizard's arguments. I think folding it into the inauguration article conceals it in said article in an unhelpful manner, and I think calls for deletion are at best unfounded claims about a lack of current notability or future possible notability, and at worst an attempt to stifle awareness and debate of a very controversial event. RocksInMyDryer (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elon Musk but do not keep. Failing a merge outcome this is a very clear delete. There are many people voting keep, stating these are strong or hard views. Yet not a single secondary source has been identified that treats this gesture as a subject in its own right. All we have is a load of news reporting (primary sources, per WP:PRIMARYNEWS and related policy). Such sources do not count towards notability. As usual we have people believing it must be notable because they saw it on TV or read it in the news, but it is not. Notability for an encyclopaedic article isbased on whether there is secondary coverage about the article topic: the arm gesture and its enduring significance. What we have is coverage of Elon Musk (certainly worthy of encyclopaedic coverage) but not about the significance of the arm gesture. As per the banner at the top of this page, this is not a vote and so far no one has attempted to show, from sources, why this topic meets WP:N. And it doesn't. It doesn't beause we lack secondary sources (arm 1 of WP:N) and it doesn't because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so it is also excluded under arm 2 of WP:N. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, we ought not to have the article about Trump's second presidential inauguration either because all we have is a load of news reporting. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Surtsicna's objection is sensible, not being a case of "other stuff exists", but rather questioning your central argument concerning notability. Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The central argument is that not a single keep vote has bothered to present one single secondary source on the page subject. That is, this page does not meet WP:N because there are no secondary sources, and it does not meet WP:N because it is excluded under WP:NOTNEWS. That is a policy objection. Refutation of th epolicy argument requires a source analysis, not hand waves at other stuff. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just vaguely hand wave at other stuff you actually need to make the argument... How is this excluded under WP:NOTNEWS? We also seem to have dozens of secondary sources, most of those feature length pieces contain analysis which makes them secondary. You're demanding a lot from others but providing absolutely no evidence which supports your position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"How is this excluded under WP:NOTNEWS?" See 2. most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. What is required, and what has not been shown by anyone, is a secondary source that shows that people consider the arm gesture he made to be a secondary subject of itself, with lasting impact, and not just reporting on Musk. Why will people be writing papers or histories about this arm gesture? Articles are shown to be notable at AfD by sources, not feelings. Now is the time to discuss them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-State Police

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

This article is an exercise in WP:OR on the topic of bi-state police agencies, which does not appear to be covered in reliable, independent secondary sources. I cannot find non-primary source material on this subject in Google Scholar, Google Books or any other searches. News results turn up only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of police chases across state lines, and search results bring up individual instances (primary sources) of bi-state police cooperation but not secondary coverage of the topic. There's also nothing on the website of the Police Executive Research Forum, a major outlet of secondary research on law enforcement.) In lieu of secondary coverage, the page creator here has cobbled together several examples, based on primary sources (like compact agreements or the agencies' own websites) and sometimes the page creator's own impressions (see "Texhoma doesn't have its official seal posted anywhere, but you can see faint visuals of it on officer uniforms and cars in pictures posted on its official police page on Facebook"). There is no evidence here or elsewhere of the secondary coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article fails WP:NOT by failing WP:NOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, and United States of America. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Remove the photos, trim the details, add some bullet points or a table, and rename "List of United States law enforcement agencies with multi-state jurisdiction". Magnolia677 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it would fail WP:NLIST, since I wasn't even able to find secondary-source discussion of those departments as a group. It would still be an exercise in original research to compose that list. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These agencies are rare, so the possibility of them being grouped together as a whole wouldn’t be likely. Not to mention, they all operate in different states. What secondary sources could be used? Is their website not a primary source? Is state law not a secondary source? Furthermore, each agency refers to themselves as a bi-state agency. Information relating to the police department is likely to be secondary, because unlike other law enforcement departments they’re part of a bigger organization that involves more than just law enforcement. It has reputable sources. Is there any way to fix the page in your eyes, since you’d love to delete it? LgShai (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, in the DRPA section I gave references from a federal news article, DRPS’s website, and NJ-Pa state law. Is the news article not a secondary source? When writing this, I took notes and examples from PAPD’s main page, so would some information on that page qualify under Original Research too? Most of their references come from the port authority’s website with federal website news articles as secondary references. LgShai (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
State laws AND agency websites are primary sources. They can be used for information but not to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So state law and agency website references mean nothing unless a random author or news station reports on it. LgShai (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For purposes of notability, more or less yes. Please review WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and WP:N; there is a lot of good information there to explain how this works. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fan of that rule, but I’ll see what I can do. Most information about these agencies comes from before the times of Internet. Would I have to find an article about them as a whole for this specific page, or would individual articles be good? LgShai (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll be adding secondary sources the next few days, but I will be leaving the primary sources because Wikipedia policy allows primary sources that have been reputably published. Any interpretation will be removed for primary sources, unless I am able to find a secondary source. LgShai (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of WP:NLIST is that the list topic...bi-state/multi-state law enforcement agencies...has to have been referred to as a group. In this example, it has been...these are real things, with a handful of sources referring to these law enforcement agencies as having bi-stare jurisdiction. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt these agencies are real things. But let's look at the secondary sources added by the page creator:

Local news/trade publication stories that focus on the distinct topic of railroad police ([11], [12], [13])
Trade journal op-ed about federal versus state jurisdiction, no mention of police agencies, bi-state or otherwise ([14])
Conservative think-tank report that examines law enforcement task forces but does not appear to mention bi-state/multi-state agencies ([15])
CRS report focusing on interstate compacts with a single mention of their implications for police agencies: The Supreme Court, however, held that states could delegate their police power to an interstate compact commission because the Framers of the Constitution intended the Compact Clause to allow the states to resolve interstate problems in diverse and creative ways. ([16])
Book chapter on interstate compacts that does not mention police. ([17])
Think tank op-ed on Port Authority that does not mention police. ([18])

I still don't see any WP:SIGCOV of bi-state/multi-state policy agencies as a group or even as a concept. I think the best we could do here, if we can find some more secondary sourcing along the lines of the CRS report, is to do a very selective merge (to avoid the original research problems in this page) to interstate compact. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference 4, this was the quote I referenced “ The argument for allowing abortions in federal enclaves under exclusive federal jurisdiction is based on the Assimilative Crimes Act and federal prosecutorial discretion. That federal law authorizes federal prosecution when a person commits an act that is a crime in the state where federal land is situated but isn’t a crime under federal law. Federal prosecutors in abortion-rights administrations could decline to bring charges for abortions on federal land within anti-abortion states.“

Im new to editing so apologies for not formatting it correctly. I’m still learning. LgShai (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you agreeing that this satisfies WP:NLIST? I’ve found more reputable articles of these agencies, but the articles are singular. They only include the specific police department. I don’t want to waste any more time deep diving into news articles if this will just be deleted.

Another issue I’m having is that every law enforcement page I’ve visited doesn’t contain an article that specifically includes each police department. They also consist of primary sources rather than secondary sources. “Federal law enforcement in the United States” and “Law enforcement in the United States” pages only give primary sources in their introductions (and most of the article) & contain interpretations with only those primary sources. LgShai (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable secondary sources

LgShai (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are acceptable as a source of information, but don’t count toward establishing notability.T v x1 19:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that’s the case “Federal law enforcement in the United States” and “Law enforcement in the United States” should lose their notability. They only contain primary sources. Almost every law enforcement page or list only contains primary sources. LgShai (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WHATABOUTX. At AfD we consider the merits of the article right in front of us. Editors are free to nominate other pages they may consider not to meet standards. Also, remember that notability is not determined solely by what's in the article but the existence of sources (WP:NEXIST). My contention in the nomination and in the source analysis is that there are insufficient qualifying sources for this topic, both in the article and outside it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have news articles that confirm the jurisdiction of every agency listed. Of If I added these secondary sources, what would cause this page to fail? WP:NLIST? If so, would changing the name clear this error?

The purpose of this article is to bring awareness to this rare occurrence, so it would be nice to get help formatting it to Wikipedia policy for people to read about it. 2600:100D:B014:396E:E993:BAE1:CE33:6F80 (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources updated. LgShai (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG.T v x1 19:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Relatively redudant with interstate compact, and should therefore be merged into that article. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Secondary sources have been added establishing the notability requirements of WP:GNG. WP:OR text removed. LgShai (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LgShai Can you identify which secondary sources cover the topic of multistate/bistate police agencies overall rather than just talking about single examples of said police agencies? You've added several sources but I do not see any on examination that meet the standard we're looking for. An editor picking and choosing secondary sources that don't cover an overall topic but only discuss individual examples is still an exercise in original research and WP:SYNTH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete the page bud. You pick a new reason for each solution that anyone comes up with. You obviously just want it deleted. Thanks. Good bye. LgShai (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felix The Cat Kept On Walking

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

I had redirected this, and would suggest this as the outcome of this AfD. Neither source is significantly about the short film, and no better sources seem available that give this film more than a passing mention or a database treatment in lists of animated shorts or in more general Felix the Cat sources. This, with a short plot summary, is about the most extensive source I could find. In books specifically about Felix it gets nothing but a mention[19] Fram (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United States of America. Fram (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as in the nom. I must thank both of you this morning; Fram's nomination at Herostratus's suggestion gave me exposure to an old film I'd never seen. I had a friend (long since passed) who was a huge fan of Felix, and as a child I was frequently exposed to many of these shorts on TV in Honolulu. As much as I'm happy to see these films available and in the public domain, I concur with Fram's source analysis above. I'm interested to see if Herostratus can find more direct detailing. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but, on further consideration, let's rename and rearrange -- let's make the article be about the song, which seems more notable (and came first), so rename the article to the song name ("Felix Kept On Walking") and move the film stuff down to the bottom (or delete it, but why).

As a song It meets WP:NSONG I would say (the song is notable if it is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works...This includes published works in all forms", and "all forms" would include advertisements and chinaware and toys and t-shirts and what have you I think, and there are plenty of those (([20]) and some even still today ([21], [22]). and it meets 2 of the 3 supplementary bullet points (which are not proof of notability, but are worth considering and de facto considered pretty much sufficient I think): "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts", which they didn't have charts in the 1920s I don't think, but the song was clearly a hit which would have at least made the Hot 100 surely, and "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists", which we have a number of artists notable enough to have their own articles covering it.

It is true that there aren't any reviews or articles on the song, but this was 100 years ago, there weren't even music magazines then, and things were generally different then, and so of course not; I think we need to be a little flexible here or else we are going to end up overemphasizing recent material just because we have the sources for it rather than it being actually more notable, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER says not to do that.

And on top of that there's even a whole idiom based on the song (obscure and obsolete, granted, but still) -- "well, Felix kept on walking" probably something like "Well, another day in paradise" or something. I don't think we should throw info like that back into the darkness.

Whether to leave the stuff about the film in a short section at the bottom is a judgement call, something for the article talk page. Herostratus (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your extremely expansive reading of WP:NSONGS is contradicted by the explanatory footnote about the "non-trivial" nature of the published works: ""Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. " Advertisements, chinaware, t-shirts, ... are not reliable sources and thus don't count towards meeting WP:NSONG. A deviant art page similarly is of no value for this discussion. Fram (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi Fram. I am glad that you are here with us, hope things are going well for you here.

OK. So, there are three things to untangle here for sources, reliability, notability and standing.

So, considering the pictures of the banks and ads and toys and cups and t-shirts, of course these entities do exist and we can rely on that. Yes, there is an (infintesimal) chance that maybe for one of them somebody decided to deploy their time, effort, and advanced photoshop skills to make a fake photo of a non-existent object, for some unfathomable reason, I suppose. That there is a pattern of this (which no one has picked up and reported this highly amazing, very high-effort conspiracy involving a number of people) is about as likely as the moon landing being a hoax, so we can dismiss that and agree that the photos of the tchockes and other stuff are indeed photos of actually existing objects. All entities are reliable for their own contents. A website of a photo of a Felix the Cat doll is reliable for that photo. Maybe not for other details like when and where it was made and by who, but for the photo, which is what I am referring to. As you know, many sources are reliable for some of their content, and unreliable for others. Whether I would use these sources in the article is a different issue.

So all these are real things. Do they indicate notability? Well of course they do. People don't banks and ads and toys and cups and t-shirts etc.for obscure entities. They just don't is all, because that would be silly and a dumb business model, and if they did that by itself would 'probably confer notability I think. Having one or two or three of these doesn't demonstrate notability. The plethora of tchotchkes we do have does.

Again, we are not going to have magazine reviews of the song because the world didn't work like that then. We also don't have magazine reviews of 17th century chanson. Doesn't mean anything.

So we have reliable indication of notability, done. If we can't use those sources, that's a problem, but it's a technical problem, the main fact that the entity is notable, so it's our job to find a way to keep the article if we can. Notable entities should have articles. (Anyway, we can use these sources. If one wants to play WP:DMV it it could be argued that rule 17, paragraph 4, subparagraph 6, bullet point 3 (or whatever) proscribes that, and then we'd have to dig up a contradicting rule (most rules have 'em) but really just say WP:NOTBURO and move on.

Anyway, doesn't matter cos 1) the song was covered by many notable artists, and 2) was surely up there in the "chart" of record sales and sheet music sales (they didn't play records on the radio much yet I believe), altho any figures are probably lost to history. This seems self-evident and the burden would be on editors trying to disprove it, I would say; and I don't think that any song that meets both these criteria has been deleted, or if so, not many and those cases would be mistakes, because of course we don't want to 404 readers searching such a notable entity when we already have an article. And really what rules are supposed to codify common good practice, and that trumps a rule that tries to hold the dam against the river of common good practice. Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can't be sure if any of tchockes with the phrase preceded the song or not. They very probably came from the song, but we can't be sure, so I don't thin we should even mention. Since works of art are their own regs, all of the article is ref'd (technically) even tho there's only two refs at the botton. Herostratus (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I WP:HEYed the article, so it is now mainly about the song, so we are looking at NSONG and so forth. It's basically a different article, so I think the best next move, Fram, is to close this AfD, then can retitle the article (to the song title), and if you want you can make a new nomination of the song. I wouldn't because as a song it's not likely to be deleted, and if it is that would be unfortunate cos it's as good as very many of our other song articles, and no gain in causing unfortunate things. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Superior Invitation

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

No indication of notability, sources are not independent, passing mentions or database entries (which don't support much of what they are used for in the article anyway[23]). No indepth independent reliable sources about the tournament found. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Tennis, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, it says the Tennis Archives have been cited—they can't lie!~~ Delete per nom unless significant coverage turns up, in which case ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why would we get rid of this sourced tournament just because they didn't write up 1000 sources like they do today? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there are countless non-notable sporting events every day, and long-established consensus is that we only should have articles on the ones where there are indepth secondary sources? If they didn't write up these sources then, and no one has done since then, then it isn't notable. Fram (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Bell (lawyer)

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

Non-notable lawyer. Plenty of sources were added to the article, but most of them only mention the subject in passing (or not at all). Notability is clearly lacking, and there isn't any evidence that subject warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and Texas. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the ever-growing subject matter of export controls & sanctions. Mr. Bell is a legend. His cases with Weatherford and ZTE were record breaking and he managed a political firestorm that put ZTE as the bargaining chip in the original start of the Trump Trade war. He is one of the best speakers I have ever seen and is connected to nearly everyone in this area of law. Instead of the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon people in the legal & compliance world joke about the 6 degrees of Matt Bell and you usually only need 1 or 2 degrees to connect to him. While I am new the Wikipedia process, I was pleased to see he had an article pop up on here. He has been quoted in numerous news stories and articles that might need to be added as I read more about notability. 64.92.63.94 (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Legends" aren't quite the level of sourcing we need, does he have articles written about him directly? Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bell – FTI Consulting - Vanguard Law Magazine 64.92.63.94 (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROMO for a lawyer. The sources are more about the legal cases than the individual, I can't find sourcing strictly about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotional content without notability --Loewstisch (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Call me shocked, but the IP's comments are true! I'm literally 2 degrees of separation on LinkedIn from an attorney/friend who's close enough to me that I attended and spoke up at his wedding and reception. (I have a self-imposed restriction on !voting in similar situations.) I'm not sure he's notable, but he is well-connected. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Castro

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, since subject's career is barely getting started. Coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking, and there isn't any evidence that subjects warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and New York. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is more references that I found and he's been recently being more talked about, he's a well known guy in my state. I believe that he at least qualifies for a stub at most. There are New York Times and New York Posts standalone articles about him, and the region I'm living in (New York City), there have been a lot of local press covering him and filmmakers are what I write about and I believe this article should be kept as I don't see how this violates notability. Issacvandyke (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC) — Issacvandyke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

of course, if you would like to chat about how this article could have been written better, I am open to all discussions :) Issacvandyke (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

Just from researching the topic I found over 15-20 Clothing brands writing about the topic and a few standalone articles about the topic which have been added to the article from major news sources. If you ask me, the topics film is released in nationwide theaters (USA) in around a week, I say Keep. Filmwizardtx (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) — Filmwizardtx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaning towards Delete. I could not find a source that meets WP:GNG and warrants this as a stand-alone article. So far, most of the sources I see are about Lake George (film). I don't think there should be a redirect since the film is unreleased and there is questionable notability of both articles.
@Issacvandyke: Please link the New York Times articles you mention; I could not find one searching for "Hamid Castro" or "Hamid Antonio Castro" on their site. Also, NYPost is generally considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards (WP:NYPOST). - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per User:Whisperjane's source analysis. I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, and while a redirect would be a useful WP:ATD, his film doesn't look like it passes WP:NFILM either. Obvious sockpuppetry, but ineligible for speedy G5. Wikishovel (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be worth opening a SPA, if you are interested - they've been editing for a while and as far as I can see, it looks like one would pop up as efforts to create an article were declined at AfC or elsewhere. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI is already open, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His film is releasing in less than a week from now, I say we wait for for a few weeks to see the press that comes to from it, it has been increasing in press recently. is the article written in the best format? maybe there should be some improvement. but, I believe that there is enough for this stay on wikipedia. Ulyssesgranted (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — Ulyssesgranted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Want to note that all of the keeps so far are from new accounts, and most are SPAs. No one has yet linked a single source, so I would like to remind new editors that establishing notability on Wikipedia requires you to have reliable sources that back up your claims. - Whisperjanes (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but the part where they say to wait makes sense. Draftify until release (I would have waited until release to initiate this, but that's just me). And, btw, the NYP is considered "marginally reliable source(s) for entertainment coverage"; not usable "for controversial statements related to living persons" but NOT "generally unreliable". (I'm not saying it's great journalism.) Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 19:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right about the NYP; I was trying to simplify my comment by saying "generally". To clarify, the NYP source in question looks like it falls under WP:NYPOST instead of WP:DECIDER, because it is not entertainment coverage, as far as I can tell. The NYP's site lists it as a "Health" article, and not under any of their 6 entertainment categories. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think a very valid question to ask here is whether or not this individual would be notable outside of their film (assuming that will pass NFILM by the time the AfD closes). Here's a rundown of the sourcing:

Plex: Routine database listing at best. Cannot establish notability.
AMC Theaters: Also a routine database type listing. Releasing into theaters doesn't make a movie automatically notable, no more than releasing direct to home video makes a movie automatically non-notable. Cannot establish notability.
Production company website: Primary source, cannot establish notability.
Thrillist: This is better, but part of the issue here is that the bulk of the article is written by Castro himself. There are a couple of paragraphs not written by him, but this does make me question whether or not this would be seen as a primary source akin to interviews. Now, I don't necessarily think that interviews are incapable of establishing notability, but it's a pretty widely held opinion on Wikipedia that interviews are primary sources and cannot establish notability. Given that the paragraphs are an opening to Castro's article about himself, I would say that this would be a very weak source at best and at worst, a primary one.
NY Post: As another has said, this is a weird area. Only the entertainment section is considered to be usable, but even then it's only marginally usable. This was published to the health section, not the entertainment section. It's not being used to back up anything controversial, which is helpful, but the fact still remains that this isn't an entertainment article. It's an article written about Castro as it pertains to his fitness business. At best this is another very weak source and honestly, I am extremely uncomfortable with using the NYP as a deciding factor in establishing notability.
Podcast: This looks to be a WP:SPS as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I looked to see if the show or its host (Vincent Lanci) were cited as RS by other RS, but there's nothing out there. I have to assume that this is a self-published source that cannot establish notability. Even if it wasn't, it's an interview and as such, would likely be seen as a primary source anyway. We could probably use this to back up non-controversial claims, but we can't use it to establish notability.
Tapology and NYU athletics: These cover Castro's collegiate athletic career. I'm not hugely savvy with NATHLETE, but offhand it doesn't look like he passes WP:NCOLLATH. These could be used to back up basic info, but not establish notability.

Now, having gone through this, it looks like there are only two sources that could potentially be used to establish notability: Thrillist and NYP. The first is almost entirely written by Castro, making it more or less a primary source. The second is questionable as it's labeled as a health article rather than entertainment. Even if both were seen as usable, they're both extremely weak sources. To me, this doesn't establish how Castro is independently notable outside of the film, assuming that it passes notability guidelines in the future. This means that if the film does eventually pass NFILM, there's a choice to be made: have an article for the director or have an article for the film. There's not really enough notability to justify two articles, again assuming that the film eventually passes NFILM.

I'm going to see if I can find anything else, but offhand I'm inclined to argue against notability here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That didn't take long. What's in the article is what's out there. I even looked with Newspapers.com to see if there was any older sourcing. This guy just isn't independently notable of his movie, which is of questionable notability itself.

So... assuming that the film passes notability guidelines, the question here is whether or not we should have an article on the film or the director. In cases like this, I'm generally more inclined to retain the creative's page. My justification is essentially this: it gives us a place to cover any of the person's future work as well as other things that never quite tally up to passing GNG/NBIO on their own. This not only gives us slightly more content, but can also pull double duty in that it sometimes can help prevent people from creating articles on borderline or non-notable topics. We have one decent article instead of a handful of questionable ones.

However that's assuming that the movie passes NFILM once it releases. If it doesn't, then this will be a delete or draftify on my end because what we have is extremely weak. I'll go ahead and wait for the end of the week to make an argument for or against, just in case the film pulls a Hail Mary on us. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CU Note Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HHamidcastro - many of the accounts who have commented above are confirmed socks of the article's author. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YoungLA

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Profile listing, non-critical blog, Instagram post, and routine coverage. Lacks significant in-depth secondary sources. Junbeesh (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United States of America, and California. Junbeesh (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kanel Joseph

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

Fails WP:ENT. A YouTuber with no significant coverage beyond passing mentions and basic profiles. One minor controversy, but insufficient to establish lasting notability. Junbeesh (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and Florida. Junbeesh (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not quite the level of coverage we need [24]... The first source used in the article isn't aboot this person either. We don't have much left to go on. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Stealing someone's food delivery is not funny - it's just theft. Same thing with stealing passenger luggage at an airport. — Maile (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miran Rada

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. His google scholar page shows a very low h-index and the number of citations of his publications are not impressive. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, Biology, Medicine, Iraq, Canada, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof for low citations in a very high-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Early-career academic, just started a faculty position [25] (not reflected in our article) after a postdoc (the Canadian position from which the only source in the article comes). People at this level of an academic career are unlikely to be notable yet and we have no evidence of him being an exception. The one source is not independent (published by McGill, the location of his postdoc) and has no depth of coverage of him so we also do not have WP:GNG notability. WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco Landing, Indiana

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

It'd easy to find references to the ferry, and there are many hits for a project to determine elevations along the river, but what I'm not seeing is any sign that there was anything here except a ramp down to the water an maybe a shed for a toll keeper. I don't see anything that says this was anything beside where the ferry landed on the Indiana side. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good object lesson in why, as I always say, one should always read what search engines turn up. I can find lots when searching for this name, but reading what turns up they all turn out to be discussing the history and geography of Laconia, Indiana, which is the actual settlement. As reported in a 1959 history, republished in snippets in the August 2001 edition of Indianapolis Monthly, this is just the main ferry crossing south of Laconia. The gas and oil wells of the early 20th century that turn up in searches? They were on the Laconia field and drilled by the Laconia Gas and Bi–Products Company. There is no "unincorporated community" here. There is Laconia. This article is an outright falsehood. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Orbic Air Eurocopter EC130 crash

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

Non-notable aviation accident; though it resulted in six fatalities and no survivors, it doesn't meet the notability for events. Helicopter accidents are also common in aviation. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The crash itself is run-of-the-mill from an aviation point of view, and fails WP:EVENT in particular due to the lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle, and lack of WP:LASTING effects. There are however some details that could be usefully merged to the articles of one or both of the notable people killed in this accident: Herbert Wigwe and Abimbola Ogunbanjo. After the merge, I'd suggest redirecting to Herbert Wigwe § Death as he seems to be the more notable of the two. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I entirely disagree with the nom and the merge !voter. This is a clear-cut WP:GNG pass, WP:NEVENT aside, evidently from the sources and from a cursory search. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•Keep Per above, are we just purging aviation accidents and incidents in 2024? Lolzer3k 21:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TG-article is currently blocked, but they may need to be banned from starting AfDs. There's a pattern here and it's getting ridiculous. SportingFlyer T·C 23:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Addressing the possibility of a merge, I think that any relevant information included in this article is already included in Herbert Wigwe and Abimbola Ogunbanjo. – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". None of the sources, in addition to coverage about a lawsuit, are secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself, with none of them providing significant or in-depth, continued coverage of the event with the coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is currently blocked for what looks like a confirmed sock. – The Grid (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But in this particular instance I think their nomination was justified, and their block shouldn't affect the outcome. For the avoidance of doubt, I stand by my merge vote (though on second thoughts I'd also back outright deletion, in that the utility of keeping a redirect is minimal). The only thing notable about this accident is the presence of notable people on board. Even if one admits that it could pass GNG on that basis, a merge still makes sense per WP:NOPAGE. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:16, 28 January 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 redirect‎ to The Smashing Pumpkins discography. I'll leave it to editors to merge any content that may be appropriate. Sandstein 12:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early 1989 Demos

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

Lacks all notability, no indepth reliable sources Fram (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Fram (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Smashing Pumpkins discography and create a brief entry there for this album (compilation of three other demos already listed). Early 1989 Demos really is a stand-alone album that was independently released, and it has an AllMusic review: [26]. However that is the only reliable review I can find, so we don't have enough different robust sources to support an article here. At the Talk page, the article creator has protested that this is a repeat of a long-standing article at a Smashing Pumpkins wiki: [27], but that doesn't mean it qualifies for an article here because this is not a place to repeat fan trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 21 January 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.

Dauntless: The Battle of Midway

AfDs for this article:

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

This article about a 2019 film was previously deleted at AfD, then later re-created with more sources, but the sources still don't establish notability per WP:NFILM. All of the works in the Bibliography section are about real-life aircraft and all of them were published 18 years or more before this film came out, meaning that they could not have any content about the film. Five of the 14 footnotes are to IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source (see Wikipedia:IMDB). Three of the other footnotes -- Naval History and Heritage Command, Hall of Valor Project, and a book by Barrett Tillman -- pertain to the real-life events this film was based on, not to the film itself. UCM.ONE is the website of the film's distributor in the German-speaking world. Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source (see Wikipedia:ROTTENTOMATOES), but it's being used to cite the fact that the film has been reviewed by no critics they keep track of. The review from "That Moment In" appears to have been taken down from the website which is not a major review site anyway. The purported review from "Flickering Myth" is not a proper review; it's tagged as "News" by Flickering Myth, not as "Reviews". That leaves only two sources I haven't dismissed yet: a page from The Numbers with estimated DVD sales and a review on a blog about naval air history. I don't think this is enough to pass WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 16:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD had identified a review by David Duprey at That MomentIn apparently? Were you able to check it? What about a merge into the article about the battle? (2-3 sentences in a bottom section; the film is listed in the See also section, the film having a rather notable cast)? Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the review by David Duprey is still mentioned in the article. I found it archived here. However, That Moment In has taken the review down -- see this search which finds nothing -- and is not a particularly significant website anyway to my knowledge. The more prominent films Midway (1976 film) and Midway (2019 film), both of which have much more notable casts and actually received theatrical releases, aren't discussed in the Battle of Midway article, just listed in the "See also" section, so I don't believe that this film should be discussed there either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Weak Keep, then, two acceptable reviews (Duprey and Matt Willis, who might be considered an expert in naval history) + mildly notable cast, released, verifiable. If an ATD is found, not opposed to Redirect. -Mushy Yank. 00:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think I found a review or two - honestly, this is a good example of why it's so important to represent sources accurately and not stuff an article full of puffery. That can do more to damage the chances of an article surviving than anything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that misrepresenting the Flickering Myth source also puts the other sources into question, so another reason to be cautious. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Duprey review - whomever wrote the reception section greatly misrepresented what was written. He didn't say it was bad, but the guy didn't really praise much about the movie either, as he found it generally forgettable. Looks like the other source I thought I had was just a trailer post. I'll keep digging, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect. This really, really pushes the boundaries of what is considered to pass NFILM. The reviews are OK, but not the strongest, and the only other sources is an article about the movie releasing (and a borderline WP:TRIVIAL source at that), a database page of home video sales, and a page that looks to be a general database type listing of the film. I do have to restate my earlier bit about the puffery - while the sourcing (that's actually about the film) is very weak, it would likely have not been as heavily scrutinized if it wasn't filled with some mild puffery. On a side note, I did find this Screen Rant source that lists it as one of the top 10 mockbusters per IMDb, but it doesn't give any info on how they compiled the list so I'm a bit reluctant to include it in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the two reviews included in the reception section of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason to delete. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found two other reviews, but I don't know whether the sources would be considered reliable: "REVIEW: Roland Emmerich’s MIDWAY is about as bad as it sounds" on The Beat (that started as a blog, but has editorial staff ), and "Computer Degenerated: A Review of Midway (2019)" from The National World War II Museum, New Orleans. Neither of them are positive about the film. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Spiegel

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

My WP:BEFORE turned up no decent sources with significant independent coverage - it seems to be almost entirely recycled press releases, passing mentions, interviews or items that the subject has written themselves. I therefore submit that notability is not established under WP:GNG and I don't think that any of the WP:SNG pertain in this case. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Advertising, Germany, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog. Thank you for your feedback and for reviewing the article. To address the concerns raised in the nomination, I am actively improving the article by removing sources that lack sufficient independence or reliability. Additionally, I am researching and incorporating high-quality references that offer significant coverage of the subject from third-party, independent sources. To ensure the article adheres to a neutral point of view and complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, I have already removed content that appeared promotional. Based on these ongoing improvements, I kindly request that you consider the revisions before making a final decision regarding the deletion of the article. Thank you.

Sergiomarcus (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergiomarcus great stuff, please do add them to the article, and they can be taken into account. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog Thank you. Sergiomarcus (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the stub is still expanding. Let's wait another few days. Ping me if you think this passes WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources found about this topic are PRs about their appointment as a CEO and some other routine interviews. I would be willing to change my !vote if sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Education Channel

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, sources not independent of the subject Protobowladdictuwu (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) ~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A name that generic for a local educational channel (as opposed to a major national service), in this case Baltimore County, Maryland, pretty much tells you that this is run-of-the-mill and that GNG sourcing is going to be impossible to find (this probably isn't even the only such channel to simply be called "The Education Channel"). I doubt there's much independent or significant coverage under its other (and less ambiguous) "BCPS TV" name, either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources exist that satisfy WP:GNG. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1927 U.S. Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competitions. I had attempted to redirect these articles to U.S. Figure Skating Championships, as has been done with literally hundreds of similar articles over the past month, but was reverted on the grounds that "This page have [sic] a reference source". As if that was the problem. Since the medalists were the only information supported by what sources I could access, I added those sources to the parent article. Recommend deletion or forced redirect back to U.S. Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All pages have a references source, it's not non-notable. If you think it's not enough, you can add it more. The past year was so far and it need more time find the sources. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: There's no need for an individual page for each year; the information can be better presented on a single page for the recurring event as a whole. Espatie (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I have already merged what little there was of value. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Espatie: No need for an individual page for each year, what does it means? If you agree that, all pages should be redirect. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what it says: there is no need for a separate article for every year of this event. One page for the event as a whole, with a combined table of results is sufficient Espatie (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at 1966, there seems to have been plenty of coverage of the event. E.g. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the 1966 article should be kept, I'm sure the AFD closer can separate it out from the others. I trust your judgment. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are sources for 1924 too: [33][34][35][36][37][38]. Also, pages 22 to 29 of the "Skating magazine" source listed in the article are about the 1924 event. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are sources for some of the topics bundled together. I recommend we focus on this particular topic and nominate the topics independently. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Per sources listed above for the earliest (1924) and latest (1966) event in this AfD, it is clear there are sources for these. Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Henderson

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

As per WP:NRSNVNA. Fails Verifiability and i couldn’t find any coverage of him. Apart from a very old Washington post mentioning him, there is no recent coverage whatsoever. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Dance. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 17:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um Natal Rastônico

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reviews, no awards, and insufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Junbeesh (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Brazil, and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack secondary sources or reviews and the cast do not appear to be notable actors. It fails WP:NFILM. Mekomo (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film has a significant online engagement following on YouTube and Brasil Paralelo's streaming platform (considered the 2nd biggest in Brazil). The main star (Rasta) is a famous comedian in Brazil. About "insufficient secondary sources", Wikipedia’s guidelines allow for the use of reliable non-traditional sources. Local coverage by producer companies can - as it has in similar articles - bolster the case. I agree that there are not too many sources, but leaving the short film stub seems more than enough for this matter, as it has done in many previous articles of films (some of them with little to no online engagement at all). Examples: De la coupe aux lèvres, Lel Chamel, Khouya, Cake Day, Charlie Ve'hetzi, Une Visite, En rachâchant, Keep_Not_Silent, and many others. And it's okay, because niche films and artistic projects are often retained if they contribute to a specific cultural or artistic discourse, or if they had a relevant online presence. So even if this film doesn’t meet WP:NFILM fully, it does meet the broader standards for WP:NOTABILITY. Daniel Ben Levi (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Ben Levi YouTube views or viewership from other platforms do not count. Also, notability is not WP:INHERITED. If an article is a stub and does not have the potential to be expanded in the future, it generally should not have a dedicated article. Junbeesh (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If online popularity does not count, then you might as well set up for deletion all Wikipedia pages about YouTube celebrities etc. And the article does have potential to be expanded though. Daniel Ben Levi (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (weak to moderate) -- Not seeing SIGCOV. Agree that it fails NFILM more than it qualifies under it. The arguments against it (so far) are more-or-less invalid; other things existing (or not existing) is a not a reason to argue for (or against) deletion, each article should be considered in a relative vacuum. The main actor being "famous" -- according to an editor, at least, though I have no reason to doubt that to be true -- is neither here nor there. Notable individuals do not confer notability, as @Junbeesh pointed-out. "Online popularity" for other things doesn't matter; Again, other things don't matter, this article and this discussion does. If an editor feels another article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY, they are more than welcome to nominate it for deletion. MWFwiki (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in this article that indicates how or where this film was released to the public or what kind of reception it got. Short films may be notable, but they certainly aren't presumed to be notable. If the film has a "significant online engagement", there needs to be some indication in the article of how that engagement could be known to be "significant". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This could be popular but reviews are not being written about it nor are there any awards won to show the notability of the short film. I’m willing to change my !vote if sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like a Bird

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NSONG. The coverage of this song is mostly just related to trivia / "did you know?" Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The song itself does not appear to have sufficient notability to have it's own article. The song is already covered within the Tiffany Trump article. A MINOTAUR (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city ^‽ 18:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Barker

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

This TikTok commentator bio doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. There is a little bit of routine coverage of her viral TikTok video in sources that are not considered reliable, like WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:NYPOST and WP:FOXNEWS. Nothing here seems to meet SIGCOV imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She's not notable because of her TikTok, she's notable for her political commentary which she both publishes with news outlets and other news outlets publish about her commentary. She's actually been a commentator on Fox News itself on TV a bunch of times. I think it's legitimate to say that Fox News is not a reliable source (I think it's rated as yellow) but I think it is notable when somebody is on Fox News regularly because a lot of people see that. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked through all of the citations again and none of them are "routine coverage of her viral TikTok video" -- they are actually covering her writing from The Free Press and Newsweek. I didn't cite her own writing in the article because I figured that would be a primary source rather than a secondary source, but here it is for your reference:

September 18, 2024 - https://www.newsweek.com/i-raised-millions-democrats-dnc-i-realized-theyre-party-rich-opinion-1955377

October 7, 2024 - https://www.newsweek.com/i-worked-democrats-years-billionaires-have-unfettered-influence-opinion-1961471

October 28, 2024 - https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-party-most-racist-organization-america-opinion-1976128

November 9, 2024 - https://www.thefp.com/p/democrat-fundraiser-evan-barker-i-voted-trump

Fox News appearances:

September 20, 2024 - https://www.foxnews.com/video/6362232260112 and https://www.foxnews.com/video/6362202718112

November 11, 2024 - https://www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-party-consultant-who-voted-trump-says-liberal-friends-turned-back-her

November 12, 2024 - https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6364601436112 and https://www.foxnews.com/video/6364625064112

For the article itself I've cited other people talking about her writing or her TV commentary as secondary sources. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ruthgrace: her own articles don't help to meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. Appearing on Fox News or Fox & Friends also doesn't create notability either, although a lot of people watch it. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a lot of people seeing a subject on the news wouldn't make that subject notable. It's true that left-leaning news outlets are more likely to be considered reliable on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that subjects covered regularly by right-leaning outlets not notable. Ruthgrace (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable sources in this article to meet Wikipedia's general notability requirement. Fox News is classified as generally unreliable in the perennial sources list for politics and science. Newsweek since 2013 is classified as marginally reliable. The New York Post is also generally unreliable. I'm not clear about the reliablility of Public News, but the article is paid so it doesn't count. Discussion about The Free Press concluded that it's a self published source, at least as of now, and thus can't count towards notability. At the moment the subject is notable for one event (WP:BIO1E), that she was a democratic fundraiser who voted for Donald Trump. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON and if the subject has additional coverage over time in generally reliable sources it should be revisited. Nnev66 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing is practically a checklist of perennial deprecated sources. All that's missing is PRNewswire. Newsweek used to be reliable but read their article to see O how the mighty have fallen. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Channels (film)

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

Not sure this meets WP:NFILM, I couldn't find any film reviews but someone else might have more luck. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nat Christian: a standard solution when the director has a page, for released films with mildly notable cast. -Mushy Yank. 08:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 10:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's just nothing out there for this movie. As far as a redirect goes, I want to note that Channels (2008 film) already redirects to the director's page. I would more recommend that this redirect to Channel#Arts,_entertainment,_and_media. There's another film with a generally similar name (The Channel), so it would make more sense to redirect to the disambiguation page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, as far as why I don't want it to redirect with history, it's to avoid people getting confused and trying to redirect it to the director's page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is clearly to get rid of the page. I would have redirected it as the less destructive outcome, but objections against redirect have been raised, so this needs a little more policy-based discussion. Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nat Christian. None of the other content at Channel#Arts,_entertainment,_and_media is properly disambiguated by this title. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OGA Golf Course

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

This golf course has gotten a few brief mentions in some news articles, but none of them have gone into enough depth to justify its notability. Fails GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, Golf, United States of America, and Oregon. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. Wallach, Jeff (2004). Best Places to Golf Northwest: British Columbia to Northern Utah, the Western Rockies to the Pacific. Seattle: Sasquatch Books. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-1-57061-395-1. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The Oregon Golf Association (OGA) Members Course at Tukwila may have one of the longest names around, but it's also long on great golf. Bill Robinson stitched together this tapestry of holes in Woodburn, forty minutes south of Portland. The fabric of Bentgrass stretches 6,650 from the longest of four sets of tees and boasts a couple of reachable (and especially good) par 5s, a huge double green at nine and eighteen, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. Water, wicked bunkers, and pesky woods are also on the menu of this stupendous walking course. The holes here are pure and clever. The OGA course opens with an inviting slight dog right followed by the opposite dog, but this one has more bite—in the form of a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play. Number four is a complex 516 yards: Blind tee shots run down toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and forest and over the chasm to a plateau green. A second par 5 follows. The back side contains the best par 3 on the course, a volatile 172 yards that slope toward water. ..."
2. Robinson, Bob (1996-05-01). "New OGA Members Course draws rave reviews". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The opening of the course's second nine holes in late April marked a milestone—the accomplishment of the OGA's 20-year dream. ... The OGA isn't finished. A clubhouse is in the long-range planning stages to replace the current temporary building. But the major goal—the public golf course—finally is a reality. ... In effect, the OGA Members Course is owned by the nearly 50,000 members of the OGA from 154 member clubs in Oregon and Southwest Washington. The members paid the dues that made the project possible. The idea began in the mid-1970s, when the OGA started having difficulty securing courses for its tournaments. ... In 1976, the OGA began charging each member $1 in annual dues to go into a course acquisition and usage fund. Later, the charge was raised to $2 per member and, finally, $5 when a five-year capital assessment went into effect. Still, as late as 1993, the project was no sure thing. The OGA had $1.2 million in its fund at the time."
3. Petshow, Joe (1994-07-31). "OGA to open its course. The first nine holes open for public play on Tuesday". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Oregon Golf Association's new Members' Course faces a tough task in the days ahead. Keeping 50.000 shareholders happy. ... Nine holes of the course will open to the public on Tuesday. A driving range and putting green opened earlier this year. A second nine holes is scheduled to be completed in 1996. The clubhouse will be the site of the OGA's offices and also will house a golf museum. ... The course is located at Tukwila, a new housing development in north Woodburn. The Tukwila partners donated 170 acres. ... The Members' Course was designed by Bill Robinson, who recently renovated Willamette Valley Country Club in Canby and Bend Country Club. The course flows through a filbert orchard and has six lakes, three wetlands and 31 sand bunkers. ... Another feature is an 18,000-square-foot green, which will be used for the ninth and the 18th holes after the second nine is built. Until then, it will serve as the ninth green. The course also has a 12,000-square- foot putting green, and a driving range with an 80-yard wide tee area, three flag placements and seven targets."
4. Wallach, Jeff (2013-09-25). "The Off-Trail Oregon Golf Trip". Links. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17.
  This is the same author as Wallach 2004. The article notes: "As you head inland over the Coast Range to the lush Willamette Valley, try your best to turn a cold shoulder to Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club and instead set your sights on the OGA Golf Course. Unlike its name, the course is anything but unwieldy. Located half an hour south of Portland, this Bill Robinson layout boasts a couple of reachable par 5s, a huge double green at Nos. 9 and 18, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. The layout opens with two dogleg—No. 1 bends slightly right while No. 2 turns left. The second has more bite, with a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play as one approaches the green. The 4th hole is a complex 516 yards, beginning with a blind tee shot that runs toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and through forest, over a chasm to a plateau green."
5. Petshow, Joe (1993-09-01). "Officials plan for OGA course". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Golf nuts should enjoy the future home of the Oregon Golf Association. The OGA's planned 18-hole public course and an Oregon Golf Hall of Fame is situated north of Woodburn on farmland that includes a filbert orchard. The association on Tuesday officially unveiled the plans for the course, under construction east of Boones Ferry Road and north of Highway 214. The scheduled opening for the first nine holes is May 1994. ... The first phase of construction includes nine golf holes, a driving range, maintenance facility and temporary clubhouse. The cost for the first phase is approximately $1.7 million. ... The course, which includes a wetlands area and views of Mount Hood, will be within the Tukwila real estate development. The 170 acres of land for the golf course was donated to the OGA."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Golf Digest (2006). Carney, Bob (ed.). OGA Golf Course (7 ed.). New York: Fodor's. p. 534. ISBN 978-1-4000-1629-7. ISSN 1534-1356. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
    The article notes: "★★★★1⁄2 OGA GOLF COURSE. PU-2850 Hazelnut Dr., Woodburn, 97071, 503-981-6105. Web: ogagolfcourse.com. Facility Holes: 18. Opened: 1996. Architect: William Robinson. Yards: 6,650/5,498. Par: 72/72. Course Rating: 71.7/71.8. Slope: 131/128. Green Fee: $26/$48. Cart Fee: $25 per cart. Cards: MasterCard, Visa, Discover. Discounts: Weekdays, twilight, seniors, juniors. Walking: Unrestricted walking. Walkability: 2. Season: Year-round. High: Apr.-Nov. Tee Times: Call 5 days in advance. Notes: Range (grass, mat). Comments: This "must-play course" has the "best condition and layout in the state." It has "soft lines, big greens and tough pins." The "front nine, which winds through hazelnut trees our readers tell us, is more interesting and challenging than the "boring" back."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow OGA Golf Course to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SEI Club

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

Wholly promotional, failing neutrality and notability standards. Fails WP:ORG. Dubious sources with no editorial oversight and promotional tone. For example, the GQ article says, "the company offers something many have never considered: a coaching system that refines their approach to dating and relationships." The Businessworld article claims, "SEI Club's success is solely because of its exhaustive screening process and high knockback rate." Junbeesh (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United States of America, and Florida. Junbeesh (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shold the press only be negative? why does positive content equate a lack of notability? Are things in this world never "good"? In some cases the "truth" might in fact be positive. 216.15.110.195 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What negative press are you seeing? It's all positive, or neutral. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Yahoo article is fine, GQ doesn't have a listed author... I found this [39], contributor piece but it was "reviewed by editorial staff" so I suppose it's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo article is an interview with their Senior Matchmaker, featuring his direct quotes and WW is straight puffery. Junbeesh (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other two sources are fine I think. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. gq.co.za and businessworld are usually unmarked paid placement and goofy puffery, with no authors indicated. Yahoo Life is surprisingly written by an actual journalist - usually Yahoo is all redirects to blogs and other junk these days. Most of the Yahoo piece is just uncritical quotes from an interview; not sure that's going to meet the WP:ORG requirement for independence. Unclear on the Dating News site, seems okay. I removed several flat-out blackhat paid placements. Doing a search reveals a tremendous amount of paid placement and vanity publications, including some creepy ones. Also, PR from our friends at "First North Marketing". Overall, just not enough to be notable and I can't get to WP:ORG.Sam Kuru (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yahoo Life is basically the only usable source here. GQ and BusinessWorld lacks byline and I have no opinion on Dating News site. That being said, I don’t think that the subject has the significant coverage need for organisation. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael De Medeiros

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

Does not meet neither of Wikipedia's notability or sourcing guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program

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

This article lacks inline cites and the topic is already covered in Space-based_solar_power#Exploratory_Research_and_Technology_program No objection to merging if you think the refs at the end of this article are sufficient. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Spaceflight, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is appropriate here. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

External Revenue Service

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

I don't believe this meets the notability criteria. The "proposed agency" was mentioned by Trump in a social media post, so it's not clear it will actually be created; no other politician or policymaker has seriously discussed the proposal, and no legislative action has been taken to create the agency. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Likely WP:TOOSOON for mainspace as a future planned US government department [sic], but Draft:External Revenue Service should be developed with relevant material in case this becomes a real plan. Novemberjazz 20:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no valuable content in the article. We don't have any details of this hypothetical agency, and the current piece reads like it was written by a pro-Trump LLM:

This initiative is part of Trump's broader trade policy, which includes imposing tariffs on imports from foreign countries to enforce an "America-first" approach.Trump announced this plan on his Truth Social network, emphasizing the need for foreign entities to pay their "fair share" from trade profits.The creation of this service reflects Trump's commitment to his campaign promises regarding trade levies.
CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2025 (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/2025 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Social media trends aren't reliable sources and this feels like a joke rejected by Merry Melodies c. 1939 that we've all made once and then said 'never using that joke' again. Nate • (chatter) 21:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SPECULATION - Please see History of taxation in the United States. I believe this would take an act of the US Congress to create - the very attempt of which would create a lot of ticked off constituents. Either way, this is not likely to bear fruition anytime soon. — Maile (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113827650534234057 but now Time https://time.com/7206986/trump-external-revenue-service-tariffs-taxes/ and UPI https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-proposes-external-revenue-service-to-tax-foreign-sources/ar-AA1xcB5s?ocid=BingNewsSerp, Reuters, CBS, etc. are covering it. Arbeiten8 (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters, CBS, et al. are covering Trump's social media post, not the actual agency. There's still zero indication that this agency will every be established, or that anyone will even try to establish it. It's total nonsense. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., WP:TOOSOON, and WP:CRYSTAL. Sal2100 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We do not have to cover everything Trump says. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a serious plan by someone who is about to be president of the United States. It's being covered by media outlets and treated like a serious plan too. Of course, the idea is crazy, but we also have an article for a fictitious cabinet department named after an internet meme headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, so I don't think this is too far out there. We have even decided to keep articles for random Twitter shitposters, and this — a serious plan proposed by the president-elect — is certainly more notable than that. It should be noted that the article itself needs significant reworking regardless. Gore2000 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a serious proposal. DOGE has been pretty widely discussed by members of Congress and the media–there's even a caucus. Additionally, Trump can (and plans to) establish DOGE as an advisory committee by executive order. On the other hand, the "ERS" would require Congressional legislation, and it's not clear that he plans to introduce, or would be able to pass, such legislation.

Without follow-up by Trump, this is an article about a social media post. That's not notable. See WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration, in the tariffs section. That article will be merited in a couple of days. Alternately merge to Second presidential transition of Donald Trump. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The foreign policy article should cover actually policy, not random tweets. This proposal, unless someone takes steps to implement it, will be totally irrelevant in a few news cycles. It's too soon to have an article discuss it. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is right now promising to establish the External Revenue Service in his inauguration speech to perform many functions of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Arbeiten8 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's just mentioned it in his inauguration speech and given the likes of the Associated Press and Time have mentioned it, means I don't think CRYSTAL/TOOSOON applies here since it seems more than likely it will happen in the coming days. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it seems more than likely than" is the definition of WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON. But, even if he does introduce legislation creating this agency soon, it's a long road to passage. Pending legislation doesn't meet the notability requirements. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- CRYSTAL clearly says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". Which clearly is the case here given the verified coverage before and after President Trump's inaguration speech. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, like Department of Government Efficiency Splatterxl – talk 20:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I discussed above, there's a key difference between DOGE and ERS. DOGE can be created by executive order, but this agency would require Congressional legislation. Besides, DOGE already exists, but this is just an idea. An idea doesn't warrant an article. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the press coverage and the fact that it's been mentioned in the inauguration speech. Aŭstriano (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't meet notability requirements. He mentioned it, but that doesn't mean he'll move forward with it or that the agency will end up being created. If a bill is introduced or actual action is taken, we should reassess, but for now this isn't notable. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for the reasons enumerated in my original post and subsequent discussion CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Economic policy of the second Donald Trump administration, and yes, I know that this page is currently a redirect to the main DJT article, but it's an article which will certainly have to be created soon. At this point the proposal is a notable part of his larger economic and fiscal policy agenda, and was mentioned in his inaugural address. But I do agree that it's not yet quite at the point of warranting an article of its own, in large part since there simply aren't yet many details known about this proposal. But if/when it's further developed, this could well change. -2003:CA:8723:6551:3D79:C1D4:E66F:E1D6 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:CRYSTAL as we do not need a separate article on everything Trump throws out along the way. If anything ever comes of it, OK, but not now. Mangoe (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Right now this is just something Trump mentioned. If something happens then sure, but currently it's a bit too soon to know if that something will actually happen. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Knowledge Now

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

The article has no citations actually about the subject except for primary sources. Non-government/non-department of defense sources aren't about AFKN, they're about knowledge management. Fails WP:GNG. v/r - T P 20:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was the original author. This can be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpoteet (talk • contribs) 01:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimanche v. Brown

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

Non-notable, WP:ROTM legal case that is principally created to add credence to Moliere Dimanche (see also: WP:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche and User talk:NovembersHeartbeat)Spiralwidget (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement:

1. Vandalism: This user Spiralwidget has repeatedly vandalized this topic. In his nomination for deletion of the page for Moe Dimanche he states that Dimanche is "prominent" in the case law, and then states that he doesn't know much about "American legal stuff", but projects himself as an expert on legal case notability here. This is vandalism, and in American jurisprudence, Dimanche v. Brown has been cited in 178 new opinions be United States judges. That means this case law helped our highest courts establish new case law, and will continue to do so forever. Virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, and the 178 citations is just from judges rendering opinions. That doesn't count the many more times litigants have used the citation to protect there positions in our district courts, our appellate courts, and in the Supreme Court of the United States. This is an actual law, and has been one since 2015.

I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NovembersHeartbeat (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, can you provide a list of some of them? Ca ^{talk to me!} 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. This whole thing just discouraged me from further involvement in being a wikipedia editor altogether. Kind of has me feeling like I'm offending people without meaning to, so forgive me for not seeing your comment. And thank you for being willing to see more about this. So with case law, they're not actually lawsuits. What happens is that when lawsuits are filed in district courts, and somebody gets a ruling they don't like, they appeal to the circuit courts. If the circuit court issues an opinion on the case, and that opinion gets published, it becomes a law, and it is binding. Roe v. Wade started out as a lawsuit, Brady was a lawsuit, Gideon was a lawsuit, but those cases became law after either a circuit court or the Supreme Court published a written opinion to resolve it. I thought that the fact that it was a law made it noteworthy enough. If I didn't include the relevant citations in the article, that's my fault, but here are a few for you to consider. The Human Rights Defense Center issues a publication called Prison Legal News that circulates information about new case law that promotes human rights. In its 26th Edition, they touched on Dimanche v. Brown: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/publications/volume-1-detention-and-corrections-caselaw-catalog-26th-ed-2016/. They spoke about the First Amendment and the use of chemical agents in retaliation against inmates. The citations used in the article demonstrate how prominent organizations cited Dimanche v. Brown to protect their interests, from the ACLU, to the Institute for Justice, Dimanche v. Brown is helpful in arguing what is precedential when it comes to protecting human rights. Columbia University did a piece on improvements to the Prison Litigation Reform Act that can be found here: https://jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2021/02/21.-Chapter-14.pdf. They state:

"Suppose you follow the grievance rules, but get a grievance decision rejecting your grievance and claiming wrongly that you didn’t follow the rules. Courts have generally been willing to examine incarcerated people’s compliance with the rules independently rather than being bound by what grievance officials say about it."

Here, they cited to Dimanche v. Brown to encourage students and litigants that courts look at the totality of the circumstances instead of taking grievance officials at their word. Additionally, Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, a partner of the Department of Justice, published its monthly law journal on retaliation case law, found here: https://www.aele.org/law/Digests/jailretaliation.html. Dimanche v. Brown was, again, listed as a case where the courts opt to not take prison officials at their word when grievance mechanisms are in question. These are just publications who find helpful laws that can help their readers, but where you will find the true value in the law is here: https://casetext.com/case/dimanche-v-brown-2/how-cited?citingPage=1&sort=relevance. It is primarily for use by attorneys, but as you can see, the law was cited 178 times by courts in the United States as a foundational point to settle law, and its 18 pages of new laws being set with Dimanche v. Brown giving the courts guidance. As you can see, in 2023 the 11th Circuit published another law, Sims v. FDOC (https://casetext.com/case/sims-v-secy-fla-dept-of-corr-1?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q=), and the entire section 4 of that law was founded on Dimanche. v. Brown. Keep in mind, Dimanche v. Brown became law 10 years ago, and it was used as a founding point of reason to resolve an entirely new 11th Circuit opinion in 2023. It is a very important case to people who litigate prison civil rights cases. Finally, in its articles on Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, & Government and Administrative Law, Justia published a synopsis on Dimanche v. Brown: https://us11thcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2015/04/18/dimanche-v-brown/. It has its place in civil rights, human rights and prisoner rights litigation, and many litigants rely on it to get justice in their cases because a lot of inmates face retaliation for filing inmate grievances, and when they see that somebody prevailed under the same circumstances, they tell the courts that the 11th Circuit has already recognized how bad the retaliation is in the prisons. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to compile all the sources. I am sorry for the late response; The notification system didn't seem have worked for some reason. My knowledge in law is very limited, so I can't judge how important the case is. Still, many legal publications have included the case in their, I am guessing, list of precedences, so I would definitely support a section in the Moe Dimanche article. However, most of the above sources are a simple synopsis of case, which one could get simply by reading the court filings. There are not much in terms of secondary analysis in the cited sources. Wikipedia is not a mere compendium of legal cases, so I'd support a merge to its parent article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:44, 15 January 2025 (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. Skynxnex (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I am happy to be proven wrong. I am not well-versed in the laws, so it is possible that I am missing some major source that I could look for coverage. However, a search on Google Scholar, Google, Google News, and Google Books did not return any usable source(that is, reliable and independent). Currently, this article has an WP:original research problem since the topic has zero secondary analysis by reliable sources. This article is also heavily WP:REFBOMBed with primary documents of the lawsuit. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel like my essay WP:NPOV deletion applies here, since lawsuits are naturally a contentious topic. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The use of a level-3 fake header (same as the real header of the entire AfD) is confusing. Reduced to level 4. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - I think ordinarily we might agree on !delete for this kind of thing, on the basis of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and a lack of secondary sources. We are not a legal dictionary. On the other hand.. it feels like laws which affect people are a special case, and there could be a lot of things to assess and !delete on this precedence. There are sources, in particular I think this one shows that the case has been cited many times in other cases. I don't know how to parse this stuff, I'm hoping others with better knowledge and legal nouce can give us direction. JMWt (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am open to changing my vote with the opinion of a legal expert, but I believe this should be kept. The case has been cited 178 times in 10 years. The article does have some issues with original research and puffery, but I believe the article can be improved with someone knowledgeable of law who is not related to the subject. Of possible relevance, I separately voted delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche in part on the basis that the plaintiff is not notable, but the case is notable.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to allow more input for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Albanese

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

This person doesn't seem notable enough to me. I cannot find any news coverage about her. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish her notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moopaz (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only "vote" is from an account that was created today. I'd like to hear more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think she meets WP:CREATIVE #3: "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". Apart from her other work, she co-wrote and co-executive produced 3 seasons of See Dad Run, and that has been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Some of the references from the See Dad Run article could be added here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Patrick_Labyorteaux#Personal_life: she is mentioned there and she co-~~wrote~~[created/produced; no writing credits: https://variety.com/2012/tv/reviews/see-dad-run-1117948533/] See Dad Run with him. I am not opposed to the Keep RebeccaGreen is suggesting if she and other users really think her role in the series was essential. -Mushy Yank. 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [Edited; see below][reply]
I would not consider co-creating and co-producing a 3 season TV series part of her husband's personal life! RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
D sure, that work is not part of her husband's personal life (although it is part of his professional life, because the second co-producer is him) but still she can be mentioned [and redirected] there. If you prefer it can be redirected to the series itself. Again, if you and other users agree she's notable for having co-created/produced the series, not opposed to K. -Mushy Yank. 10:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect either to Patrick_Labyorteaux or perhaps to See Dad Run directly. I'd otherwise lean against keeping.. I agree she meets WP:CREATIVE #3, and she definitely deserves credit for her work. But I see those additional criteria more as something that strengthens a case (and a reason to expect that we might find significant coverage). But I'm having a hard time finding much beyond her IMDB. Even if someone is important for their work, we really can't write much in a WP:BLP without WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources Mlkj (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, no, if you really think she meets Wikipedia:CREATIVE or Wikipedia:PRODUCER, it's a perfectly valid path for inclusion. -Mushy Yank. 10:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per RebeccaGreen. Topic meets WP:NCREATIVE#3. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:41, 26 January 2025 (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