Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

WP:AFD/USA

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

General

Tiger Team (TV series)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Law, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it clearly fails GNG and lacks notability. — Mister Banker (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A burn-off pilot never really meant to be aired; only did so for tax benefits (years before David Zazlav would take too much advantage of it). Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milan the Leather Boy

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

The article has 13 references, but the issue with them is that many of them aren't reliable sources and/or don't provide significant coverage. I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions, like less than 30 words about a Milan release in an issue of Cash Box ([1], page 26, bottom right corner). toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Republican Party presidential primaries

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election, as has been done in the past. There is currently nothing to be said here that can't be said in the main article until the separate page is needed. That might not be too far off, but this isn't the place for this outdated speculation. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — Wholely speculative material. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election as a viable ATD, per Reywas92. Sal2100 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just mentioning because it has been proposed as a Redirect target article but 2028 United States presidential election is also involved in an AFD deletion discussion right now. Is there an alternate target article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election. Again, the page could be recreated once the primaries arrive.TH1980 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hodges

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Bill Wylie-Kellermann

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 United States presidential election

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2028 United States presidential election (3rd nomination)

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

No difference from 2021 to now. Speculation about who might run is not enough to sustain an article. Several editors have violated policies about copy and pasting others' work in order to create this article. I propose that it not only be re-deleted as the redirect target is not appropriate, but administrator protected for at least three months. It may even be necessary to delete the draft and start from scratch. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Due to some political scholars predicting (as sourced on the article for the 2024) the destruction of Democracy under Trump, could it be considered a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to assume there even will be a 2028 election at all? StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The holding of an election is legally required, there is no legislative proposal or policy suggestion that mentions (for instance) not holding a presidential election in 2028 - let alone any state or federal election. It would be a greater violation of WP:CRYSTAL to remove this page because 'there is a possibility this event may not happen'. This suggestion is a somewhat akin to someone saying 'the Next United Kingdom general election page should be deleted because the UK may not exist by 2029 because Scotland and Wales may leave', which is far more likely but currently there is no indication of that happening, similarly to this idea. I can't make any assesment as to whether this page should exist, I just wanted to give my view on this line of reasoning in particular. notadev (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you TopVat19sEver (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh to be clear I personally think such claims are pure fear mongering, but, nevertheless, if reliable sources are predicting it, what choice do we have? StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

notadev explained it, a reliable source can only take you so far TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless these sources have a crystal ball, they’re merely speculating on what could happen, and there is likely an equal or greater chance of it not happening. I would argue that we should continue to operate under our current understanding of the situation, and that until some legal change is implemented, it would be dangerously speculative for this page to be deleted. notadev (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a vote on the talk page. Should we move it here? Renerpho (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per precedent in previous US election articles, anyone listed needs TWO RECENT and SUBSTANTIVE sources establishing they are likely to run, not pre-2024 mindless speculation of throwing a huge list of names out there. I'm fine with there being an article, but it should not be full of absurd pundit blabber. Reywas92^Talk 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link for that? Never heard about it. Probably a number of those listed can be deleted. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look in the source code at this 2016 version of the 2020 election article there's a hidden comment that says "Potential candidates must have at least TWO separate references from reliable sources from the past year. Sources should provide substantive discussion of individuals, not a "kitchen sink" listing of numerous people". In the 2012 version of the 2016 election article the article said "Individuals listed below should have been mentioned as potential 2016 presidential candidates in at least two reliable media sources in the last six months." This 2020 version of the 2024 election article says "Individuals in this section have expressed an interest in running for president within the last six months." and "The following people have been subjects of speculation about their potential candidacy within the last six months".

We should not be listing dozens of people briefly mentioned in a single year-old source, we need a higher standard of multiple recent sources that focus on someone actually considering running – ideally substance on the person's participation in the Invisible primary, not just who the columnist wants to run or considers high-profile. I have removed the outdated punditry from the article, but folks are welcome to start over with something more grounded in the present. Reywas92^Talk 19:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a lot of coverage on this, but here's one: https://www.newsweek.com/who-will-run-2028-seven-potential-democratic-candidates-1981214. It will essentially be entirely "Which people are likely to run?", but maybe if the boilerplate was removed and only the potential candidates section was kept (with the 2 reliable, recent sources mentioned above) it could be a good article. Personally, I'd like to know who might be a likely candidate, even if it's unknown right now. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTALBALL "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions". To do so would open up a whole category of speculative articles, dragging on and on in debate. None of us know the future, not even as near as January 2025. How many people envisioned in 2004 that a black man would run and win the 2008 Presidential election? That wasn't on anybody's radar. Also, as long as there are living descendants of any past president, who knows on that issue. A key factor in any election is how the US Supreme Court will have dealt with issues in the previous four years. We have no business sidetracking Wikipedia into a debate forum. — Maile (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify premature Andre🚐 20:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per WP:CRYSTALBALL (as the next general election is specifically listed there as appropriate). The 2028 election is the next US presidential election. It is scheduled, verifiable, and there are sources that talk about the election. While I agree there can be WP:CRYSTAL problems with adding certain content to the page, the fact that an election is on the books for 2028 is not in doubt. --Enos733 (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the reasons outlined in the comment above. Nothing premature here, it is the next election. -- Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the 2027 governor election pages were put up right after last year's elections, this election is far more notable, why are we changing the rules left and right? No reason to not have the page up. TheFellaVB (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly notable and mentioned in WP:CRYSTAL as an example "Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics." 2600:100F:B1BF:78F7:31D5:D64B:57DF:473D (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (strongly) per above. LITERALLY mentioned in WP:CRYSTAL. It's "the next general election", which is absolutely appropriate to have an article on. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is both notable and yes, it is expected to happen as usual (and per the three users above me). It is the next election anyhow. In fact, why was it necessary to have this AfD Discussion in the first place when its going to happen anyhow? 20chances (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
● Keep To Quote WP:CRYSTAL: "1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." InterDoesWiki (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@InterDoesWiki: I'm not sure if you are aware of the "intricacies" behind that quote. See my own comment to my !vote below. The reason why WP:CRYSTAL lists those examples (including the 2028 U.S. presidential election) is problematic. Renerpho (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paintspot Infez and Enos733: Seeing that you've also made similar arguments, I think I should point you there as well. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL (as the next general election is specifically listed there as appropriate). and LITERALLY mentioned in WP:CRYSTAL both are not -- technically -- true. It's not mentioned "literally", and it's not listed "specifically" either. No human has ever added those examples, and it doesn't appear in the wikitext. Renerpho (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we don't like the text of WP:CRYSTAL, there are plenty of articles that provide context for the election (even discounting speculation). There are articles about whether Trump can run again, about how the 2024 elections may have created additional swing states, and there is the basic information about how the 2028 election will proceed (e.g. number of electoral votes). - Enos733 (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enos733: To be clear, I am still voting "keep" -- just not based on WP:CRYSTAL. I've struck part of the rationale for my vote, not the vote itself. Renerpho (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is notable and the next U.S. presidential election on the schedule. After the 2023 gubernatorial elections, the 2027 gubernatorial election pages were created immediately. I think it is 100% appropriate to have an article for 2028. There is no reason not to at this point in time. TheMrTropical (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should this article have a WP:HISTMERGE with Draft:2028 United States presidential election? –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 02:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was unable to move the draft into the Main namespace because they already made a redirect with the same title so I just copy pasted the draft onto the redirect and then made the draft page redirect to the Main namespace. Please do this inshaAllah. TopVat19sEver (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have requested a history merge. Next time, use WP:RMT in situations like that. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am in favor of this as well, keeping the edit history all in one place makes sense. Sal2100 (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a strong public interest in this topic which compels it to stay; and while there may be articles that need deleted, this ain't one of 'em. -- Sapienna (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Obviously, no one is claiming that the next U.S. presidential election is insignificant. The question is whether a page for the election is sustainable this early. Four politicians who have expressed interest—their plans changing notwithstanding here—is not enough to justify an article at this time. Tucker Carlson is among the potential Republican candidates, cited solely by a prediction from Joe Rogan. That conjecture is reading into the crystal ball from a source who is not foreign to espousing falsehoods. From WP:FUTURE: If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. No preparation is publicly known at this time, only gleaned from either dubious figures or journalists jockeying to be politically savvy. I am not against a draft to gather information and establish a general page structure, but it is very apparent that there needs to be a second administrator intervention to ensure that this process aligns with WP:FUTURE. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The speculated candidates section probably needs to be reduced in size (we don't need to put every single Democrat and Republican with a national presence there), but some candidates such as Whitmer have already started floating runs. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Speculation about candidates and polling data are not sufficient reasons to keep an article. There is no notable coverage beyong that and this article should be deleted until someone notable declares. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Pure speculation (check sources: "2028 Presidential Wannabe", "What if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez", "Ted Cruz says he expects", "Mike Pence looks like", "we just don't know what it will be", etc.). Nothing really substantially notable and covered by decent sources. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per WP:CRYSTALBALL (Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place, which is the case here as US elections are fairly notable and are fixed every four years, so it's fairly sure it is almost certain to take place, barring a world-ending event or the US turning into a full-blown dictatorship) and past precedent (articles for "next" elections are typically created once a winner for the previous election has been called; there is even a specific section for how to name future election articles at WP:NCELECT. Furthermore, this is specially true for US elections: check the case for the 2024 article which was created/moved into mainspace on 8 November 2020). Also, we already have primary polling and multiple sources covering the 2028 election, so this is obviously not unsourced. Impru20^talk 10:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per WP:CRYSTALBALL — Gor1995 𝄞 12:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles on the next general election in a country usually are created before they take place. Keeping that in mind, the article is in the spirit of NEVENT. There are already enough sources, post-5 November, to determine notability. The speculative nature of some of the sources is not contrary to CRYSTALBALL, because this is a scheduled, notable event, very likely to take place. Dege31 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTALBALL. US elections are certainly notable, especially given recent events. Procyon117 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As of now, this is still the soonest legally scheduled US presidential election. Until we have a solid reason to believe this election will not occur, i.e. a piece of legislation passed to prevent it from occuring, i see absolutely no reason to delete. MagicalFishing (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Khronicle I (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In an earlier deletion discussion in which I participated regarding the 42nd Canadian federal election, the position was expressed that we create an article for an election as soon as the previous election is over, not before then and not after then. That precedent actually has been followed for this page, as this page existed only as a redirect until shortly after the 2024 election wound down earlier this week. However it is not a precedent that has been consistently followed. For example the article 2024 United States presidential election had substantive content as far back as 2016, well before the conclusion of the 2020 United States presidential election or even the 2016 United States presidential election. On the other side of the same equation, the page for the 2030 Russian presidential election has not yet been created despite the fact that the 2024 Russian presidential election ended some time ago. The precedent with Russia might be relevant due to WP:CRYSTAL concerns expressed by StrexcorpEmployee that the threat to US democracy might be sufficiently severe that the 2028 will not be held at all. Given the prior precedent, I'm a Keep, but I'm not a Strong Keep, as I think there are questions we need to resolve regarding what the actual precedent is before I can support keeping the article really strongly. Dash77 (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Editors citing WP:CRYSTALBALL have thus far failed to demonstrate how that policy supports this article and have not addressed substance issues. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They quote the specific part of the article where it cites the 2028 Election as an example that does not apply to the policy as well as the olympics, and the issues you guys expressed is already removed from the page now. TopVat19sEver (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL specifically states editors should avoid creating articles if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research by mentioning an election article in the far future. It is clear that there is some information about the election of 2044, that it will occur and involve the Electoral College. That does not make it worthy of inclusion at this time. Is the information here not a duplicate of Wikipedia's article on U.S. electoral processes? The editors arguing for deletion are asking to keep this article space vacant until such a time comes where there is unique information. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." The 2028 election is not any old "next event" that will take place, it is specifically listed in the policy as one of two "appropriate topics". It is notable because it is the next one in line, that is what makes it notable, verses the 2044 election, which does not happen until after many elections. The article also is not just "that it will occur and involves the Electoral College", there are reliable sources that discuss future candidates, from after 6 November 2024, and the consensus is sources from a few months before are okay, and there is even sources discussing if the election won't happen because they think President Trump is a dictator, which although it is silly, sources Wikipedia considers as reliable state it, therefore what they say can be included. This is all things that could be included in the page from reliable sources. Strong Keep. TopVat19sEver (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by TopVat19sEver, WP:CRYSTAL does specifically mention this article as one that should be kept. So there is that. However I would still like to understand the policy a bit better. In particular, WP:CRYSTAL states that if nothing verifiable can be said about a future event yet, it is premature to create an article. What, specifically, verifiable is known about the 2028 United States presidential election so far? Actual references to verifiable sources seem a bit thin so far, although I expect there to be more coverage from reliable sources at some point. So I remain a Keep, but think the policy could be made clearer than it is. Dash77 (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dash77: I agree with keep (per my vote below), but I've also explained in a comment under my vote why WP:CRYSTAL does specifically mention this article as one that should be kept is not actually true. Renerpho (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only substance issues are caused by ElijahPepe who continues to blank the article without consensus and should be topic-banned from election-related articles. 72.0.191.77 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is vandalism likely from people who think President Trump is a dictator due to the legacy media repeatedly referring to him as one. Someone also was making the page into a redirect for the page "hoax". I requested it for semi-protection and Alhumdulilah they accepted it, so this should stop happening now inshaAllah. TopVat19sEver (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an IP editor so vociferous about topic bans? To correct your incorrect statements, I reverted two edits that were not conetructive for this article, the first being vandalism and the second violating copy and paste policies regarding articles others work on. Neither of those reverts were because of Trump's election or what policies he may or may not enact. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - standard practice is to create an article for the next upcoming election in a regular election cycle as soon as the previous election concludes, and since the United States has fixed elections, this is at the correct title. Issues with sourcing regarding future candidates are editorial issues, not issues compelling deletion of the entire article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Enos733 and several other Keep !vote arguments. Sal2100 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now IS the time for this article. We know Trump, Clinton and Obama can't run and we know the Electoral College map will be identical to 2024. _pbp 22:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What else? Knowing that alone does not justify an article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep the article as it's relevant but remove the section about potential candidates, at least for now. GandalfXLD (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: per all reasoning mentioned and based on the previous precedent of 2024. Alhanuty (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piling on Keep: The article for the 2024 election was create uncontroversially the day after the 2020 election was called for Biden. No reason not to do the same here. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 23:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is a reason not to do it here: it has no current coverage beyond speculation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:Like others have said, the article for the 2024 election was created right after we knew who the president-elect in 2020 was. To have an article for the next election in a series of regularly scheduled elections is, in my opinion, good practice and keeping in line with tradition. Lj123 (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: All of the information is just speculative, not encyclopedic. We don't have enough information yet on any of the potential candidates or what their platforms will be. Just because a 2024 election article was created too early doesn't mean we have to make a 2028 version too early as well. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until after the 2026 Midterm. Then bring it back as a proper Article when the Midterm is over. Probably the best possible compromise, for everyone saying how premature it is for its own Wikipedia Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from a cursory Google, there are numerous news articles / pieces discussing the 2028 Presidential election. Wikipedia's job is to reflect what the outside world considers notable and it's clearly considered notable by the outside world. --B (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This is the next U.S. presidential election, and it's entirely appropriate to have an article dedicated to it. There's precedent for this, too. Let's look at the last few presidential elections and when their Wikipedia articles were moved from draftspace:

2016 United States presidential election: 5 November 2012, 1,464 days before the election, and before the previous election even happened

2020 United States presidential election: 30 October 2015, 1,831 days before the election, and before the previous election even happened

2024 United States presidential election: 25 October 2018, 2,203 days before the election, and before the previous election even happened

But here we are debating whether to keep the article less than 1,460 days before the election, well within the timeline that past articles have followed.

The election is both notable and almost certain to occur as scheduled, as outlined by WP:CRYSTALBALL, where, in fact, "2028 U.S. presidential election" is cited as an example of an appropriate article. Anopisthograph (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MashaAllah, this is a nearly perfect explanation of why to keep the article Alhumdulilah brother TopVat19sEver (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is standard practice for the next scheduled election to have an article. R. G. Checkers^talk 06:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very rarely is there a policy that explicitly advocates for the existence of a specific article, and in this case there is. WP:CRYSTAL point #1 in the fourth sentence says:
Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics.
Consensus on Wikipedia is judged by the strength and weight of arguments with regards to how much they are backed with policy. Left guide (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, it shouldn't be deleted Nohorizonss (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, man WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.", and even lists the 2028 United States presidential election as an explicit example. Keep and salt against deletion. Though I would support removing potential candidates for now. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CrystalBall. Way too early to be making an article based on pure speculation of who will be running for President. CNC33 (. . .talk) 18:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the only purpose of the article, and in the policy you cited, it literally specifies that the 2028 election is not violating the policy. TopVat19sEver (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per precedent cited by TopVat19sEver, ~~and the arguments that explain why WP:CRYSTAL explicitly allows such articles~~. Leave it to the politicians to scrub this election.^[Humor] Renerpho (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot ignore that there are problems with the arguments that are citing the example given in WP:CRYSTAL. Note that since 18 January 2014,[2] WP:CRYSTAL is using a regular expression to determine which article titles are appropriate, and which are not. In this case, they're using
[[{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + 4 + ({{CURRENTYEAR}} * -1)mod4 }} United States presidential election|{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + 4 + ({{CURRENTYEAR}} * -1)mod4 }} U.S. presidential election]]

Right now, that formula leads to the 2028 election, and it has done so since 1 January 2021. This means that it already was given as the explicit example of an appropriate article title when we last deleted it on 24 April 2021 (when it was still a redirect to United States presidential election).[3] WP:CRYSTAL will automatically switch this to the 2032 election on 1 January 2025, and I don't think that article would have any chance to survive AfD for another few years.

This was brought up in the April 2021 discussion. The most interesting arguments I find there come from Elli and Reywas92. Reywas92 argued for salting the title, and that it should be protected until November 2024, just as the 2024 page was protected until after the 2020 election. I find that a sensible policy, and a strong counter-argument to what the nominator said above. Things have actually changed since 2021; namely, the 2024 election is over. Renerpho (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find the arguments problematic because 1. I don't think that formula has ever undergone vetting by the community, 2. there is no way to mathematically calculate if an article title is appropriate or not, and 3. it gives the impression that the specific examples have been listed purposefully, which is not true. Renerpho (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry guys I did not know this forgive me, I am still strong keep inshaAllah TopVat19sEver (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources like this express notability without needing speculation. 50.234.120.14 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support a WP:SNOW at this point. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should keep it, since the 2024 U.S. Presidential election already happened. After the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, the 2024 U.S. Presidential election Wikipedia article was automatically created. 67.184.44.198 (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Ivanvector (see above). M.Karelin (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Comment Is it too early to close this with concensus to Keep? InterDoesWiki (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly a notable event that will indeed happen (despite what Donito Trumpolini has claimed). TH1980 (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete While it is true that the next presidential election is scheduled for 2028, no preparation has been done for 2028 by any organization, potential candidate, or election official. Sourcing for the potential candidates is poor, with it using sources that are marginally reliable and syndicated. Of note is that every potential candidate except two uses WP:NEWSWEEK as a source. For a breakdown of the sources for the remaining two potential candidates, Pete Buttigieg and Andy Beshear: The Washington Examiner is only marginally reliable; Yahoo! News is a syndication article from Fox Television Stations, which might violate WP:FOXNEWS per the only assessment I could find regarding FTS at RSN; Kentucky Lantern is tied to States Newsroom, an organization Axios covers here; and the final is WHAS-TV, a local ABC affiliate, whose article focuses on a breakdown of a betting website's odds. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I find it astonishing that someone could even put this page up for deletion this event has a 99% chance of happening not to mention if we go forward with this we would need to delete Next Indian general election, Next Australian federal election, 45th Canadian federal election and many many more pages John Bois (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to all the people saying, it’s just speculative and not Fitting of Encyclopedia Well, no one can just edit any book which is what a Encyclopedia is And who cares if it’s just Speculation it gives people ideas and help people understand the current political situation better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.180.216.79 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we typically keep articles on next elections. SportingFlyer T·C 06:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A preemptive article is traditionally accepted for other relevant events such as the olympics, world cup, etc. Nothing wrong with adding information as long as it stays within the encyclopedic relevance Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 07:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. The 2028 presidential election is a real event that is very major that will be occurring in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.46.10.230 (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Documenting early developments and potential political shifts is crucial for clarity, as relevant information and references can often be forgotten or lost over time. QEnigma (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the 2024 election has passed this article should stay and continue to be updated and the redirect should be deleted NeonBluMoose (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC) copied from talk page Left guide (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted. This is a major future event. Lktm87 (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC) copied from talk page Left guide (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Puget Sound

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

Hyper-local trade organization of small sphere of influence. A quick WP:BEFORE didn't find sources suggesting WP:NORG is met, in particular WP:AUD. A lot of local regions have local trade organizations. This doesn't particularly stand out as notable and is not significant enough of a global enyclopedia. After analyzing contribution history and seeing phrasing like "Members can also request to be emailed audition announcements automatically as they become available.", public relations editing intended to inflate importance and notability is involved. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Entertainment, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No plausible redirect target. I found tons of listings and brief mentions, but the only independent significant coverage was a single Seattle Times article.[4] Not sufficient to meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, this highly promotional fluff filled article was predominantly authored by their board president Frank Lawler per their usage page disclosure. Graywalls (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election

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

The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election was to delete, with the nominator's rationale citing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Since the content of this page is, again, pretty much just routine congratulations, the same arguments brought forward in 2020 still apply here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is still important news, But Stuff like the Assassination attempt were merged into the main article. New antares (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:RECENTISM at its worst. Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article appears to be nothing more than a list of congratulations, standard as any other election victory. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These boilerplate congratulations from world leaders who know they will need to deal with Trump as of January 20 are beyond WP:ROTM and unencyclopedic. Lmk if a world leader (in office) condemns Trump today, that would be out of the ordinary. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a page for the International reactions to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, so the precedent for notable elections having international reaction pages exists. GigaDerp (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the difference is that the Venezuelan presidential election was highly controversial, with multiple countries explicitly criticizing it. Still, one way or another, this is still WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, especially since there hasn't been a discussion on the suitability of that page to establish precedent. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venezuelan election is notable because of concerns about how the election itself was conducted. Most of the reactions to it were based on that. This election really isn't that notable on its own. Several notable things happened during the campaign and Trump's nonconsecutive election is important, but the outcome isn't all to significant I think. Qqars (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see above that International reactions to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election is brought up as a "what about that?" above, but that was a disputed election in which different foreign governments decided whether or not to accept the result. That is obviously different to this. However, why hasn't anyone brought up the more glaringly obvious parallel - International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election? There is no difference between these two articles - the same guy won (you can argue which one was more of a shock) - and there was no full-on war between Ukraine and Russia in 2016 for the office of president to affect, nor were Israel and Palestine at full-on war. Surely both must be nominated as the same argument applies. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate the 2016 article if you want to. I found the current article while patrolling new pages, which is why I nominated this one specifically for deletion so the community could discuss its suitability. As far as I know, unlike for the 2020 article, there hasn't been any discussion yet about the 2016 one. Still, I believe it should be nominated separately rather than in a bundled nomination, as the 2016 article is much longer-standing and has more depth to its content. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about this, and instead of outright having this and the 2016 page be deleted, couldn't they be merged into some grand International reactions to United States presidential elections or equivalent page? Since some elections have less notable reactions (like 2020), it seems like WP:PAGEDECIDE might apply and the pages would serve better as a group than a mess of tiny pages. GigaDerp (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, this entire article was created because @User:Jfhutson made the right call and removed the international section on the main page for this election. Instead of proponents discussing this, and without 1RR vio, this article has been created. Article is clearly a symptom of WP:TDS.
Delete it. Barnt Toust 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except, it's not WP:TDS; there's a page for the exact same situation in 2016. SwensonJ (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Barnt Toust 15:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic. EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. Sal2100 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The international response to the 2020 election in Belarus differ markedly, with some countries accepting the result and others outright rejecting, whereas reactions to the 2024 US presidential election were mostly just congratulations messages and there is not much coverage of this election after that. Haruka Amaranth 02:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Neutral at one point and it is nothing noteworthy compared to the post-election parts in the 2020 Singaporean general election and 2023 Singaporean presidential election where it was one paged only (though there is a pre-election page for the former), unless it was more notable like the 2016 one. Sculture65 (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep: I am aware there were some unique responses but I'm aware while noteworthiness is into question I feel it could be better if it can be simplified to just similar to what Sculture65 mentioned. I know most of them are congratulatory messages but some may have important elements that may affect potential foreign relationships. I feel it needs more evaluation as well as we look and see. 20chances (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: as previously mentioned, there is an International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election page, which while longer in content differs little in substance in that it is mostly congratulatory messages from heads of state and government. SwensonJ (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any recentism here is best fixed by similar articles in older elections. This is effectively a list article and the Google News search linked in the find sources template above surfaces plenty of reliable sources of the type required by WP:NLIST. Reuters Al Jazeera CBS McYeee (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This case of WP:RECENTISM can be fixed by similar articles in older elections. Like McYeee said, this is effectly a lite article and the Google News search has sources that pass the WP:NLIST. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 07:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing here has been covered in anything that isn't routine coverage. The coverage in 2016 seemed to be a little different, especially with the popular vote/electoral college difference. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: The information is critical and it should be preserved either in either this article or the main presidential election article. Xoocit (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find it surprising that an article like this could be created. If such articles are allowed to remain on Wikipedia, it raises the question: should we create articles for every election and every congratulatory message from various countries? Elections happen annually around the world, and people extend congratulations regularly; I don’t think it’s appropriate to create articles for all of them. Baqi:) (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Routine congratulations between counterparts should not be repeated in their details, however, there will be some "wired" instances, for example Kremlin's refusal to congratulate, as well as (maybe) MFA China's wired announcements before Xi officially congratulates Trump. Those instances are - for a regular country with normal elections - in limited number and should be able to organized in the respective main article. --BoyuZhang1998 (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete: This is pretty much just congratulations. I don't believe this deserves its own page. I think it either should either be merged with 2024 United States presidential election or deleted as it's quite unremarkable, routine coverage. MarchRain ♡ ^{「weather station」} 11:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: Relevant to track different reactions or the lack of it. --KajenCAT (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge It is not relevent enough to have its own page but i also believe it could be merged into the main article to list the international leaders who congratulated trump and the international communities reaction to his victory Paytonisboss (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions. Procyon117 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions, agreeing the other comments in favor of merging the article.--Narsilien (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions. A separate article such as this is completely unnecessary. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly oppose merging this. These leaders congratulate ever winner of a US presidential election. It offers no significant information about the election. --JFHutson (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions. As others said, this separate article isn't necessary and can be added onto that subsection of the 2024 US presidential election page. Rager7 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge per target being WP:TOOBIG at 12,000 words already. The article content is nothing more than WP:ROUTINE, but if it has to exist then at least leave it here instead of moving it (back) to an already overloaded page. CNC (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge It is quite common for foreign leaders or representatives to congratulate the winning candidate of an election. Fails WP:ROUTINE. If some of the reactions are especially notable or receive significant coverage, they can be added back to the main page. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no encyclopedic value, WP:ROUTINE congratulatory remarks. No point in merging what should be deleted outright. Keep arguments mentioning other reactions pages are merely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's bad enough when we have these reaction sections in articles, we don't need separate articles for them. This is an encyclopedia. Obi2canibe (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Really only the sentence saying "Most congratulated him" and another explaining why (i.e. mostly, he is the new president of the US so they are being polite out of practicality) is needed, both of which can go in a subsection of the main. Also, run-of-the-mill (WP:ROTM) as said above. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that the information in the article is crucial; even the majority of the sources are from either the country's ministry of foreign affairs or official news broadcasting agencies so at least they are reliable. Underdwarf58 (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is article for International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election. And generally, there are many such articles about international reactions to important events. Rutdam (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second American Civil War

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a recreation of a topic that was previously deleted, albeit with different content. It arguably violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH, plus it almost certainly goes against WP:FRINGE. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand: This article should be kept and expanded to include more historical context. The notion a Second Civil War or a Second Revolution has been around for a long time and has produced a huge amount of speculative fiction. There have also been attempts to start one over the years. Charles Essie (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (as article creator), meets WP:GNG, WP:LASTING, and WP:SUSTAINED. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply, as the idea of a civil war has been covered by CNN, ABC, and a myriad of mainstream sources. This is a topic that has been talked about for several years, and deleting it for WP:CRYSTAL or WP:FRINGE reasons (the keyword is hypothetical) isn't warranted. This excerpt from WP:FRINGE sums it up: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support.", which is the opposite of what's happening here. Also see here, here and here, all of which prove that WP:CRYSTAL probably doesn't apply here. This'll be a pile-on, but this excerpt from WP:CRYSTAL states: "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." warrants this an exception, as all info is verifiable, and would 100% warrant an article if a true civil war starts, and has received national attention. If WP:SYNTH is the issue, then WP:SOFIXIT. I'll add more to the article soon, I will admit it's pretty short as of now. I'd love to see a rebuttal, and if none can be made then my point is proven.

On second thought, I'd support a merge to Political polarization in the United States. E_F_₅ 14:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: I agree with EF5 that the sourcing satisfies WP:GNG, WP:LASTING, and WP:SUSTAINED. Sal2100 (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to delete based on subsequent delete arguments which I find persuasive. No objection to a merge, if an appropriate target page can be agreed upon. Sal2100 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is properly sourced and doesn't have NPOV issues or GNG issues. The CRYSTAL argument also falls apart IMO per above comments. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So it gained traction back in June, which was not after the election which was yesterday. Then it goes back to January 6th, last election? Some strange SYNTH going on that just isn't in most of the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue has been fixed. It's been a stressful day, and I may have messed up a bit with that. Either way, the issue you bought up is no longer relevant. E_F_₅ 23:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"conflict that gained traction and nationwide media attention in the early 2020s. A poll conducted in June of 2024 by Rasmussen Reports showed that of ..." Early 2000s and June 2024 are still in there. This article is SYNTH. Oaktree b (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an "anticipated event" that's been anticipated for 24 years now and hasn't happened... That's pretty much a work of fiction at this point. No one in 2001 was saying Trump was gong to get elected to two non-consecutive terms in the next quarter century and cause a riot/war/whatever. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my previous nom. This is still a massive violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTALBALL that currently does not qualify as a coherent article topic. If Trump declares a dictatorship and an actual civil war happens, then we can revisit, but not now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been discussed internationally, is a coherent topic, and is vague but there's enough sources reporting on to make an article out of. Departure– (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, topic remains too vague to justify stand alone coverage and we already cover everything of signficant here on other pages unless I'm missing something. The sourcing does not tie all of this stuff together, you really have to trie to squish it together. Where I do see perhaps a stand alone topic is those covering the related meme but that would be a different discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just a bunch of synthesis and original research. Some1 (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere I feel like this is a concept that has been covered by sources, and some participants in the Jan.6 riots were even wearing t-shirts that said "Civil war 2" on them, but I'm not sure it should be a stand-alone article as it isn't a real thing that has actually happened. I feel like we could have content on this concept somewhere though. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an article about political polarization in the United States, which has an existing article. The idea that current polarisation could turn into a "civil war" is entirely speculative. It's also not a new frame - Ron Brownstein wrote The Second Civil War back in 2008. It's a repeated frame that's been applied to what could either be considered different episodes of this, or different points in a continuum. Whatever you want to consider it, this is SYNTH. It's also got CRYSTAL problems, because this event hasn't happened. And as little as I like Trump's win in the election, conventional wisdom would say it's less likely now that it was last week. Guettarda (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article that was deleted in the previous nom was a lot better than this one. WP:REFUND would be a better venue, because restoring the deleted article is a much better idea. Guettarda (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, which says Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Trying to get around this requirement by citing a handful of inflammatory opinion pieces which say that a civil war is "already here" is plainly insufficient; it also contradicts the article itself, which says that the conflict is "hypothetical". The article is a mess of SYNTH and what little can be salvaged should be merged to political polarization in the United States, political violence and other pages. Astaire (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a future event being discussed since the "early 2000s" per the into. If it hasn't happened by now, it's not an "anticipated event", it's a work of speculative fiction. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is essentially a fan fic imagining a civil war. The opening battle of this hypothetical civil war was four years ago? Esolo5002 (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is a theoretical event that has not happened, and thus should not be its own page. I'm open to a merge to Political polarization in the United States if the sources are strong enough, but even then I don't think content speculating on a war has a place on Wikipedia. As unlikely as this is, I also am worried that some lunatic may read this page and actually start a real civil war because they read about the hypothetical civil war here. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then again though, there is a wikipedia page for WW3, which is a theoretical event that has not happened. Both are hypothetical wars and thus i think this article should stay 49.196.171.140 (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The fact that Category:Second American Civil War speculative fiction has twenty entries says this clearly passes WP:GNG; however, as written this has massive problems as mentioned above. The History section has wanted defenestrating for almost a day and I have put it out of its misery.--Laun chba ller 14:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not generally how GNG works, what sources are you seeing covering this speculative fiction which give significant coverage to the topic at hand here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about sourcing over previous deleted versions. If you combine all the sources on the two deleted versions, this one and whatever else like drafts is linked off this page, what does that leave? How would the topic (if not the written article) fare for notability then? The sourcing on the prior two incarnations plus drafts logically must count, right? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I’ve heard talk of a “coming civil war” between races and political movements in the US for over 50 years. A poll showed that some supporters of one candidate said they would take up arms if their candidate didn’t win, and he won. That election loss work-around wasn’t needed. It is not the only possible civil war and seems idle talk. Edison (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Noss

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Sources 1, 2, 3 cannot establish the subject's Notability. The 4th source is a YouTube link and the last source is a news coverage Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Canada, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see notability for this internet person. Coverage I find is about him selling shares or doing other non-notable business things - in.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/tucows-ceo-elliot-noss-sells-over-28k-worth-of-company-stock-93CH-4443482, which is routine. That site is black listed, so not a RS at all. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elliot has been called to testify as a subject matter expert on telecom in Canada multiple times, reflecting his notability in the space as an internet person.

2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAKfd5oS8Lg

2020: https://www.cpac.ca/crtc-hearings/episode/february-19-2020--tucows-inc?id=01140742-9b74-47fc-ac43-98bc080e95be 2607:FEA8:F862:E020:74E8:9BBD:4392:1EB5 (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional source and example of being a witness for Canadian government. https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/41-1/CC11/meeting-7/evidence 2607:FEA8:F862:E020:39BC:F7BC:8517:4EE3 (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025–2026 U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq

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

Pretty much just a hypothetical. It got a little coverage a month ago and nothing since. The U.S. government hasn't officially announced anything. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is one of the craziest cases of WP:CRYSTAL I've ever seen. EF⁵ 19:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CRYSTAL and the creator does realize it wouldn't be decided until well after Election Day, I hope? Nate • (chatter) 21:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Left guide (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL. Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure WP:SPECULATION. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Delete: Dangerously reckless case of WP:CRYSTAL, reminiscent of alternate history encyclopedias with how the title and infobox appears, could cause confusion. TopVat19sEver (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL and lack of substantial coverage. This article is mostly based on speculative or limited information about a potential future event... does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability or verifiability in its current form. Anopisthograph (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant WP:CRYSTAL Hungry403 (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Airlines Flight 1326

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

Per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE non notable run of the mill gear fire incident, almost zero notable damage to the aircraft or no signs of the aircraft being important at all. Lolzer3k 17:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, United States of America, and California. Lolzer3k 17:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please tag me in the below discussion so i can get the quickest response out to you ASAP. Lolzer3k 17:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Airbus_A320_family#Accidents_and_incidents, where it must be summarized. nonnotable accident with no sustained consequences.(another possible redirect target is Frontier_Airlines#Accidents_and_incidents, but IMO such things belong primarily to technology, rather than to business.) --Altenmann >talk 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not particularly convinced this even requires a mention in the encyclopedia on any page. This is such a non consequential incident it should simply be deleted. Maungapohatu (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I think Lolzer3k has the right idea, personally. Ryan shell (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryan shell what redirect target do you have in mind? Lolzer3k 18:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think either Airbus_A320_family#Accidentis_and_incidents would be fine or even List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family. The summaries for the Frontier Airlines accidents list doesnt seem quite as deep and there's a lot of information here that could be repurposed. Ryan shell (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, and I agree with @Maungapohatu; unless some sort of airworthiness or CRM issue emerges, this event seems like a nothingburger that doesn't warrant inclusion on any Wikipedia page. Carguychris (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Altenmann. Not a notable accident, worth mentioning in the listed section only. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family. WP:NOTNEWS, and with the lack of sustained coverage, this does not currently pass WP:NEVENT. Given the minor nature, especially compared to accidents and incidents which result in injuries and fatalities, I think it would be undue in Airbus_A320_family#Accidents_and_incidents. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cane as a Weapon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. Saskatoon + NYT are ok. I also found this from the Newark Advocate. The Army and Navy Register bit seems ok. Found an article on NewspaperArchive (NewspaperArchive is kind of annoying so they're hard to read but you can if you use the resource and zoom in), clipped here [5]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dynasty

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

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

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

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

Blue Underground

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[6][7] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --wooden superman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The company is notable enough (though the article could use some sources that help establish this fact, like the ones my colleague above found).TH1980 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther Stickell

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

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

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

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

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

List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions (2nd nomination)

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

The meso-gamma designation has a clear definition, however it isn't marked on each Mesoscale Discussion individually. There's an OR problem when it comes to determining entry as to determine an entry in the list, barring a secondary source confirming the meso-gamma designation (which I don't believe exist on the list at the moment), the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors and I don't have to go into any more detail to let you know that's a bad idea. I'd accept if this article was completely rewritten with sources confirming each entry's inclusion but I'm not holding out hope this goes down as anything more than WP:LISTCRUFT, as much as I'd like to keep this article. Departure– (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – False statement was given in the nomination. "the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors" is a false statement. The definition is clear, as even described by the nominator. Just because the government doesn't mark them separately does not mean editors are "analyzing" it. I'd practically argue the basic principles behind WP:CALC & WP:DUCK. This list, simply put, is when the SPC confirms (1) an ongoing tornado or (2) 100+ mph winds. These are not analyzed by Wikipedia editors, as claimed by the nominator, but rather, literally editors looking at the NOAA text (cited obviously) where the NOAA forecasters (along with any RS media) say there is a tornado. To note, this article was kept following a previous deletion attempt for being "niche" and LISTCRUFT. Given the nominator acknowledged (1) there is a clear definition for this list's topic and (2) stated Wikipedia editors were violating OR (which has no evidence supporting that) and (3) this survived a previous AFD for being niche/listcruft, I see no new deletion reasons to try to overturn the previous consensus to keep this article.

RS media like this article from Forbes discussed the SPC issuance of one of the items on this list: "The Storm Prediction Center (SPC) even issued a mesoscale discussion—a small-scale, short term forecast—alerting the region that radar and environmental data indicated that the tornado was likely an EF-4 or an EF-5. Meteorologists usually don’t put out that kind of a statement while a storm is in progress, but the SPC closed the discussion with a harrowing, all-caps warning: “THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT.” While it may be a partially "niche" topic, it is clearly not OR violations and LISTCRUFT arguments were already under a "keep" consensus. No new deletion reasonings, in my point of view. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion there's far too many "Is this a meso-gamma discussion" topics on the talk page and too many "revert if necessary but I don't think these are meso-gamma" edits that aren't reverted for what I see as fit for inclusion. I see too many gray areas for WP:DUCK (especially considering it's a policy on sockpuppetry and wouldn't hold water on original research). Not every case has a bold "THiS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT" in it's text. Departure– (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(drive-by comment) This Forbes article is not reliable. It was written by a "Contributor" which is equivalent to user-generated content. See WP:FORBESCON. C F A 💬 01:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The duck test only applies to sockpuppetry and copyright violations. Not to article content like original research. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I don’t believe Forbes, especially “contributor” content from Forbes, is a reliable source. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think this article is very good for what it does and its more rare than a tornado emergency, meso-gamma is basically a small area so that just makes sense for the name meso-gamma mcd ModdiWX (You Got Mail!) 14:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I myself almost nominated this for deletion too. And I have to disagree with WeatherWriter’s rationale here. And I’ll list the multiple reasons why this needs deleted below:

1. As the nominator points out; while the meso-gamma criteria is very clear cut, the SPC doesn’t mark them. In fact, the term “meso-gamma mesoscale discussion” is so obscure that I didn’t even know about it until I stumbled on this article.

2. Because it is so obscure; and because the SPC itself doesn’t even use the term in ANY of its discussions; it leads me to think that it isn’t the Storm Prediction Center determining which discussions are “meso-gamma”; it is Wikipedia making that determination. Which (unlike what WeatherWriter will tell you), would violate WP:OR and quite possibly WP:LISTCRUFT as well (although I’m not that familiar with the latter, so I won’t say for sure on the cruft part).

Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The ONLY keep argument that I might be okay with is if we renamed the title to something like “List of Storm Prediction Center Mesoscale Discussions that concern individual tornadoes”; since that would remove the WP:OR problems. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind that, since that would remove the “OR violation” (I don’t see one, but I know you and Departure see one). That is basically what meso-gamma discussions are anyway, so yeah, I would 100% support a renaming over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: Would this be something you could get behind? That topic would be well-sourced and clear any possible OR violations. If you do get behind it, then this AFD discussion could be speedy-closed and then the article instantly renamed and restructured appropriately. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really not sure about that one. What connects an MD to a tornado event? I could see news linking watches to events but I'd be shocked if they knew what a mesoscale event. Barring that and obvious cases, there's still the problem of meso-gamma discussions being hard to define without OR (no matter how simple). Departure– (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoscale discussions are named by the Storm Prediction Center. Like actually, that is their formal name (see SPC Mesoscale Discussions. The Mesoscale Discussion text themselves (for those that are "meso-gamma" directly mention an ongoing tornado. There would be 0 OR as every aspect would be cited. The entire possible OR issue mentioned by You and Hurricane Clyde are on the "meso-gamma" aspect, not "mesoscale discussion", which is a very well-known/well-cited thing. For reference, the SPC has issued thousands of mesoscale discussions. This list, simply put, is those that mention ongoing tornadoes. "What connects an MD to a tornado event" is the text of the mesoscale discussion. For example, this right here is the mesoscale discussion referenced by the Forbes article. which states directly, "...confidence is high for a likely violent tornado. A long-track tornado is expected to continue..." Those are obvious to connect with damage surveys/articles over on the yearly tornado articles (for that tornado, 2020 Easter tornado outbreak#Bassfield–Seminary–Soso–Moss–Pachuta, Mississippi). Others include this Mesoscale discussion which directly states "Intense tornado (EF3+) ongoing" (for the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado...note, the mesoscale discussion is specifically mentioned in the article's "Storm development" section) or this Mesoscale discussion for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado which actually stated, "A strong to potentially violent tornado is ongoing and expected to continue for at least another hour".

In fact, now that I think about it, I highly support keeping the article and renaming/restructuring it to be specifically mesoscale discussions mentioning ongoing tornadoes. No OR issue and those specific mesoscale discussions are often used in other articles as references + actual descriptions in the article text. With that explanation, does that satisfy your possible OR concerns with a renaming Departure–? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, RS media does know what a "mesoscale discussion" is. I recommend going to Google, searching "Mesoscale discussion" and then going to the "news" tab. That will save me from linking the hundreds of articles mentioning them. For simplicity, here is an RS news article titled "What Is a Mesoscale Discussion?", so obviously, RS media does know what they are and can explain them, which would solve any "niche" topic arguments regarding a renamed/restructured list for any mesoscale discussion mentioning an ongoing tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The small scale topic of the article may get it brought back to AfD, but I wouldn't be too opposed to that if it kills the OR concerns. But either way, I'd advise waiting until this discussion closes before taking any restructuring actions. Departure– (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion theoretically could be closed now per [[WP:CSK|Wikipedia's Speedy Keep reasonings], since the only 3 !voting editors involved in the discussion all are not opposed to a rename/restructuring. The 7-day AFD doesn't need to continue unless you want it to. So, do you wish to withdraw the AFD nomination and let the restructure/rename occur, or, do you want to wait the full 7 days before that could occur? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–, the SPC does clearly say whenever the discussion concerns a single tornado. They just don’t use the “meso-gamma” wording.

But I am still going to support deletion; and just consider the renaming to be an acceptable alternative. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The first nomination was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions; the article was retitled to fix its dash very shortly after the first nomination closed. (No opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Environment, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note quickly, the reason the first nomination of this article for deletion ended with arguments roughly stating that it passed notability guidelines due to secondary sourcing and that more sources would be added. However, if you look at most of the secondary sources, most are for the ratings of tornadoes / wind events themselves, not at all the meso-gamma discussions. The meso-gamma discussions are hardly notable in themselves, nor is sourcing for the meso-gamma designation easy to come by directly without interpretation much more volatile and subjective than WP:CALC was intended for. This is also why I'm not fully in support of reworking the article to specific tornadoes, and why maybe the article shouldn't have survived that first AfD discussion. OR and notability of the meso-gamma discussions themselves is the debate, not the notability of the events they're linked to. Departure– (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – in that case, my original delete !vote remains valid. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to completely change the direction of the page shouldn't be discussed here. If the article gets deleted, it gets deleted, and the new list can be WP:BOLDly created and challenged independently. See also WP:HIJACK, which, although not as blatant as the examples there, and guided by contributor's consensus, it's still better to make the page seperately. Departure– (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said @Departure–; my !vote to delete ain’t changing. I just threw out the move as an “acceptable alternative” that would solve the OR problem. Nothing will solve the LISTCRUFT problem. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which, I can understand @WeatherWriter‘s desire to keep the article. After all; he’s the one who created the article. I too would probably be passionate about keeping an article that I created. And would probably be real quick too !vote keep on the list of West Virginia tornadoes or the 2022 Appalachian floods article for that reason. But that still doesn’t change the fact that this is a potential OR violation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reiterate my support for deletion. The determination of what qualifies as a meso gamma discussion is apparently decided by Wikipedia editors and not by the Storm Prediction Center. That is WP:OR right there. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Woody

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep This article provides more details about the kind of programming the channel carries instead of just "cartoons". Such as it doesn't have more adult themed cartoons. However, if this article is kept, it needs to be tagged for cleanup. Right now it looks a bit messy. Msw1002 (talk)

Arthur H. Marshall

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

Ancestry.com and The Peak Seeker are not reliable. Highpointers.org is the official highpointing organization so should not be used here. The only seemingly reliable source here is The Oregonian. Unless more coverage can be found, I feel like Arthur H. Marshall's achievements are better discussed briefly in the highpointing article instead of in its own article as notability seems weak. The current state of the article is certainly not sufficient and is written poorly. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Was not able to find additional reliable sources. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 16:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DJ Cane:, please see current sourcing. Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep

https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2000/10/29/for-certain-class-climber-life/51015049007/

https://books.google.com/books?id=BZQSAQAAIAAJ

https://books.google.com/books?id=2vZvAAAAMAAJ

https://www.theday.com/news/20170425/reaching-the-top-of-america/

I believe the in-depth coverage on him in the Oregonian, and multiple sources crediting him with the first in the US to reach all the tops and receiving coverage multiple times spanning years apart is an indication of notability and I feel he meets Wikipedia:SPORTSPERSON

Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Graywalls (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I nominated the article for deletion, I think with some further improvements it can be kept with all these sources. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep per WP:HEY. I’d love for someone else to add the sources found to the article. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, fails WP:GNG. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Records (independent)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor and still finding my feet, so please don’t be mean if anything I say here is not pertinent for an AfD discussion. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles I added the single reference to this article – I would say that the source is probably not the most solid, but I have done a bunch of searching for other sources, without turning up anything that is very reliable, like toweli. That said, my sense is that there probably are decent sources sufficient to establish the record label’s notability, but they will likely be in print format from 30+ years ago and therefore less easy to find. Particularly if, like me, editors are not familiar with the area. I am pinging a few users who contributed to both sides in previous deletion discussions according to the edit history: Chubbles Hoponpop69 Tikiwont Hello Control. The creating editor is no longer on Wikipedia. As alternatives to deletion, one might consider:

1. Merging the content into Homestead Records, maybe as a sister label or some such.
2. Creating a new article for the umbrella distributor Dutch East India Trading, and merging this article and that for Homestead Records into that.

-- SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If such an article on Dutch East India Trading were to be made I would recommend this article to be merged there. Said article has to exist first though. Since it doesn't, I don't recommend for this article to be redirected to Homestead Records either, since there's no mention of Giant Records there. Given the lack of coverage as well as the difficulty of finding anything about it due to the overlap in name with the Warner Bros. label, I recommend delete. Recon rabbit 17:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to hear if there are objections or support for the Merge suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Another non-notable individual, but may together with the two other such articles perhaps be merged into one? Barely anything can be said about the individual Theodore, the topic of the article, who died aged 1 or thereabouts. What the articles (and the sources) really are about is Jackson's treatment of or position towards Native Americans. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see how a child that lived for 6 months is notable. There is no claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I read the article and looked over the sources. They're either books or paywalled, so I have not read them, but they're good quality and the topics look direct. I'm confident in the presumption of notability. I'm more concerned about neutral, encyclopedic wording than about notability. In addition to that, I feel including enslaved people, whose stories are undertold, in this encyclopedia is something we should err on the side of doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Charley (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer keep but I have no objection to this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, does Indigenous members of the Andrew Jackson household make sense? Going by our article, it doesn't look like we have any real evidence for Theodore's origins. -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment makes no arguments regarding notability and claims that a max 3,600 word article would violate WP:SIZERULE—obviously untrue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charley (Andrew Jackson captive). -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though I have trouble seeing how consensus will be reached if people don't include more policy-based reasoning, particularly regarding notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, for now, to Andrew Jackson#Family, where all three of these children are mentioned. Subsequently, editors may want to merge parts of them into a yet to be written article about Jackson's treatment of and relations with Native Americans. Notability is beside the point: these children are not covered by sources because of their individual characteristics but only in relation to Jackson; they exist in sources only as (minor) aspects of his biography. Since Wikipedia follows its sources, we must do likewise. Sandstein 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Sad story which may be a paragraph in some other article perhaps (but where?), but not a notable subject on its own. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside. I object to the word "captive". That doesn't jibe with this article or Theodore's. Neither was captured by Jackson, and it seems to me to be a POV slur against him. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarityfiend It's funny, after reading the sources published in the last 20 years, I think I object to calling Lyncoya his "adopted son" but that's mostly me being emo and a different discussion that probably happens on generational timescales. ANYWAY, I assumed it would get moved at some point and I am very excited to see what another brain thinks of. My only caveat is that Theodore is not confirmed to have been Muscogee, and based on cultural norms of the time, was very possibly given as a gift/tribute by an ally (see Charley), so the title shouldn't be Theodore (Muscogee). I don't think it abrogates him being a captive that Jackson didn't personally throw a net over him and carry him home--Jackson had possession of a bunch of orphaned babies that didn't belong to him because he was a local warlord running a race war--but it doesn't need to be in the title of the article. But I don't know what else to use. Halp? jengod (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ADD: We could arguably merge them both into Lyncoya as subsections. I didn't do that in the first place because these two were separate human people with distinct stories and their burial in brittle letters and footnotes for much of the past 200 years was not accidental. They were very intentionally excluded from the narrative. jengod (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC

Clarityfiend,Jengod: Another thought comes to mind here: we look at this through the eyes of our era. There is a old tradition in Hawaii, even now, called Hānai (informal adoption) whereby parents gave their children to others to be raised. One of the reasons in earlier years was because you weren't likely to go to war against someone who was raising your child. Hānai is still practiced there, for a variety of reasons. We don't know the background (do we?) of why Jackson got these native American children. But there might have been reasoning for it. — Maile (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Andrew Jackson's Native American pet"? He called him a pet, so no slur here against the esteemed slaveholder, we wouldn't want to do that of course. Fram (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As bad as that sounds in 2024, language changes over the centuries. "a pampered and usually spoiled child" Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pet among a lot of different definitions pulled up by a search. Unless we can dig up the year 1814 definition, we'll never know. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input and perhaps a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 13:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive). -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, for now, to Andrew Jackson#Family, where all three of these children are mentioned. Subsequently, editors may want to merge parts of them into a yet to be written article about Jackson's treatment of and relations with Native Americans. Notability is beside the point: these children are not covered by sources because of their individual characteristics but only in relation to Jackson; they exist in sources only as (minor) aspects of his biography. Since Wikipedia follows its sources, we must do likewise. Sandstein 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

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