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.
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:
Weak Keep as the article stands it would warrant deletion, but I think the issue is article worthy in the wake of his debate performance. This is the most embattled a (presumptive) nominee has been since the
Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape incident in 2016, which has its own article not to mention that Biden has been dogged with questions about his cognition since even before he ran in 2020 and up until recently was dismissed as bad faith attacks by his opponents. In the last week, that is no longer the case.
Comment - Is this article going to have any staying power? If anything else develops on the subject, perhaps more can be added. I support Draftify at this point until/if more can be cohesively developed on this subject.
BarntToust (
talk)
13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I think life (events) will quickly develop this article. Unless Biden resigns, the days and months will roll on and every health incident will be scrutinized. When he resigns, health problems will be the reason for his resignation – an important event and also a detailed analysis. There is no need to rush into deleting the article. Then we will need to restore.
Wikipek (
talk)
14:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The creation was a bit hasty and puts us in news territory, which is not great, but if GnocchiFan keeps adding 1-2kB a day it will be hard to justify deletion(they're the one who created it). The Trump matter needs its own discussion, it's an old one and tit-for-tat is a bad look. Trump doesn't have the media jumping on him for this, and he didn't stand gerbil-eyed with his mouth agape at the recent debate.
[1]SmolBrane (
talk)
16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SmolBrane: The significance of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump is not with respect to the tit-for-tat issue, but with respect to the specific points of discussion raised there that are applicable to this discussion, specifically the assertion made in that discussion that we should not have any freestanding articles on the health of current public figures, and that Wikipedia should follow the
Goldwater Rule prohibiting medical professionals from commenting on the health of public figures who they have not personally examined. A great many participants in that discussion supported imposing such a rule, which would obviously vitiate inclusion of comparable medical opinions about Biden absent personal examination. I opposed the imposition of that rule in the Trump discussion, and would oppose it here equally. We are in an historic moment of having two octogenarian presidential candidates, and the Trump article, at the time of its deletion, had dozens of high-level sources commenting on issues with regard to Trump's health, so it is a fair bellwether for the admissibility of the Biden article.
BD2412T18:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am simply uncomfortable turning this AfD into a discussion about that other guy's AfD.
WP:WAX applies and I'm not convinced the situation with Biden is adequately symmetrical for
Health of Donald Trump !votes here. Once this discussion closes we could have a similar one regarding Trump imo. Note that Biden wasn't mentioned once on the Trump AfD. Regards
SmolBrane (
talk)
19:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep with the insistence that it be improved to the point of being brought in line with the encyclopedic nature and aims of Wikipedia. I was a proponent of the creation of this article, but it really was launched too quickly and improperly. As I said on the talk page for Mr Biden's campaign, it's good if it enables us to analyze his health and its implications quickly and in real time, in a way that wasn't possible in the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the highly consequential nature of his health, but it can't be treated as a joking matter. At the very least, better must be done for a leading image than to employ a picture of Mr. Biden standing before his lit eighty-first-birthday cake.
216.255.100.62 (
talk)
17:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's representative of a strategy from the administration and campaign - treat the age issue with humor. We aren't saying it's funny or not funny, it's just emblematic of part of their strategy and consequently part of the page. Maybe not first image, though.
MarkiPoli (
talk)
17:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The article is part of a research project, not a marketing campaign.
I will move this image further down to the part of the article which refers to the White House response (I think the joke birthday is relevant there). Feel free to choose another image for the lead and add some further detail if you see fit.
GnocchiFan (
talk)
19:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm rubbish at image procurement and insertion. Anyway, wouldn't the thing to do for an article like this normally be to use a picture of him that would normally be used otherwise, his official portrait or a picture of him stumping, or something of the like?
Tyrekecorrea (
talk)
21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Currently, it really looks like we're are playing politics in favor of other candidate. However, after making the article more neutral (adding opinions about the lack of health obstacles, of which there are many) and perhaps changing the title ("Age and health of Joe Biden"?, "Health of Joe Biden"?), the article can be kept. The topic is very widely discussed, attracts attention and causes consequences at the center of the election campaign, unlike in the case of Donald Trump.
Wikipek (
talk)
19:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:BLP of a journalist, not
properly sourced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to pass
WP:GNG on third-party coverage -- analysis about the significance of their work, evidence of winning a notable journalism award, and on and so forth. You don't establish a journalist as notable by referencing the article to sources where she's the bylined author of content about other things, you establish a journalist as notable by referencing the article to sources where she's the written-about subject of content written by other people. But this is referenced entirely to the
self-published websites of her employers or other organizations that she's been directly affiliated with, and shows absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage about her or her work at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify As per WP:Journalist "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series"
Bassett won an Emmy award for her work, and as noted in the article, the page was under construction and I planned on finding the sources today, and if not would have draftified it myself.
While you are correct, it's borderline absurd to believe that all the pages which listed her bio are lying about her award winning status. Also, the reason I did not create a draft initially, is because I recently had a draft stolen and published to mainspace, and was told by admins "It's whoever publishes to mainspace first."
Comintell (
talk)
18:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nobody assumed that any source was lying, but the problem was, is and remains that notability can never be established by sources that an article subject was directly affiliated with, and can only be established by third parties covering her and her work independently of her. Even an award still has to have been written about as news, somewhere other than her own staff profiles on the websites of her own employers, before it turns into a valid notability claim, because even awards are still only notable if they get reported as news by a source that doesn't represent the awarded entity simply tooting its own horn. Also, nobody "owns" Wikipedia content, so I don't understand your "I had a draft stolen" story at all — what did anybody owe you there, and what is it preventing you from now?
Bearcat (
talk)
19:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You're right I may have jumped the gun here, and this isn't ready for mainspace. Asking closing admin to close as a draftify
Comintell (
talk)
19:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Comintell, if you like to work "privately" on drafts, rather than using draftspace, you might want to make userspace drafts instead. Other editors typically won't touch those, at least not without talking to you first. They aren't easy for other editors to find, so if you're working on a topic that's in the news, it's best to work in draftspace so others don't duplicate your work. --
asilvering (
talk)
22:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi there, I'm Abigail Bassett (the actual journalist that this page is about) and I have no idea how it was created, and I see that it was only built a few days ago. I received a random (questionable) email message about it and have been working on updating and editing it to meet Wikipedia needs and to be accurate to my career. I won the Peabody as part of the team that produced coverage of Hurricane Katrina at CNN, and for my work on Lou Dobb's Tonight's Education and Immigration series. Here is the
Peabody link I was part of the CNN Presents production, and worked for Anderson Cooper during that time. Here is a
link to the Lou Dobbs Emmy the staff won. Also, here is the
Wikipedia link to his profile which also confirms this. I have also appeared on camera for CNN (a couple of sample links are
here and
here) I'm happy to provide more if needed. My work is also referenced in this
Wikipedia article about Fisker.
Abigailbassett (
talk)
16:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify. The TechCrunch and Hollywood Reporter sources are the most passing of passing mentions. The Daily Dot piece is substantial, but smacks of churnalism.
BD2412T14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Poorly written promotional article about an academic not shown to meet
WP:NACADEMIC or
WP:ANYBIO. The page's sole purpose appears to be to promote an educational model with little peer-reviewed research to back up its efficacy.
Blanes tree (
talk)
12:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Angela Jerabek just won the
James Bryant Conant award, given to one American educator annually in recognition of their contributions to American education. Previous awardees include Thurgood Marshall, Fred Rogers, Claiborne Pell, and Miriam Wright Edelman.
The
American Institutes for Research reviewed the BARR model for three years, across three separate studies funded by the U.S. Department of Education, and found it to improve educational outcomes across numerous measurements. AIR's scale-up study, for example, was an independent review of 21,500 students in 69 schools. Most educational models cannot withstand this level of scrutiny. Among their findings:
"The BARR approach had substantial and statistically significant impacts on the proportion of students who passed all their core courses."
"BARR significantly reduced chronic absenteeism."
"The BARR approach improved teachers’ collaboration with their peers, their data use, and a range of other teacher outcomes."
This model was also the only educational model to move through all three stages of federal government review in the I3 program. This
article from the widely respected industry publication The Hechinger Report (a publication of the non-profit Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media) outlines the general failure of the 170 educational grantees to meet the program criteria. The one exception: BARR. It names the BARR model as the "poster child" for what the grant was intended to fund.
The above reading of this article is factually uninformed about how educational models are reviewed and how important the BARR model is nationally at this time.
Gtatum (
talk)
14:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I am uncertain about the Conant award. But the NPR piece included in a bunch of refbombing at the bottom
[2] appears to be a start towards
WP:SIGCOV for a GNG case. I also see a
MinnPost article
[3] that looks like reasonable coverage. I agree that the article is in somewhat poor shape, although I don't think it's so bad as for
WP:TNT.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
14:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Article has minimal sources and said sources only talk about exhibition games ahead of planed launches of the competition. Google search only bring up the Wikipedia page, Facebook page, and
USARL Page which has nothing on it. Fails
WP:GNG.
Mn1548 (
talk)
11:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I had an undisclosed conflict of interest when I created this article. My supervisor has asked me to request that the article be deleted on this basis. I am sorry I created it. I hope this process will be simple. Thank you.
A loose necktie (
talk)
20:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No evidence this actor passes
WP:GNG or
WP:NACTOR. Adames is a
WP:BLP1E for his Razzie award. The article's earlier assertion (removed by me) that he is the youngest person to receive a Razzie is
WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH based on
WP:SYNTH (none of the sources actually state that he was the youngest). There's no other claim to fame or notability; inclusion in other sources is limited to
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. There was a stable redirect to
Gloria (1980 film) until recently; I would be OK with restoring the redirect per consensus or outright deleting.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
04:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi. Looking at the rules you were right to remove the “youngest winner” assertion… thanks for pointing that out. As for the article I figured winning a Razzie, especially one of the first ever, qualified as a “significant event”. Kind of like how we have many stub articles for everyone who ever competed at the Olympics. So that was why I made it at the time
JSwift4901:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Here's my thinking: Under
WP:NBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" is a criterion -- but the Razzies are really a tongue-in-cheek anti-honor. Most people who win them are already separately notable under
WP:GNG,
WP:NBIO, or
WP:NENTERTAINER, but for those who aren't independently notable I don't think being recognized for being bad at something should qualify as "a significant award or honor." And so all the news coverage for this guy then falls under
WP:BLP1E and should be covered at the movie's page, not as a standalone page.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
02:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Could being generally recognized for being bad be, as the criteria says, “interesting or unusual”, if not an honor :) If we had a source specifically confirming that Adams was the youngest recipient I would definitely advocate for the article to stay, as that’s an additional notability; the Razzies had a controversy recently for nominating children. But since we don’t have that source yet, I’m not too concerned either way.
JSwift4916:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a claim on the talk page that the article is based on a computer game guide that preceeds the history of the page, hence there is a potential copyright infringement. I can't access the source, but perhaps others will be better able to assess the claim. I note other unresolved maintainence issues.
Klbrain (
talk)
17:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Sources used are for submarines... Being sourced to a game manual isn't quite what were looking for. This is amply discussed in other articles.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Tone is not encyclopedic. Poorly sourced. Any necessary information could be easily folded into
carrier strike group or
Naval tactics. I looked at the source that
User:Some Harp user provided on the talk page as the source material. It seems similar in tone and topics, although at a quick review I couldn't identify any direct quotes lifted. Also noting that there is no indication of when this information is from. Is this how strike groups work now or 30 years ago (when the game manual was written) or some other time? These problems have existed with the article for over 20 years so likely aren't going to be resolved anytime soon.
meamemg (
talk)
15:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: Sourcing from the CBC is an interview with the host, but talks about the show. The Variety article shows this is up for an Emmy award and briefly talks about the show, also showing notability.
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Interviee is with the person, but it supports an article about the tv show. The Emmy nomination makes it notable rrgardless.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Slight correction: The show has only been submitted for Emmy consideration; the official nominations won't be out until next week. That's why I didn't mention it anywhere in the article yet. --
Cyberlink420 (
talk)
20:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Article creator here. Honestly didn't expect it to get to get promoted out of the draft space; I wasn't sure if it had enough, so I submitted it to get insight on areas for improvement, maybe see if coverage increases substantially should that Emmy nod go through. I'm not going to weigh in on whether the article should be kept since I'm obviously a little biased (though I will say starting a delete discussion minutes after someone accepts the draft doesn't seem kosher), but if it does get the axe, I'd prefer it get moved back to the draft space so I can continue source-hunting and working on improving it. Thanks much. --
Cyberlink420 (
talk)
16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify: The show doesn't currently (article or elsewhere) have significant reliable independent coverage sufficient to meet GNG:
The CBC interview would be non-independent by default but some of it has additional significant independent qualitative coverage. (Y)
The Variety article only has passing coverage N
The Deadline interview is non-independent N
The Observer is a student newspaper and I believe while independent/reliable should have low weight (xref
WP:UNIGUIDE) (Y)
The Polygon article is non-independent N
The Webby's award is a public web-vote and not the expert-voted Webby award, and is thus insufficient/unreliable for consideration of acclaim/impact. Even if it were the expert-voted Webby award I think it would be low weight given how many Webby awards there are (see the popup menus from the category sidebar at
https://winners.webbyawards.com/winners) N
That said, I think it has a reasonable chance of an Emmy nomination given that
its category is such an oddball one and there will be 5 nominees from only 22 on the longlist even before considerations of the 24000 eligible voter pool potentially skewing slightly in favour of Dropout, and Dropout fans really liking Dropout shows. If it is, then between the nomination and the second season and the awards we may actually get sufficient independent qualitative coverage, but unfortunately it's not there yet for me.
Not opposed to the redirect mentioned by Broc; nor to Keep (if one considers his role in The Kung Fu significant too, for example) or that the number of his roles can make him meet WP:NACTOR (31 credits=prolific?).-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)14:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails both
WP:GNG and
WP:NACTOR. He lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Heng was not even part of the starring cast in any movies nor TV series, not even on Girl vs. Monster nor Kung Fu. All of his roles are minor roles both in film and TV series. No significant coverage of him as an actor. This is considered to be
WP:TOOSOON. —
YoungForever(talk)16:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hard disagree. When was the last time we heard of an incumbent president being asked by members of his own party to relinquish the office? This is an important development not only for this election cycle, but for U.S. presidential history, holistically speaking.
— ThatCopticGuyping me! (
talk) (
contribs)
01:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
● Wait Currently, it is a really notable topic spiraling right now, once things drop, then discussion can be made on deleting this page.
InterDoesWiki (
talk)
21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is definitely a problem. I'm voting to keep, partly because the information covered here is notable and not covered anywhere else and can't really be covered in the required detail anywhere else. Could a page be made for the first debate itself?
MarkiPoli (
talk)
16:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy blank and redirect to
2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside, which already contains all that needs to be discussed on this topic. Wikipedia is not a source of breaking news and is poorly suited to be, because we're an encyclopedia, not a news blog. If history shows that this was so significant an aspect of this year's election that it needs to be discussed in a separate article, we can write that article at that time.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
22:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep.
Fait accompli, but I'd like to register my vote as keep anyway before it's deleted. It is very notable that 119 days before a US presidential election, many of the party are outright calling for an incumbent president to relinquish the nomination. To be honest, you could probably create a whole article for the first debate (where there normally isn't articles for individual debates) due to the notability of it and the polticial firestorm it has caused, much more than I would say any other televised presidential debate in US history.
MarkiPoli (
talk)
16:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If Biden becomes the nominee, and wins re-election, would you still argue that calls for him to step aside were “notable” enough for an entire separate article? Or what if Biden does step down; wouldn’t it be weird to have an article about “calls for Biden to step down”, rather than a more broad article about him suspending his campaign altogether? A “notable” political firestorm in July, may not be notable at all in November.
Prcc27 (
talk)
18:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Even if he doesn't get replaced and goes on to the general, I'd argue it still is notable that so close to the election, after all primaries are done, that so many of the candidate's same party are calling for him to step down, has this ever happened before? If he does step down, this article is simply renamed to "Suspension of Joe Biden's 2024 presidential campaign".
MarkiPoli (
talk)
11:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepThe sheer number of reliable sources talking about it indicate that it is notable. It is more than just a single news cycle considering it has been a week and a half from the debate and it is still so prominently talked about. If it were just an extended news cycle, the publications about it would be diminishing, not growing.
JMM12345 (
talk)
01:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The main article, "Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign", already says "It has been suggested that this article should be split into multiple articles." So, a split into sub-articles is suggested to be necessary. And, this is definitely a sub-article of the article "Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign".
GoldWitness (
talk)
03:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:LASTING Influential members of the president's party calling for him to step down after he has secured delegates is unprecedented, and will be discussed for decades, even if he doesn't step down. Tons of reliable sources. The article is too large to be part of another article.
Fodient (
talk)
10:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe someone should make the article. Just because an article doesn't exist for something that's kinda similar is not an argument that another article should not exist.
Fodient (
talk)
15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the 2016 articles show well how to handle a situation like this once we're past the burst of
WP:RECENTISM that we are stuck right in the middle of in 2024. If Biden stays in, this will fade. If he doesn't, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
16:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No recency bias here. A sitting president being called upon by prominent members of his own party as well as notable previous supporters, plus a senator, who is former VP nominee, is looking for other senators to join him in asking for the president to step down. This is something that will be discussed in history classes.
Fodient (
talk)
17:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Part of the point is that its not "prominent" members of his party; it's people like talking head
James Carville and fossil fuel lobbyist
Tim Ryan, whose (moderate) importance in the party is well in the past. Even the sitting senator you reference (
Mark Warner, who was not the VP nominee; that's Tim Kaine) has not called for Biden to drop out. The media has intentionally built this narrative with tiny strings of innuendo and false implication that fall apart under the slightest inspection. GreatCaesarsGhost12:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There are other articles to redirect it to: the debate article, List of Democrats who oppose Biden, or otherwise. No need to keep this article active much longer.
Prcc27 (
talk)
06:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Can we set an egg timer to revisit all of the American politics mumbo-jumbo on November 6, when we are (closer to) capable of being normal about it? jp×
g🗯️08:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS. It's honestly more telling that no significant figures are listed here. If he doesn't drop, it's a who-cares list of has-beens and never-will-bes. A lot of these guys are speaking up because it's the only way anyone would ever see their name in the news! If he does drop, its a side note on the main article. GreatCaesarsGhost11:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Article is well sourced and the subject matter is very notable. I can't think of a more recent time in which this late into the primary/election cycle that there were growing calls for the presumptive nominee to withdraw from the race (a month shy from the nominating convention). Also gaining national and international coverage/attention. --
TDKR Chicago 101 (
talk)
17:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The topic is of public interest and has the potential for expansion. It can serve as a starting point for further research and development by the Wikipedia community. If the topic is genuinely interesting to the public, it deserves a place on the platform.
Whoisjohngalt (
talk)
21:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This topic is an important moment of American electoral history and it's educational for future people who wanted to learn what happened during this period of time.
Mason54432 (
talk)
22:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The notability of this event is very self-evident. Party leaders are strongly suggesting the sitting president sit out a second term, which is unprecedented in American history. We are entering the 2nd week of the controversy with no signs of letting up until the convention, which has historically met
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and
WP:DEPTH criteria for headlining national news.
Baldemoto (
talk)
23:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per TDKR Chicago 101, Fodient, MarkiPoli, JMM12345, GoldWitness and Baldemoto, all of whom make cogent, compelling arguments in favor of keeping this important article. In contrast, !votes promoting deletion seem weak, strained or simply lack supporting commentary.
Jusdafax (
talk)
23:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean Keep I am leaning keep as this is well discussed by reliable sources and meets criteria for being a notable event, but the article itself isn't very long. Maybe merge into
Health of Joe Biden or some other related article?
cookie monster75500:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe a merge with
Age and health concerns of Joe Biden and possibly
2024 United States presidential debates#Reception and aftermath might be warranted. It's reasonable to suggest that the concerns in the article has ultimately culminated in the controversy described in this article, meaning the article would fit neatly into this article's "background" section. The section on the aftermath of the debate linked above also holds very relevant information to this article. Merging both into this article could coalesce all relevant information regarding the concerns and controversies from 2020 to the present day into one article. Since "Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign" would not appropriately capture the breadth of such an article, the article could also be renamed something along the lines of "Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign controversy", "Joe Biden age/health controversy" "Joe Biden 2024 presidential debate controversy", or something along those lines.
Baldemoto (
talk)
01:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - As mentioned by many already, this is unprecedented at least as modern U.S. presidential history goes. We can at least see how this develops until November, then revisit the topic of deletion? It is extremely notable, has extensive coverage, and is hardly an example of
WP:RECENTISM or
WP:NOTNEWS. We are not talking about some event that hit the tabloids, this is the President of the United States being asked to forfeit a race that he was slightly ahead in just mere months ago.
— ThatCopticGuyping me! (
talk) (
contribs)
01:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - The presidential debate page is becoming too long, and this story has dominated the news cycle for long enough. Additionally, the story continues to expand with each day, with new calls to drop out.
AgeofUltron04:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean Keep - a campaign asking a sitting President to drop out of the race with multiple US House representatives and a US Senator behind should be considered significant enough for Wikipedia. This article is a bit light on context and supporting details, so at the bare minimum it needs to be expanded and rewritten. I think that
Age and health concerns of Joe Biden could be merged into this article as well.
Flangalanger (
talk)
06:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Extremely important part of the 2024 election cycle that will 100% be relevant in 10 years time, no matter if he stays in or not.
HadesTTW (he/him •
talk)
16:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No it won’t. If he drops, the main article would be
Joe Biden’s suspended 2024 United States presidential campaign if anything; people “calling” on him to drop out would be less relevant than the actual action of him dropping out. If he continues to be the nominee and even wins, nobody will care and an article would seem unnecessary. Same as when people called for Trump to drop out in 2016, but he ended up winning; we don’t have an article for that.
Prcc27 (
talk)
17:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The creation of this is an act of the extraordinarily ill-informed, and a gaggle of "keep its notable!" votes miss the mark entirely. We should not create articles on a group of people who hold a singular, narrow opinion on a topic. Even if Biden were to withdraw from the race, an article on the people who said "drop out" is absurd. Non-news, non-encyclopedic, a myriad of wrong here.
Zaathras (
talk)
18:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is it really simply a "group of people" if that group includes several congresspeople, a senator, several Democratic donors (including one of the most prolific political donors in recent memory), the president's own aides, and, implicitly, the previous House speaker? One could argue that the article should be expanded to encompass more than simply the group of people in question, but I think calling such a large, sustained leadership push to oust the current president from the race "Non-news" or "ill-informed" is completely inappropriate.
Baldemoto (
talk)
20:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I found no significant coverage after multiple searches. The current three sources in the article are an Access Denied page to the subject's non-independent biography, an article by the subject, and a local article about him being appointed.
SL93 (
talk)
03:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The first source was already in the article, and both sources are
routine coverage. Both sources are just announcements of what the subject did in in his career - being hired and forming his team.
SL93 (
talk)
08:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Being denied access to a source in not a proper reason for deleting an article. The source is still available in an archive (now added]. I find the coverage to be significant and dealing with more than routine about his career progression.
Thincat (
talk)
11:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, in itself it doesn't contribute much, if anything, towards notability but it provides some sufficiently verified information. Taken as a whole there is enough adequate information for a stub BLP. Personally, I prefer AFD discussions to include only matters that are relevant to article deletion but I realise that some people are not so well aware of our standards or they regard discussions as adversarial rather than inquisitorial.
Thincat (
talk)
12:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Both of the sources provided by Ednabrenze appear to contain multiple paragraphs of significant and independent coverage with which to meet the
WP:GNG.
Let'srun (
talk)
18:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I created this article first and it's already in drafts and was submitted to AfC. Edit history proves I created the draft first. It's current in draft space. user basically copied my draft
Comintell (
talk)
19:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As Comintell did create first at the article is now a copy-paste of that draft Draftify no longer makes any sense. Also I agree if kept it should be as "Hawk Tuah" not Hailey/Haliey Welch, and as BullDawg2021 has accepted Comintell as the creator it would be best to delete this as move
Draft:Hailey Welch to
Hawk Tuah to keep creator attribution.
KylieTastic (
talk)
09:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. Her name is Hailey Welch, and I created this page fitst and submitted through AfC.
Draft:Hailey Welch
The user paraphrased much of my draft, and changed the name because my draft already existed. THIS is incredibly disingenuous.
To clarify. If you read my draft, I think you will see that Welch DOES qualify for notability, specifically because of sustained significant coverage over the last month, and her pivioting into a career and getting mentored by Shaq. I can't believe this UtherSRG basically copied my draft and moved it to mainspace with a spelling error in the name
Comintell (
talk)
18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Super suspicious that this article says "Often misspelled as Hailey Welch" When All reliable sources cite her name to be Hailey WelchComintell (
talk)
19:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Where is your source for this? My article was much more detailed. You literally copied the same flow of facts as I did. What source spells her name this way. Every single reliable source says her name is Hailey. Sure I will assume good faith, but you shouldn't have been permitted to create this article
Comintell (
talk)
19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
To the both of you: there are established procedures in place to preserve the page histories and authorial credits. If this article is kept and you continue the article improvement process, both of you should receive the appropriate credits for things like DYK, etc. I suggest you put aside your differences and work together, not against each other.
Viriditas (
talk)
20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Absurd as it may seem, the phenomenon has started to gather coverage in reliable sources and move from mere Tiktok gag into a
Let's Go Brandon-style cultural moment. Here's eg
Slate,
7News,
Rolling Stone. That said, this likely belongs under Hawk Tuah, not under Ms Welch's name.
Jpatokal (
talk)
21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Even if the meme is receiving media coverage, one single TikTok meme is hardly enough to provide notability for a person.
WP:1E comes to mind as this person really has no other claims to notability.
Di (they-them) (
talk)
04:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or Draftify: There is not only the fact that the nominator is correct, there are two "competing" drafts, both containing overlapping information. Since it is
WP:TOOSOON both draft creators should work together in Draft space to create one draft which may become appropriate to accept when the subject meets
WP:BIO which I am not persuaded thsat it does currently 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦
06:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yea, @
BullDawg2021 I'm sorry that I got so protective and frustrated. Even assuming good faith, this was a frustrating experience for me and I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive or un collaborative.
Comintell (
talk)
06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment on the purely clerical issue here: there seem to be two pages here,
Draft:Hailey Welch (created 2024-07-02T20:47:03) and
Haliey Welch (created 2024-07-02T21:54:54). The overlap between both articles is fairly significant. I don't know to what extent one was copied from the other, but it seems like this may be worthy of later consideration in some other venue (assuming this is kept, otherwise there is no point). jp×
g🗯️06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Notable for making a joke on a street interview? This is the epitome of people notable for only one event. It's possible the event (the joke itself (Hawk Tuah)) is notable, though even that is too soon to tell imo.
ato—
mic06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Reminder: There are two issues at play here, whether the "Hawk Tuah" event meets
WP:GNG (based on the amount of reliable sources garnered, probably yes) and whether Ms. Welch herself is notable (probably no, it's hard to dispute that this is
WP:BIO1E). If you're suggesting that this article be deleted entirely, please clarify your stance on both these points.
Jpatokal (
talk)
09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Creating an article for the notable controversy or Hawk Tuah event will solve this problem. Clearly, this is a problem of
WP:TOOSOON for the subject, as well as
WP:BIO1E. In such a situation, there is only one way out–having an article about the popular word, "Hawk Tuah", and the influencer (not yet meeting
WP:ENT) will redirect to the article. We don't need to argue on an article and a existing draft; it isn't necessary here. Who can/will create the event's article, and save us this stress? Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with this. The person herself obviously falls under
WP:TOOSOON (
WP:1E), but an article about the phenomenon/trend is much more suitable. There's definitely enough coverage in
WP:RS for this. I think a lot of people voting delete here are simply saying
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many TikTok trends (no exception here) do receive lots of reliable media coverage and do meet
WP:NEVENT/GNG. I hope editors start to realize this — it's not 2010 anymore. CFA💬01:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course it is notable. Publish the story, under EITHER title to eventually be personalized if she becomes more famous. Thank you, either way likely a Hawk Tuah page is indeed coming to Wikipedia, especially if this story expands further. Thanks again, can't wait to see the page that IS coming. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.241.137.161 (
talk)
13:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Article is well-cited, subject is notable. I get that memes are not the most encyclopedic topic, but this one definitely meets the criteria at
WP:SIGCOV.
162 etc. (
talk)
19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is nothing notable about this subject. I watched the original video, the interview, and read the sources. There is literally nothing there. Her entire claim to fame consists of expressing her enthusiasm for fellatio. That's it, nothing else. I watched her entire interview that was published the other day, hoping for something, anything, that I could glom onto and say, that's something we should have an article about. There's nothing. She likes to use saliva as lubrication during oral sex. That's the entirety of her notability. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, and she seems like a very sweet young lady, but how do we write a biography about this? We can't.
Viriditas (
talk)
21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't say I didn't like it. I said there's nothing encyclopedic about the subject. The entire article is a promotional advertising campaign for Welch by her management team who are trying to capitalize on a five second joke she told on social media. This has the longevity of a
mayfly. She isn't notable for doing anything. Yes, the video went viral, but Welch was only one of a dozen random subjects interviewed by Tim & Dee TV, which itself isn't even notable. There's nothing here. Nobody will know who she is next week.
Viriditas (
talk)
21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The articles written about her by The Guardian, Vanity Fair, People, Forbes, etc. etc., will certainly still be there next week. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.162 etc. (
talk)
22:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Warhol was right: "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." Welch even alludes to that in the Guardian article. There's nothing here to write about. "Haliey Welch is a young woman who was randomly interviewed in the middle of the street and made a joke about fellatio. A video of her went viral, and she was soon approached by an agent who sought to capitalize upon her sexual-themed joke by making clothing with her name on it." That's what we're doing now?
Viriditas (
talk)
22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
All of this coverage calls her 'Hawk Tuah Girl'. Unless she starts a show, becomes a musician, etc, and receives coverage unrelated to Hawk Tuah, this is
WP:1Eato—
mic23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Viriditas's prediction "Nobody will know who she is next week" (above) is commendably free of hedging, obscurantism, waffle. Let this AfD run on until next week, and then reconsider. The article will then live or die; either way, this AfD (with its miscellaneous expressions of indignation) will survive "for ever". --
Hoary (
talk)
22:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The early filmmakers of the 20th century and the former journalists of MTV News would like a word. The topic of
media preservation is one of the most depressing ever. Nothing lasts, everything fades away. Consider, if you will, the
Silurian hypothesis. In the far future, nobody will ever know you or I existed. People like to think they are making their lasting mark on the world, but it's a bedtime story we tell ourselves to keep the terror of the dark at bay.
Viriditas (
talk)
21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. We've kind of got two subjects there: 1) Haliey Welch and 2) the Hawk Tuah meme. There's already a lot of good coverage and it's highly likely coverage of one or both will be lasting. There's something notable here. Similar memes and figures that come to mind are
The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger and
Jenn Sterger. Tiffany Gomes, aka the "Crazy Plane Lady", is still getting coverage a year after her initial internet meme moment. Surprised there isn't an article about her. Probably should be.
Jweiss11 (
talk)
07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Sterger and
Catherine Perry (who later gained fame in
WWE under the ringname Lana) were among a group of friends called the FSU Cowgirls, known for wearing skimpy clothing and cowboy hats to football games. She first came to attention when she was shown during a 2005 Florida State–
Miamifootball game televised on
ABC Sports. On seeing the shot, announcer
Brent Musburger commented on-air that "1,500 red-blooded Americans just decided to apply to Florida State.""
Point being? Jenn Sterger actually went on to become a notable person in her own right. If she and her friend were only known as "the FSU cowgirls", a subject that has no article on the encyclopedia, neither she nor her friend would have articles either. Sterger has an article because she gained further notability as a journalist, television personality, and model, enough to justify a BLP page. This article is just the short story of how someone's impromptu joke became a viral moment and she quickly cashed in and got to hang out with a few celebrities as a result. Vanilla Wizard 💙15:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
RTredwell, yeah, thanks for your explanation. That was my thinking. Obviously Sterger has had something of sustained notable career, and it's too early to tell if Welch will. But it's worth noting that the article for Sterger was created on February 11, 2006, before she had had much of that career, and after she was known almost entirely for being a memetic hot chick who happened to get on national TV at a football game.
Jweiss11 (
talk)
07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete and adding that if this page is kept in any form, it should be exclusively about the meme, not the person. The person is not a suitable subject for a biographical article. This is a textbook example of
WP:BLP1E. The meme itself is highly unlikely to have any enduring notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙02:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
also feel like it's worth noting this may be a rare example of a situation where
WP:NOTNEWS (
WP:ENDURING) is actually potentially applicable in a deletion discussion. A significant percent of what's here is just a description of the subject's fifteen minutes of fame, just listing out every time the subject has appeared near another celebrity in the last few weeks. There's not exactly a lot of encyclopedic material to salvage here. Should also mention that not all of the sources in the article are quality sources. There's a handful of reliable ones, but
TMZ,
Times of India,
Dexerto, and
Distractify are not. I'm not convinced a page about the meme itself is justified. Vanilla Wizard 💙04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Why do you think the meme is unlikely to have any enduring notability? What makes you think you can predict what will be popular in the future? It's impossible to predict the future.
RTredwell (
talk)
04:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That said, I agree with LilianaUwU's comments below that draftifying can be an acceptable outcome, too. I don't think this page is ready to be in mainspace. But it is not impossible that the meme/catchphrase could be article-worthy at some point in the future, and there's no harm in incubating it in draftspace as a work-in-progress. The page will need a lot of reworking, anyways; there seems to be little disagreement that the page should just be about the "hawk tuah" phrase — this cannot exist as a BLP page about Haliey Welch. Consider this a delete as first preference, draftify as second preference !vote. Vanilla Wizard 💙00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. or merge into an article about the meme itself if it does not meet notability guidelines for a biography. The meme has gained massive coverage and notability, and this article cites numerous reliable secondary sources. Thousands of people are looking up Hawk Tuah Girl daily looking for a Wikipedia article on the subject, they should be provided with one.
RTredwell (
talk)
03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Whether we like it or not, she is notable per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Extensive and continued media coverage as well.
BabbaQ (
talk)
21:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
With that said... I'd be down with the idea of having an article on the meme rather than the woman behind it, considering BLP1E and all that. The meme has gotten loads of coverage and will be remembered. So... perhaps draftify, maybe? LilianaUwU(
talk /
contributions)00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - We are not here to judge worthiness; we are here to judge whether a topic has been the object of multiple, independently-published, instances of significant coverage in sources which are presumably reliable. This fits the bill. GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes.
Carrite (
talk)
22:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to
Hawk-Tuah I think it's pretty clear that
WP:BLP1E applies to Hailey Welch's article since well they are famous for one thing and one thing only as of the present day, most of the coverage is in the context of the meme not the person itself and I think we should have a article about the meme rather than the person themselves.
Sohom (
talk)
13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Anyone considering whether to keep or delete this page, should look at the original draft,
Draft:Hailey Welch which has been expanded is formatted properly.
As my draft was updated to note, she is in talks to get a reality TV show about her life, and further, the Hawk Tuah phrase origins are disputed, with many sources citing that Welch is garnering interest as an individual and public figure. I was just saying.
Comintell (
talk)
00:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Maybe recreate this if the news is somehow still obsessed with her in a few months. I'm pretty sure there's just going to be a deluge of articles for the next few days and then none at all.
HadesTTW (he/him •
talk)
01:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This girl is essentially
Bhad Bhabie/"Cash Me Outside Girl" (who unfortunately also recently made tragic news) for Zoomers instead of Millennials. She is more notable than some other articles.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk)02:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Hailey has a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources (see
USA Today,
Rolling Stone &
The Guardian) and has already collaborated with Shaq and Zach Bryan. She gained online virality in a similar fashion to
Gorilla Glue Girl,
Bhad Bhabie, and
Jenn Sterger - with Sterger also discovered from a passing comment made in a vox pop. While
WP:CRYSTALBALL is always a fair argument to suggest she won't forever be notable, it can also be used on the contrary, as this may just not die down any time soon. If there is still not enough supporting evidence for Welch to have her own article, then the video should be the subject instead, e.g. "
Looking for a Man in Finance" and
Chewbacca Mask Lady. But not delete. --
Mechanical Elephant (
talk)
23:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm unsure why the last AfD nom was speedy closed by a non-admin, but there is a distinct lack of sourcing for this item. It's been tagged since 2006 and has not improved. I find nothing about this group other than the Google Body app that was taken over by them when Google discontinued it.
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I closed my own AfD as speedy keep as I found [
[12]] and [
[13]] just after submitting it but I'm not super convinced that there is enough here.
Let'srun (
talk)
01:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I'm having trouble finding strong sources to back up the info in this article. Maybe letting this one go might be the best course of action.
Waqar💬18:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Prior efforts to remove a large volume of promotional materials reveal how much of a nothing-burger this page on an American sales speaker is. There is no significant coverage and much promotional material, and it almost merits speedy deletion. It turned up on my radar because it received 7,000 views in June despite being an orphan.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
00:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I suppose having a best-selling book in the sales category could be notable, but other than the listing, there is no coverage... None, other than places to listen to his speeches or sales mantras. I don't find reviews of his books or mentions of this individual in RS, this appears PROMO.
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: This article seems heavy on promotional info about the speaker's books and events, and there isn't much beyond links to the speaker's own materials.
Waqar💬19:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I was only able to find mentions and brief descriptions (<100 words) of the subject in reliable sources (such as by searching "filetype:pdf "Kosmic Free Music Foundation" " on Google). The article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability.
toweli (
talk)
08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You must not have been on the internet in the mid 1990s. Back then, "reliable sources" would not be covering what they individuals were doing in the online music community.
75.3.240.177 (
talk)
04:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftification was undone so I'm bringing it to AfD. Both the sources used in the article and the sources found online as part of
WP:BEFORE are uniquely interviews with the founder, with no sign of independent notability. In particular,
WP:ORGCRITE is not met because of the lack of secondary sources. I suggest a Merge or Redirect to
Kaveh Akbar as
WP:ATD.
Broc (
talk)
05:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not correct that "sources found online as part of
WP:BEFORE are uniquely interviews with the founder." Only three out of the eight sources are, and those are interviews with
NPR, The Indianapolis Star, and a student newspaper of
Butler University, each focused on a festival organized by Divedapper.
It is also incorrect that "
WP:ORGCRITE is not met because of the lack of secondary sources." In fact, all of the sources used are independent and third-party sources. None run afoul of
WP:NIS. For them to be "primary sources," that would indicate that Divedapper owns or has financial or legal interests or ties to these sources. Nothing I find in my research suggests so.
Can the page Divedapper be improved upon? Absolutely. As can any other page. What has no basis in facts is the notion that it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
If it does fail to meet any criteria, one would expect a proper notification to that effect. Instead, Broc commented out the magazine's logo and did not state that he did so in the Edit Summary, which I found suspect and led me to conclude some bad faith at work. I took a look at their
Talk page and found that they had used such "unorthodox" --- their own words --- methods before and a User had complained about it. In that case, Broc moved
an article to AfD; but when there was no consensus, Broc voted "Keep," and then draftified the article. A User described the move as "misleading." In response, Broc wrote: "I understand I might have bent the rules of the process a bit." If all editors bent Wikipedia rules at will, then the purpose of the site is defeated.
"Misleading" and "bending the rules of the process a bit" are descriptions I'd use for Broc as it concerns Divedapper. I'd very much prefer for things to be done in the right manner. I'd say "Keep."
LityNerdyNerd (
talk)
16:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: has been accepted through AfC. Filming has started. Even if this is never released, cast and director are extremely notable and most of all, coverage presented in the page or existing online is sufficient to satisfy the general requirements for notability. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)17:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Films that have not been confirmed by
reliable sources to have commenced
principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. ...
Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless
the production itself is notable per the
notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.
The article notes: "Jack Black is back in metro Atlanta to shoot the Farrelly Brothers Christmas-themed comedy “Dear Santa.” ... Black was seen in downtown Decatur last week shooting the film and he posted an Instagram photo from the set teasing the movie’s thematics in what appeared to be a Christmas village. ... Others in the cast include Robert Timothy Smith, Keegan-Michael Key, Brianne Howey, Hayes MacArthur, PJ Byrne, Jaden Carson Baker, Kai Cech and Austin Post."
The article notes: "The movie centers on a young boy who, in writing his yearly note to Santa, mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Black recently teased the project on social media when he posted a photo of him posing with Christmas decorations with no context — it got everyone talking about what it could be."
Thea article notes: "After more than 20 years, Jack Black is reteaming with his Shallow Hal filmmakers the Farrelly Brothers for the Paramount comedy Dear Santa. The feature centers on a child who intends to write a letter to Santa Claus, but mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Bobby Farrelly will direct and produce, with brother Peter Farrelly producing along with Jeremy Kramer. The Farrelly brothers penned the script with Ricky Blitt, the writer behind the 2005 Johnny Knoxville feature The Ringer. The story came from an original idea from Dan Ewen, known for the John Cena comedy Playing With Fire."
The article notes: "Following his previous Christmas movie, 2006's "The Holiday" — where he was half of one of the most memorable holiday movie couples ever as Miles — Jack Black is dipping back into the Christmas spirit with a decidedly different project and character. Now fans can see him become unrecognizable as Satan on the set of the upcoming flick, "Dear Santa.""
The article notes: "Next up, Post Malone will star in the upcoming Christmas comedy Dear Santa alongside Jack Black and Keegan-Michael Key. It's unclear who Post Malone will be playing in Dear Santa, but the movie's premise will undoubtedly catch attention, considering it follows a young kid who accidentally writes a letter to Satan (Black) instead of Santa ahead of the Christmas holiday. The movie also reunites Black with the Farrelly Brothers, who collaborated together on 2001's Shallow Hal. Dear Santa will be another chance for Post Malone to showcase his comedic chops while also trying his hand at a Christmas movie for the first time in his acting career."
Comment: both keep votes appear to have missed the films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines part of NFILM. Is the production itself notable? I don't see any evidence that there is, which would make this an improper AfC acceptance and lead to redraftification until we have a release date. --
asilvering (
talk)
18:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
??? I don't think Cunard nor myself have missed that part, no. Cunard even quoted it VERBATIM in his !vote. Rather, maybe you missed the part in our !votes when we found it is notable, explained why and/or the evidence presented by Cunard above, present in the page or existing online Thank you. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Cunard quoted it verbatim, yes, but his sources don't address it at all? All of these quotes he's pulled are basically "this movie is coming up! it's started shooting! here are some guys who are in it!" That's not the production of the movie being notable. That's simply people saying that the movie is currently being produced. --
asilvering (
talk)
18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - This is the only Tommahawk missile strike to have occurred during the Somali civil war, it therefore is clearly notable enough to stand on its own.
XavierGreen (
talk)
19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep or Merge with redirect. The content strikes me as sourced and suitable for inclusion, though whether as its own article or a subsection of another seems to make little difference.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
23:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Keep, Redirect or Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Article has substantial issues including general copy-editing, severe lack of sources for much of what is stated, and is a general mishmash of actual "invasions", speculative ideas about potential invasions, and (until recent edits) covering completely non-related topics such as nuclear and cyberattacks.
Draftify Even with the nom's rightful removal of sci-fi cryptofacist fanfiction that took the article completely off the rails, this article is in need of serious help and sourcing, maybe even an entirely new title. As is, 'invasion' is doing very heavy lifting here, as only Pearl Harbor and Imperial Army attempts to get to the mainland during WWII could really be considered as such. Nate•(
chatter)00:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. A reasonable person could absolutely make the case that putting all these disparate events into one article isn't
WP:OR, but it feels like OR to me. The burning of DC during the War of 1812 and Pearl Harbor and the start of the Mexican-American War are all important events that should (and do) have their own coverage, but putting them all together without directly addressing that they are in most respects very different events seems like the passive suggestion of a connection that may not be merited in fact or sourcing. I think it's possible to write an article that is not subject to this problem, but it would look very different from this one. Off the top of my head, it's that "invasion" suggests that one party was the aggressor, and the relationships between America-Britain, America-Mexico, and America-Japan right before the invasion events were all very different.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Serves no real purpose. Way too much SYNTH. Also, the redirect has nothing to do with this page. It's referencing movie titles and a single album.
Intothatdarkness19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify: This piece has marked content and sourcing issues. Draftifying will allow us to enhance its flow, sources, and quality. It will allow a complete redo of the article. It will help us discern recorded facts from guesses and unrelated topics, including cyber and nuclear attacks. Once these edits are made, the article will be ready for reentry into the main space.--
AstridMitch (
talk)
06:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, this is (a) a real functional part of the U.S. federal government (albeit distributed across multiple arms of government), (b) serves a crucial part in the keeping of secrets, and (c) attested to by multiple reliable sources. —
The Anome (
talk)
23:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you provide the multiple reliable sources that establish notability? The ones currently in the article are not secondary sources that we would use to establish notability, nor do they include
WP:SIGCOV of the article subject.
Longhornsg (
talk)
04:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep if even one Wikipedian volunteers to do the legwork. I took under ten minutes and hit up Google and Google Scholar. I found several sources that look promising and linked to them on the article talk page here:
[15]. I have not perused any of these sources in detail, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them aren't usable, but I'm satisfied enough that enough reliable sourcing to justify an article on this topic exists.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
00:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, an example of
WP:Ignore all rules. The page already has a couple of sources, and one does not expect extensive coverage in newspapers etc. Assuming that this list is correct, it has a relevant encyclopedic role so should be left. I note that there appear to be several other security related pages nominated for AfD by the same editor.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
12:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge with
War on terror. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I just attempted to find sourcing for this article in effort to conduct
wp:before and no significant citations exist that demonstrate
wp:n. I would like to propose either a move to a larger article on reggae or outright deletion. This article has clearly been lingering for a very long time without any significant improvements.
Variety312 (
talk)
22:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I think we should be careful about deleting this. It seems to have a significant cultural impact on rap and reggae. It has an entry
here which is interesting, and at African American Research Perspectives
[19], of which I can only see a small part. The label had one release which seems to be of particular significance
[20]. I'm not finding enough coverage for a standalone article. Perhaps redirect to
How We Gonna Make the Black Nation Rise?? It seems to be significant enough to
WP:PRESERVE.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions)19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. There are clearly two topics that could be this entry. Having this lead to a disambiguation page prevents accidental links from happening as bots notify users when adding these. There is zero upsides to deleting or redirecting this.
Gonnym (
talk)
06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Disambiguation page only links to one article, the other is just an article where the second subject is mentioned. —
Mjks28 (
talk)
03:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Alex Danvers. The only two topics are the character (who has a standalone article) and a TV show episode named after that character (which does not have a standalone article). A hatnote is definitely sufficient for dealing with the small number of people who would want to go to the list entry about the episode.
QuicoleJR (
talk)
23:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, again. Arguments are almost evenly divided between those wanting to Keep the page and those advocating a Redirect (with a few Delete opinions mixed in). So, we need some more policy-based arguments or some participants reconsidering their "votes". No consensus closures tend to make all sides dissatisfied so that is the last resort if nothing changes here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Alex Danvers with hatnote per Quicole above. As has been mentioned, the episode is stand-alone and is referencing the character regardless.
I'm unclear how this responds to my concern. An editor using the link
Alex (Supergirl) for the episode now gets a warning they added a disambiguation link to an article. If this changes to a redirect to the character, it won't happen and it might not be fixed. How is changing this to a redirect helpful?
Gonnym (
talk)
12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I still think deletion is the right choice. If the "Alex" episode had its own article it would be a different matter, but as there is no article for it, having a disambiguation page wouldn't be helpful. --
Mjks28 (
talk)
13:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a
WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to
WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.
Information about the trial
The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the
original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from
Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.
Information about what the IAP
I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.
I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.
Keep. Not seeing how it's a purported POVFORK. Per sources, the
Islamic Association of Palestine is a separate organization from the
Holy Land Foundation, so they should not be in the same article. An editor's perception of bias is not a reason for AfD, which is determined by coverage in
WP:RS. Levvitt is a scholar and reliable source. Affiliation with an organization perceived as bias does not affect whether the source is credible and a reliable source of facts. Lots of coverage in source across the ideological spectrum that clearly establishes
WP:GNG:
Second, third, fourth article is about the HLF trial.
Fifth source mentions IAP for one paragraph, and includes HLF.
6th source uses a scratch note from one Muslim Brotherhood guy that was never accepted by any other muslim brotherhood. This 1991 note became the basis for the
Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory in the 2000s to 2010s.
matthew Levitt was the key witness for HLF trial, and his work is entirely about proving financial connections between groups. His writings are about the holy land 5.
i argue that if this article is mostly about the trial to convict the 5, and the IAP is not sufficiently notable by itself except in context of the trial, it should be merged (maybe keep as a subsection in HLF what it did).
User:Sawerchessread (
talk)
23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd argue that a passing mention (one word mention) in three of these sources also suggests it is a passing reference as part of discussion for the HLF trial.
I want to find more sourcing beyond the HLF trial and its repercussions, that there is enough info besides just the HLF trial to suggest it warrants an article
User:Sawerchessread (
talk)
23:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That Matthew Levitt source is used 11 times throughout this article, when in the Holy Land article, his sourcing is used only once suggests a POV Fork.
"Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgements and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies — an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees... None of this would matter if Levitt used the center's analyses critically, but he doesn't appear to. As a result, there will be readers of this book who will see it as fronting for the Israeli intelligence establishment and its views."
Not arguing he's not academic, just biased (As is every source on Israel/palestine), and that citing him heavily about the trial and the evidence tying the defendents together in one article, and not citing heavily in another suggests a POV fork.
User:Sawerchessread (
talk)
23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The Islamic Association of Palestine is a different organization from the Holy Land Foundation. How is this a
POV fork of the
Holy Land Foundation - the article does not exclusively rely on Levitt's writings, directly cites an FBI report, and refers to a different organization from the HLF. Both were convicted of providing material support for terrorism and were proven to be fundraising arms for Hamas, alongside the
Quranic Literacy Institute. All three organizations are notable as per
the general notability guideline as per the sources
Longhornsg provided. This article could easily be repaired by bringing in sources from the other two articles about the Holy Land Foundation case, so that the article is not largely reliant on Levitt, given possible concerns of bias. In order for something to be a POV fork, it must be on the same topic as another article. The
Holy Land Foundation article is about the Holy Land Foundation, whereas this article is about the Islamic Association of Palestine.
It discusses the same trial to the same five men for 95% of the article. The suggestion to bring it into line by including sourcing from the other article would be to keep discussing the trial.
Keep -- the EAA video cited in the article has the interviewer ask the designer specifically about this design, and they discuss it in more than passing. The video from Van's about the restoration of another design which uses part of this design is also more than a passing reference, but since it's from the company themselves, it's not truly independent of the subject. In a case like this, where we have a series of 13 out of 14 closely-related articles that are all patently notable, and 1 out of 14 that's iffy, I think it makes sense to
WP:IAR if we don't have the magic
three sources.
[edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a
good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator
[27] is one of the worst examples of
biting I can recall seeing. And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him. --
Rlandmann (
talk)
00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
When did U5-tagging an unsourced autobiography that promotes the author's resume become "biting"? Are we so scared of scaring off newbies that we allow whatever promotion and spam they insert? Has the blame shifted from spammers and COIS to the new page patrollers and admins who work the speedy deletion process?
Air on White (
talk)
00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Please take some time to read over
this section of the behavioural guideline and reflect a little. With behavioural guidelines, it's less about what you did, and how you did it. I completely believe that you acted in 100% good faith here, but the outcome was still a bad one for the newbie and for the project. I've done patrolling in the past, and I know what a grind it can be (and how valuable it is to the encyclopedia). But if sustaining that fight is taking its toll and leading to actions like this, it might be time for a rest for a while and work on writing about something that brings you joy and recharges you. --
Rlandmann (
talk)
00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you concretely explain what I did wrong? How is this case is different from normal? Are you yourself aware of your patronizing, judgmental tone?
Air on White (
talk)
01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, I'm very happy to dive into this in detail with you; but I'll take it to your talk page. I apologise if you don't like my tone; it's not my intention to come across that way. That said, there's a profound difference between two highly experienced editors communicating in a forum like this vs how a highly experienced editor with tools permissions treated a well-meaning newbie. I would additionally suggest however, that both your responses here confirm my impression that time on the front line might be taking a toll. More shortly in a different place.--
Rlandmann (
talk)
01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I wasn't trying to promote anything. I am content with my employment (i.e. not looking to get into anything else) and my company makes business-to-business products (i.e. it's not like a Wikipedia reader is going to decide to buy a cargo jet after reading that I work on them). I thought that writing about myself would (A) establish that I'm knowledgeable about my field (including awareness about good public sources to get relevant details from) and (B) show that I'm trying to be honest and to do things in good faith since I'm tying my actions on Wikipedia to my real name and career, not an anonymous pseudonym. But, ok, if there is no advantage to being a real expert rather than a random anonymous stranger on the internet, I can create a pseudonymous screen name instead and use that (other than for uploading images, which I do intend to retain ownership of).
Bernardo.Malfitano (
talk)
15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Now to the actual argument of the keep post. Interviews do not always contribute to notability. The Van's video most definitely does not count as a source as it is not independent at all - all company videos can be assumed to be promotional sources that do not undergo the rigorous fact-checking of RS. It provides 0 sources toward the "magic three." The only other source is the EAA video. Can you provide the timestamp of the interview where the RV-2 is mentioned? It is also equivalent to a serious, reliable documentary? At best, it is 1 source. No amount of invalid sources adds up to notability—0+0+0+...+0 = 0. This keep case stretches and twists policy—the independence of sources and the threshold of GNG—to shoehorn a topic of supposedly inherited notability into Wikipedia.
Air on White (
talk)
01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
So, just verifying my own understanding here: when you opened this AfD and asserted that there were "no mention in RS besides passing ones", you had not actually viewed the sources? --
Rlandmann (
talk)
01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for now Comment. This article has only been here a few days. I think it's too early to judge what RS might or might not be out there. By all means tag it as short on RS, but deletion is premature. Having said that, Van's Aircraft's
own puff about its planes starts with the RV-3, so seeking sufficient RS to support this article could be a fool's errand. Or maybe merging into
Van's Aircraft will prove a good middle way. I'd suggest we revisit this in a month or so. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm new to Wikipedia and I obviously can't claim to understand the rules and the culture thoroughly. If you guys decide that the article should be deleted, then, that's fine, do what you think is best.
FWIW, my rationale for creating the article was the following: Van's Aircraft is far and away the world leader in experimental airplanes, with over 11000 airplanes flying and countless others being built. When people in the aviation world first learn about Van's - or maybe after investigating RV airplanes for a while - the question naturally comes up: If it's so easy to find out about the RV-1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, then... What about the RV-2, 5, and 11? Now, again, I'm not 100% sure that Wikipedia is the place for (at least a very summarized version of) the answer, but... Firstly: Wikipedia already had an article for the RV-11 (which made it a little further in its construction but was also unfinished). And secondly: Wikipedia has countless articles about concept aircraft that never made it into the air, included in the encyclopedia because they're part of a series where people often wonder about missing numbers (The X-6 and X-54 didn't make it very far at all, and the X-33 and X-57 were cancelled after substantial prototyping and subsystems tests but before completion of the final vehicle), or because the development project was large and/or resulted in relevant technologies or partnerships or R&D later used for other things (National AeroSpace Plane, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, High Speed Civil Transport, Aerion SBJ and AS2...). So I figured, if all those X planes and supersonic transports that never made it off the drawing board all warrant Wikipedia articles (and the RV-11 apparently does too), then the RV-2 probably does too.
I am so glad to see you back! I was really worried that we might have scared you off.
Note that that guideline is an unofficial one and does not trump the General Notability Guidelines. (It's also ancient and reflects Wikipedia practices from 10-15 years ago, so needs to be brought into line with current practice...) --
Rlandmann (
talk)
22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While the !votes thus far all favor keep, their arguments call for (reasoned) exceptions to policy/guidelines rather than basing themselves on it, so a relist to allow for further discussion seems appropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
On a point of order, my "Keep for now" is based on
Articles for deletion where it says; "Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article by conducting additional research." (my bold). I am pointing out above that those attempts need time. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I endorse
User:Rosguill's summary of the situation. And, after further research and further discussion with the contributor, I'll add that it seems really unlikely that further RS will be forthcoming anytime soon. Based on the sources that we do have, then at worst, this material should be merged elsewhere. However, there's no clear, logical place to do that. In other, similar situations, we merge information about minor aircraft projects (particularly unbuilt or unfinished ones) into the article on a related design. However, in this case, this was a stand-alone design that isn't related to anything else that
Richard VanGrunsven designed or built. Which means that his bio is the most obvious destination if we were to do a merge, but would create serious
undue weight there. So yes, if we do decide to keep this information in a separate article, it is as an
exception, and one based purely on information architecture, not on the Notability of this design per se. --
Rlandmann (
talk)
10:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to Bio. Thank you for your additional research. I don't think your suggested merge to his bio would be unduly undue, as it were. There are several paras about his planes there and the meat of this one is really quite small. Alternatively, since the canopy was used for the
VanGrunsven RV-5, it might be merged there, but I agree that is not very satisfactory. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [add clear !vote — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
10:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks
User:gidonb -- the problem here is that the RV-2 and RV-11 are notVan's Aircraft designs or products, and should be removed from that list ASAP. (I've left them there for now pending this discussion) Note how they're missing from the timeline graphic immediately below. Creating a similar list of all
Richard VanGrunsven's designs in his bio would be one merge that could work and still avoid unduly unbalancing that article. I'd hate to lose the images of the RV-2 and RV-11 now that we have them though, and also don't want to dominate VanGrunsven's bio with a table of all his designs and pictures. If the outcome of this process is merge, maybe we should create a separate list article for all VanGrunsven's designs, with an image of each. I think that would cover all the concerns that have come up in this discussion. --
Rlandmann (
talk)
23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not an expert on this process but it seems that even a quick online search yields entire news articles about the awards and winners. Just a few I found in 5 minutes:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A review of the recently found sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: As a response to @
208.58.205.56, The Nation looks like a reliable source and is green on the
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list and there is no consensus for The Mercury News and Grist.com. However those three articles are about winners of the award, not significant coverage about the award itself. There are other sources such as
Yale University ([[
[28]]]),
University of New Hampshire ([[
[29]]]), and Institute of Competition Sciences ([[
[30]]]), that discuss the background of the award. I think this at least merits to be kept as a stub and/or a list.
Prof.PMarini (
talk)
06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect -
Earth Island Institute - The problem with the Yale, University of New Hampshire and Institute of Competition Sciences pages are that these are all non independent/primary links for people wanting to apply for the award. What I am not seeing is any source that demonstrates this award is notable, by which some secondary source talks about it as a thing in itself, and not as "our student won" or "this is how to apply". It is not a huge award, but it is an award of Earth Island Institute whose notability is indicated in having a page. That page has one line on these awards that could be expanded with one of Prof.PMarini's sources to describe the award (information that is not clearly on the page, so not a merge), and that is then all we really need. Rather than keeping this as a stub, per Prof.PMarini, we can keep that information where it sits in the context of the institute's work. The redirect preserves page history should this become notable by secondary sources taking notice, and the long list of winners can go because Wikipedia is not a database (
WP:NOT), and this is all unsourced and outdated. There are 5 years missing.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
07:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Earth Island Institute. The program seems fairly well-established and is a reasonable search term. However, the sources mentioned here and in the article itself each mostly focus on a single winner as a local
human-interest story; sources that cover all of the winners of an award would be significant coverage of the event as opposed to the person, but that doesn't seem to be available here. The sources that don't fall into this category are just listings of scholarship information that seem more like database entries.
RunningTiger123 (
talk)
01:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply