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

Susan Eichhorn Young

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

Tagged for notability since 2013. Time to decide one way or another as a community if this meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little significant coverage. Seems to be a WP:MILL voice teacher with an unremarkable performing career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Fever

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

Single source article, showing no RS or SIGCOV. Film was direct-to-DVD and has no visible cultural impact. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Entries in the following books including critical assessment: https://archive.org/details/videosourcebookg0005unse/page/2460/mode/2up?q=%22Prairie+Fever%22+%22Stephen+Bridgewater%22 ; https://archive.org/details/radiotimesguidet0000unse_n4y0/page/954/mode/2up?q=%22Prairie+Fever%22+%22Stephen+Bridgewater%22 and in Western Movies: A Guide to 5,105 Feature Films, 2d ed. - Page 254; and in Catálogo Do Cinema Faroeste - Vol. 2 - Page 82 and Movies Made for Television: 2005-2009 - Page 82 AT LEAST. Has a BEFORE been performed? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those do not qualify as RS per WP:NFSOURCES. "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ and find some of those sources individually significant; their sum would be significant anyway, making the film meet the general requirements. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator did remove the sources added.....and I obviously restored them. NOTHING in WP:NFILMS says these sources (whose assessment regarding their significance I contest anyway) cannot BE USED. And to remove so many sources during an AfD (especially when you are the nominator!) is bordering disruption. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC) (Also indicating that NFILMS indicate that those sources would be "non-RS" (!) when quoting a section about significance not reliability is plainly erroneous.[reply]
If all you can find is a bunch of mentions in listing guides, that argues against notability, not for it. Per WP:NFSOURCES, such listings do not constitute RS, proving only that WP:ITEXISTS. As for their sum being significant, quantity does not equal quality. See WP:SOURCESEARCH. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I disagree with pretty much everything you say (except self-evidences such as "quantity does not equal quality" etc, obviously) but I will leave it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American regions by life expectancy

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

Prod contested. List is original research and synthesis - extracted data in form not present in secondary, reliable sources. Fails WP:NLIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Canada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, United States of America, and North America. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated my point of view at the article's talk page. Though the data in the source database were filtered and simple calculations were made, these transformations are obvious and easily verified. All data in the Wikipedia's page are in the source database or can be easily obtained by an obvious mathematical operation.

It's like retelling a text in your own words. When a Wikipedia editor retells a text, he does not retell the whole text but only a part of it. The same way, a Wikipedia editor has not obligation to use necessarily all records in an original dataset - only a part of it can be used. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any need for this type of list . Agletarang (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Hashem

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

BLP of the founder of a religious sect. The sect itself appears to be notable but it does not seem that the leader himself is. I think a redirect to Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light would probably be best. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Egypt, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Emer

AfDs for this article:

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

1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page

2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject

3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)

4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject

All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet. WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 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 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [1], [2], [3]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [4], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, California, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EyeCarePro

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

I'm not seeing much evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Medicine, Internet, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It's been a while since I've looked at this topic. All things considered, before I research the topic any further, perhaps changing it to a stub article would be a better move than deletion. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. Lorne Weil

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are passing mentions, paid for profiles and interviews. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO. My first thought was, "...and???". He's rich, he has a family, he got an education. He rose up the corporate ladder. Having the right connections can accomplish that much. But what did he actually do? — Maile (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, England, Canada, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete $8 million? That's it? State lotto winners are more notable and richer than this literal WP:MILLionaire, and the only drama in his life seems to be being bought out of his position by Ron Perelman, which at this point is just as MILL. Add to that the source to his wealth is a standard disqualified and unsourced 'net worth made up' website. Nate • (chatter) 23:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diablo (upcoming film)

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

Unreleased film, not expected to release until 2025. Does not meet WP:NFF or WP:SIGCOV, and won't until release. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should be created on release day. AutorisedUser673 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that is a joke, that’s funny. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Filming complete; reliable sources cover production with significant information allowing to build and expand so that the page can be retained and wait for reviews that will come probably around the time of the expected release. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Chile and United States of America. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why does it matter that "filming is complete" - the film is not being released until 2025. WP:NFF is clear: 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. There is nothing notable about the production itself, and the film has not yet been released, so... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does matter whether filming has started (or, for that matter, is complete) or not, for obvious reasons and for policy-based reasons. As for the rest, I beg to differ. We have reliable media outlets offering significant coverage about cast, plot, production, etc, so I will stand by my Keep. NFF is clear, yes, maybe, and production seems notable enough per the guidelines. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard to have articles once films have begun filming.★Trekker (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Economic Alliance

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

This group received some coverage when it first launched in 2018, but that's mainly a function of having a good publicist. Since 2018, they've received very little in-depth coverage. There's some in-depth coverage of its leadership, but most articles I could find only mention BEA in passing. An editor removed my PROD on this article because they found a "recent NYT article that refers to organization's recent activity," which they said "addresses the issue" I had. There's only one problem: the NYT article in question is about Wes Moore, and there is exactly 1 sentence about BEA. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:N test of WP:SUSTAINED with a few stories upon launch and no WP:SIGCOV since. Subsequent coverage is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. It should go without saying that this organization cannot inherit notability from its members. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Schwarz

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this previously unreferenced article about a composer, and added one reference. It is a passing mention, however, and I cannot find other coverage. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NCOMPOSER. Tacyarg (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, Television, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Before search returned nothing. Fails WP:GNG or WP:Nmusic. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, additional web-search didn't help. But the person is non-notable as a musician too. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Bolch

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians. The sources in the article are all a mix of paid promotion and press release regurgitation, and are unreliable as a result. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any other sources to establish notability. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Itascatown, Howland Island

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

This article's history contains slow-moving reversals of redirects by an anonymous editor. The text is copied word-by-word from the Howland Island, lacking context here and thus creating a WP:CFORK much worse than the original (note the "on the island" in the very first sentence without identification of the island). The anonymous comment match the actions in maturity ("Mommy I want to do color flags please?", [5]). IMHO the article should be replaced by a Redirect to Howland Island. WP:PROD was reverted by an anonymous editor, so escalating to establish consensus so repeated rollbacks will become legit. Викидим (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Oceania, United States of America, and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect This very obviously does not need to be a separate page from or duplicative to Howland Island#Itascatown (1935–42). Meyerton, Baker Island should also be merged to Baker Island. Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Pierce (CEO)

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

Not notable enough to warrant its own article, and there is pretty much nothing more to add about the person. The person and the reference in this article is already mentioned in the history section of Atari SA and that's all we need. Sceeegt (talk) 16:35, 14 September 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 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Video games, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Wilson (businessman)

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

The topic may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards under WP or the General Notability Guidelines due to insufficient coverage from reliable, independent sources. More independent media references are required to demonstrate significant coverage and establish notability. Moarnighar (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, Florida, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator is currently under ANI review for questionable editing behavior. -- GreenC 17:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fashion events in the United States

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

I don't see any reason for this list to be split from List of fashion events. I propose merging the content to the main article. Patientia1 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Fashion, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge The list is already at List of fashion events#United States so just do it and redirect. This is so obviously duplicative and unnecessary you don't need to pull others in unless someone objects. AFD is typically not the place to propose mergers either. Reywas92^Talk 17:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I will. Not the first time that I have been told to be bold here, I'll get better. Patientia1 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did it. Not sure if I need to do with this now. Patientia1 (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patientia1, you shouldn't have redirected this article while it was the subject of an open AFD discussion. If you want, you can withdraw your nomination and this discussion can be closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Clement Daniels

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

Only one, primary, source in article, no significant sources found during WP:BEFORE check. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 16:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Mevoelo (talk)Mevoelo 14:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I independently confirmed that before search. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny K. Davis

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

References do not pass WP:SIRS so fails WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and lacks critical mass of WP:RS citations. Per the nomination, I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tawny Taylor

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

There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I am also nominating the following related page because it is the only work by this author with an article, and appears similarly non-notable:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, United States of America, and Michigan. toweli (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tawny Taylor as multiple books have been the subject of review in RS, which meets NAUTHOR. Redirect Sex and the Single Ghost . Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tawny Taylor. Her books have many reviews and so she passes NAUTHOR. Redirect the book article to it, even the library journal piece has no coverage it's only a listing. Only thing I found was this review of uncertain reliability, which is only one thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tawny Taylor; redirect Sex and the Single Ghost to Tawny Taylor. She's written 50+ erotic novels with many reviews on Internet sites, a few of which may meet Wikipedia standards of reliability; in any case, many of these are listed as references in the chapter about her in the Gale Contemporary Authors book so that's something. But what gets this bio over the line is that two of her other more "mainstream" books written under her pseudonym Tami Dane have been reviewed by Publishers Weekly. Have expanded the article to include more information about her various book series and critical reception, as at the time of nomination, it was mostly just a list of books. Sex and the Single Ghost turns up nothing via Wikipedia Library except that listing in Library Journal. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the improvements and various reviews. Giving the commentary from those secondary sources of books which are not notable in themselves a home here seems the best solution. I.e. merge and redirect Sex and the Single Ghost here. Daranios (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on arguments above. Its a clear keep. She is a major author. scope_creep^Talk 13:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Morgan

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

WP:BLP with no secondary sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions. Book is notable and notability is not inherited. scope_creep^Talk 21:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Archaeology. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, not yet notable under WP:NAUTHOR (only one book) or WP:NPROF (too early career, doesn't meet any of the criteria). -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Asilvering: I don't think WP:NAUTHOR says anything about more than one book being required? – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  When an author only has one book, and all the coverage is about the book and not biographical coverage of the author, it's the book that's notable, not the author. If you want to argue that she's a notable author for having written the "significant or well-known work", Sins of the Shovel... well, I can't stop you, but I don't think that's a good argument. -- asilvering (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's not exactly my argument. It's an explicit SNG (WP:NAUTHOR, emphasis added: [...] a significant or well-known work or collective body of work). Whether you frame it an article on the author or an article on the book, the content is the same, making it rather inconsequential which one is the 'notable' entity. – Joe (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, United States of America, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book, which is at Sins of the Shovel. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a stub on the notable book, as alternative to deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Woodroofe: There is no article on the book. Are you proposing that we move this article to being about it? – Joe (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, essentially. Per WP:BLP1E, it would be better in this circumstance to cover the notable material in an article on the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't object to his outcome; I think the content would be basically the same. My preference is still for keeping this title, though, since it doesn't really matter either way and a) that it is what the original author of this article chose and b) it's quite likely the subject will write more books. – Joe (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe, there is one, not sure how I missed it the first time either: Sins of the Shovel. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, thanks. It was created from the content of this article, which the creator of the article on the book then blanked and redirected there. Which was... unorthodox. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the book is notable (amply demonstrated by the sources cited in the article), then so is the author per WP:NAUTHOR#3. Whether we cover them separately, together under the author's name, or together under the book's title is inconsequential. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not consensus. The author must be standalone notable as well. I've never seen that statement at Afd in more than 1 years. They are many many famous books where the author is virtually unknown, even in the modern period. They don't like the limelight, don't give interviews or readings or go to conferences or conventions. They are unknown and by any defintion they would fail WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR has wide consensus and has been stable for years. It reads:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if [... t]he 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).

The subject of this article has written a significant work, Sins of the Shovel: Looting, Murder, and the Evolution of American Archaeology, which has been the subject of at least six independent reviews in periodicals (cited in the article). Hence, they meet WP:NAUTHOR.

I alluded to the logic behind this above: if we can write an article on a book, we can write an article on its author – even if the content is just John Smith is the author of Notable Book, a [remainder based on significant coverage of the book]. Whether to call this article "John Smith" or "Notable Book" barely affects the content and is a question of article titling and framing rather than notability or deletion. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it reads and what it means. I've done 100's of book and author Afd's, over the years. I'm acutely aware of the policy. They are one of the most common article types that gets sent to Afd. The author must be notable on their own to have the article. Notability is not inherited. That is long-establised consensus. I could point to 1000's Afd's where the statement has been made, following established policy. The book is certainly notable, but the author isn't yet. You just have to look at how the industry is structured. If you followed They must be standalone notable. List of books review. By your logic every self-published author would have have an article on here. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, I think you're right about the outcome of AfDs, but I don't think that's an accurate conclusion about Joe's logic. Those self-published authors rarely get book reviews in reliable sources that would count for notability. Frankly, I think Joe's logic is perfectly correct (what does it matter if the article on a book is at the author's name or the book's title?), but it would be a really eccentric outcome for an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be strange outcome. I don't know what has changed in the 6 months-odd interim where I wasn't doing Afd. scope_creep^Talk 12:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a common outcome for academics, at least. A common objection to WP:NPROF is that it lets us have articles on people for whom there could be little or no biographical sources available. Which is true, but following the logic above it just means that the notable entity is John Smith's work not John Smith. But actually calling the article that would be dumb, so we don't do it. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that this long-established consensus followed in hundred of AfDs isn't written down anywhere, then, and that the notability guideline for authors explicitly contradicts it. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a handful of AfDs (or even one, honestly) for authors that have been kept on the grounds that an author has a single book with multiple reviews, I'd be very interested to see them. -- (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering, no specific AFD comes to mind right now but after closing hundreds (thousands?) of these discussions over the past 4 1/2 years, I'm sure that this has happened. There are authors, like Harper Lee, who, throughout most of her life, was notable for writing only onw book but it was a highly notable one. Also, many AFDs are sparsely attended and if there is a strong consensus that the book is notable and the reviews are prestigious, then it's likely that the article will be Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Harper Lee is a good index case. I've used that exact example before when explaining to AfC submitters what kind of coverage one might need to be notable on a single book. (Though, obviously, she's rather extremely notable, so it's not exactly fair. Someone half as famous as Harper Lee is still going to pass any kind of AfD with flying colours.) This is an early career archaeologist with a well-reviewed book. They're very much not in the same league. -- asilvering (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are the relevant standards. For example, Harper Lee has been covered enough to not be a low-profile individual, and her relationship with the book is well-documented and substantial, even though she was for a long time covered only in the context of the one book. Also, the To Kill A Mockingbird is such a significant book that it is worthwhile covering both author and book. None of the reasons to cover Harper Lee apply here, at least so far as I can see. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the point of disagreement comes down to the interpretation of significant or well-known work in WP:NAUTHOR. Some seem to (reasonably) interpret that as meaning a work of literary significance, as with Harper Lee. For me, it is closer to the "significant" of WP:SIGCOV – just something that has been the subject of detailed coverage in independent reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to do so, but I think if you looked back through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators/archive 2 you would find many. – Joe (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to watch that delsort list pretty closely (as does David Eppstein, who below calls the redirect to book "our standard outcome") and I can't recall any, which is why I'm asking. -- asilvering (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the book, our standard outcome for authors of only one book but one that is arguably notable. And while we're at it refocus the article on the book to say something about the book based on its published reviews instead of merely being a rehash of the author's back cover blurb, sourced only to that blurb. As for the argument above over whether authoring one book should be enough for the author to also be notable: see WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @David Eppstein: I knew the secret sauce was there somewhere. This settles it. scope_creep^Talk 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a book an 'event'? – Joe (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the suggestion that a book is notable but not the author bizarre outside of the exceptional cases that scope creep describes (e.g., ghostwriting cases), but I can't see that here; Morgan is happy to appear on scholarly podcasts, blog about careers, write for popular magazines, etc. She's also listed in various places for her contribution to particular digs etc., so she's hardly unknown. And remember that this is a particularly widely reviewed book. Not many academics or first-time authors can boast a lengthy review in the New York Times. WP:AUTHOR does not say (as pointed out) that multiple books are required, and WP:1E doesn't apply, as no one is claiming that Morgan is notable for her role in some event (e.g., for an archeologist, a particular discovery); the claim is that she's notable for her creative output. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per the above discussion of the 'unorthodox' creation of the book article, we literally cannot delete this article. If the consensus is to go with the (bizarre, in my view) 'book not author' approach, a history merge would be necessary. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. A book can be notable but that does not, in fact, imply its author is notabble for a page. For that we would need multiple reliable independent secondary sources, with significant coverage in each, of the author. That has not been shown to exist and I don't see it in searches, so redirect will serve the reader best. Searching on the author will then take the reader to their notable work, which includes some author biography. (Not much at present). Note that a redirect preserves page history, which should allay Josh Milburn's concerns above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keeping the article or Redirecting this page title to the article on their book.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Central African Republic, Washington, D.C.

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

The one source provided merely confirms who the ambassador is. No third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Central African Republic, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tagged for notability for several years without improvement. Article entirely relies on primary government sources. No indication secondary sources exist providing significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Chow Wang

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

Promotional article that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It feels like there should be more sources about this woman. Searching on her name I find nothing about her but lots of hits on the building at Wellesley that she endowed. There is the one NY Times article about her and her husband giving $25M to the college, and a short mention in another NYT article, both already in the references. There is the fact that she was a trustee at Rockefeller University, and was on the boards of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and other major organizations - and yet, I don't find independent sources. She feels notable. I will cycle back hoping that someone else has better search results. Lamona (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Peek, Liz (2007-05-08). "Lulu Wang Throttles Back (Except on the Racetrack)". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "Ms. Wang is one of the original members of the Committee of 100, a group of high-level Chinese-Americans — who include I.M. Pei, Yo-Yo Ma, and Oscar Tang — created shortly after the Tiananmen Square crackdown ... The move was accidental. Her father’s job as a senior official with the Nationalist Party took the Chow family to India during the war years of the 1940s. Ms. Wang was born in New Delhi under the crudest of circumstances. ... Following this path, Ms. Wang moved on to Bankers Trust Co., where she was soon responsible for analyzing about 20% of the Standard & Poor’s 500. ... Ms. Wang opened Tupelo Capital Management in 1998. Her husband, Anthony Wang, had made a fortune at Computer Associates, a firm founded by his brother, which ran into problems after Tony Wang retired in 1992."
2. Zernike, Kate (2000-04-16). "Couple Gives Wellesley a Record $25 Million". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "Lulu Wang is the founder of Tupelo Capital Management, a name chosen tongue-in-cheek with reference to one of Wellesley's more girlish traditions. ... Mrs. Wang has been a member of Wellesley's board of trustees since 1988, and is the first woman to head the board's investment committee, which is in charge of investing the college's endowment, valued at about $1 billion. She also heads the finance committee of the New York Community Trust and serves on a number of other boards in New York, including the Rockefeller Family Fund, WNYC and the Metropolitan Museum of Art."
3. Norton, Leslie P. (2002-12-09). "The Chinese Connection". Barron's. ProQuest 201096765. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "One newly prominent donor is Lulu Wang, a patrician Chinese-American who runs Tupelo Capital Management, a New York money-management firm. Wang came here with her family from Shanghai in 1948; a vacation became permanent immigration as her father, tied to the Nationalists, opted to stay in America. Her $25 million gift to Wellesley College, from which she graduated in 1966, was given to build a new student center. Construction on the Wang Campus Center will start next year, and finish in 2004. Wang has been active for years in philanthropic circles -- she's a board member of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York public radio station WNYC, and Wellesley. She's also funding Bill Moyers' coming PBS series "Becoming American: The Chinese Experience.""
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Agnew, Harriet (2022-03-03). "Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood on everything from deflation to Elon Musk". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
    The article notes: "In 1998, as the dotcom bubble was reaching its climax, Wood and one of her colleagues, Lulu Wang, left Jennison to set up a fund in New York called Tupelo Capital Management. By the end of March 2000, the peak of the tech bubble, Tupelo’s assets under management had reached almost $1.4bn, according to a regulatory filing. Twelve months later, Tupelo’s assets had slumped to around $200mn, according to a separate regulatory filing."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lulu Chow Wang to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Barrons article is about her father, and gives her a single paragraph, and one that is very similar to other short paragraphs about her. I find it interesting that the NYT article (which also has 2 paragraphs about her, the rest refers to she and her husband as a unit) says that they declined to be interviewed. This may indicate that she has been reticent about publicity, and that may explain why we don't have much about her. Ditto the Financial Times article (which has only a mention of Wang) which says "Wang declined to comment." I did find one more article about her at msnbc. This has a lot of her words so it resembles an interview but isn't presented in interview form. I think it's worth digging, but I am not finding the kind of analysis that would be independent. Everything I see just reiterates the same few facts about her. It's kind of frustrating, I admit. Lamona (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for uncovering the MSNBC article which is a very good find. That in-depth profile solidifies her notability. I think there is enough nontrivial coverage across all the sources for Lulu Chow Wang to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria which says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Cunard (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. J. Dahlstrom

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

Not notable writer, doesn't pass WP ANYbio and other guidelines. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created the article because I believe the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR due to the awards. Also worth saying is that the nominator of this discussion only had 11 edits before nominating this article, all of them made on a single day in 2022. Badbluebus (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Monument Mythos

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines. Most of the article’s sources are student newspapers by the author’s own description. Could not find reliable significant coverage in my search. Has been previously deleted. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has been previously deleted.... when? Has been previously kept....Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:The_Monument_Mythos... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was kept as a draft. It was nominated for deletion as a draft by a non-good-faith actor. But that is not evidence that there was a consensus that the subject is notable after someone challenged its notability. Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability so a draft being kept does not mean that editors thought that the subject is notable. —Alalch E. 15:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, maybe, but the page was discussed and the then-draft found promising by some users, whereas deletion was NOT discussed, so that stating ’has been previously deleted’ here (an AfD venue, where consensus is what matters) is misleading imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's is misleading. The decision to keep the draft does not matter at all in either direction. —Alalch E. 22:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Nomad Vagabond)} 14:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if, as one of the contributors to the page, you could find time to explain why you think deletion is not necessary. Thank you in advance. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Babysharkboss2 (pinging you to increase chances you read this). Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. Anyway, this has etiquette enough sources and there are still sources to be added. It survived MfD (Even after one very...passionate user wanted it gone). So i'd like to keep it. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Nomad Vagabond)} 12:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is about all there is [6] for sourcing and it's not enough. Rest of what's used is marginally reliable sources per Source Highlighter, so not much of anything we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am satisfied with the existing coverage, see GNews please. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: significant coverage in reliable sources includes Collider (twice) but also The Gamer among other things and I would consider https://fnewsmagazine.com/2022/01/ghosts-in-the-machine-the-star-spangled-monsters-of-mister-manticores-the-monument-mythos/ and the article in the The Signal perfectly acceptable sources too.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find F Newsmagazine to be a very good, professional-level, outlet in the areas of culture and critique of visual media. —Alalch E. 14:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any substantial, reliable sources for this. Most of what is here are student publications, including F Newsmagazine, which is a student publication of the Arts Institute of Chicago. The coverage in Collider and The Gamer is limited to a few paragraphs in a page with many other entries, and formulaic in style. AKA: promotional. Searching turns up lots of TikTok and other bits, none which have any content about the "show". Lamona (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sudent or college newspapers, but high-quality (and award-winning, for one of them) reliable ones. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzhugh Lee (disambiguation)

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

WP:TWODABS applies. The only legit entries are the general and the vice admiral. Middle names, Fitz Lee (Medal of Honor) and Lee Fitzhugh don't count. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (just) There are a lot of partial matches, and the see also section may be WP:USEFUL to readers, as well as the 3 entries that are fully valid as this appears to be a dab for Fitzes and Fitzhughes. Not the most important page, but potentially helpful to readers, and nothing to be gained by deletion. Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly add the anthroponymy project to the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are only two entries here (there's no evidence Fitz Lee (Medal of Honor) was "Fitzhugh"), so WP:TWODABS applies and this page could and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coriantumr (son of Omer)

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

Not eligible for WP:PROD due to unresolved talk page discussion about notability; should be resolved. No independent, reliable sourcing to suggest a standalone page is necessary. Fails the WP:GNG. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Latter Day Saints, and United States of America. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Book of Ether: as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 13:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There’s only one source that does more than list or suggest how to pronounce this person’s name. That badly fails our foundation of significant coverage, and is borderline original research. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Typically, I'd close this discussion as a Redirect as an ATD but there is no mention of this subject at the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Plumb

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with no major credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: her career as theater actress and educator seems rather notable and her contributions to TV series/film might be seen as prolific. I haven’t searched for better sources so this is a weak keep. Would a redirect to the Personal life section in the article about her sister be an acceptable ATD? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Education, and California. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. "Prolific"? Single TV episodes in about 20 shows and 6th billing in a film nobody's heard of denote a journeyperson actor. And being a high school teacher doesn't make her a notable educator. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a film nobody's heard of".....Except the critic from the LAT, for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, practically nobody's heard of. In any case, not a major film, and NACTOR asks for multiple notable films. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In searching newspapers I find her named in places like TV listings. These attest to the fact that she appeared on the named TV shows but those short sentences or two are about the plot and her character, not about her. These could be useful in recreating her career if there were also 2 or more substantial articles about her and in reliable sources. This I do not find. The sources given here are two short obits, an article saying that she won a student award (not notable), and a paragraph in a newspaper naming some roles she had in minor productions. I don't find anything longer than a paragraph, and nothing in major news sources. I can't find that she won a major award. I'll swing back by to check on progress, if there is any. Lamona (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Silver Eagle mintage figures

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTSTATS. It is not clear why we have these statistics. Not all facts make good encyclopedia articles, no attempt is made to explain why these figures are of enough importance to give them a separate page. Fram (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is cite-able and notable as world bullion repository currency. -MJ (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into American Silver Eagle - This article was WP:BOLDly split without discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. We have arguments to Delete, Merge and Keep. We need to come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 12 September 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