Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

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

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

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

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

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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

Burlingame, Illinois

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

No evidence of a community. Fails WP:NPLACE. Sourced only the unreliable GNIS database. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 21:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 21:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburg, Bond County, Illinois

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

Fails WP:NPLACE. Most GBooks hits are for geology. Sourced only the unreliable GNIS database. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 18:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 18:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmore, Bond County, Illinois

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

Article about unincorporated community, but only the 1 source. So, I bring this article for AfD. Unable to find any source that claims this is a unincorporated community, so fails WP:V VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 17:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 17:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's Choice

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

I propose redirecting to List of Walmart brands because it fails WP:NPRODUCT Bryce M (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, United States of America, and Arkansas. Bryce M (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting the Odds: The Marilyn Gambrell Story

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

Catalogue entry. My BEFORE found no reviews (Grokipedia agrees on their non-existence for what little it's worth :P). In GBooks the first two hits are promising but seem to be just mentions in passing. The third has an entry on the movie but it no better than a capsule review, if there is anything review-like in this snippet like entry ([1]). What little I see in other snippets seems no better. Seems like this fails WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little to no coverage found, this was about all I could pull up [2]. Lack of sourcing, not showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Grene

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 23:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ireland, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Fails WP:GNG (also, WP:BLP1E). He has some mentions on newspapers.com, but it looks like he's only notable for one event, his early death, and sources are mostly in relation to that. Lack of sustained coverage. Not voting for a merge as David Grene (his father) already contains all the relevant information on him. jolielover♥talk 07:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to David_Grene#Family as @Guliolopez: points out below, ATD jolielover♥talk 14:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related AfD discussions. jolielover♥talk 07:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David_Grene#Family. As WP:ATD/R. Or, failing that, delete. (I'd raised notability/1E/NOTMEMORIAL concerns way-back-when. Those concerns remain.) Guliolopez (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since May 2017, the month of creation. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering in Plain Sight

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

I propose merging to Grady Hillhouse because this is a very short article about a niche work of nonfiction that hasn't received much coverage (and most of which heavily references the author's background and prior work). Informaldehyde (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. Informaldehyde (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lennyn Carreón

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

A handful of articles surrounding his call up to the Bayern World Squad, but has only played NISA-level football and hasn't played in three years. Zênite (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United States of America. Zênite (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of California-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Bobby Charlton he is not. The funny part was the statement that he "has been in contact" to represent people. I could send anyone a letter to anyone that I want to represent them too. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier 2025

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

Entirely based off a single source from Natick Laboratories from 2004, might be just a promotional puff piece considering how little evidence exists that this actually existed outside of a few promotional articles. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a Popular Science article from July 2000, starts at page 42 (I found it at [3] though would probably need a better cite than that). It references Natick and is clearly the same stuff. It was mostly if not all vaporware, but that may not have been as obvious at the time. Anyway it would double the sources in the article, though that's still not enough! Any more? If not, does a Merge to Natick Laboratories seem feasible? M kuhner (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Bonanno

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

IP user ~2026-35132-87 gave the following explanation at WT:AFD:

[Joseph A. Bonanno's] entire description is, an American Optometrist. This man is not notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page. This man is just a regular optometrist with nothing notable mentioned in the whole article. The site also lacks secondary sources

FaviFake (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an earlier PROD was declined based on the number of citations for him in Google Scholar -- currently over 6000. That puts him into WP:NACADEMIC consideration. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: California, Indiana, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I am assuming that the IP nominator did not due any WP:BEFORE research, since a quick search reveals what Nat Gertler detailed. Bonnano was a dean of a major public university (IU)'s optometry school for 13 years, which itself doesn't qualify under WP:NACADEMIC, although it points to him being more than your friendly optometrist down the road. Yojo98 (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

David Brown (Outlaw)

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

Appears to fail WP:CRIME. Does not appear to be a well known national figure or have anything unusual about the perpetration of the crimes themselves. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 12:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Mexico, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The user who wrote the page was indeffed for personal attacks. Beta Beta Beta - talk 20:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Group of Three

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

The article asserts that the "Group of Three" (or G3) is an informal grouping made up of the United States, China, and India. However, this specific usage is highly marginal and not a widely recognized or established concept in international relations or geopolitical discourse.

The article relies on sparse, recent mentions (such as a passing remark at the WEF and isolated opinion pieces) rather than significant, sustained coverage in reliable, independent sources. This fails the General Notability Guideline and strays into Wikipedia's policies on Neologisms and Synthesis.

Furthermore, the term "Group of Three" has historically referred to entirely unrelated, formal concepts (such as the G3 Free Trade Agreement). Treating this specific, informal US-China-India grouping as the primary topic gives it undue weight. Unless substantial peer-reviewed literature can demonstrate widespread usage, this page should be deleted or converted into a disambiguation page for the term's other established uses. Aurorion (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Economics, China, India, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This term exists and according to the secondary sources cited in the article was used by the World Economic Forum, other international organizations, newspapers, and professors of international relations. There are 47 reliable sources in the article demonstrating notability, compared to just one for the defunct, short-lived trade agreement. To compare, the Group of Two page has 17 sources. Both terms clearly meet notability thresholds established by WP:Notability, which explicitly states Article content does not determine notability. --Plumber (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reception of unaccompanied minors from the Northern Triangle

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

WP:COATRACK article that is a mishmash of related topicsIn solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2026 (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/2026 June 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article predates LLM but is written exactly like an LLM output. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Ahern

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

The statements in this article are sourced to blogs and obituaries, or other self-published sources. Having checked online, I can't find any substantial coverage indicating notability. Though the book series he wrote has an article, it's questionable if it should, as it has a similar problem to this one. AaronNealLucas (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and United States of America. AaronNealLucas (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom needs to beef up their BEFORE skills and Google fu. In few seconds I found [4] - bio in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. The article would benefit from utilizing this source, but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Firearms, Georgia (U.S. state), and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Detonics was a significant (if small) company in the field of higher-end 1911-style pistols. Scoremasters still command high prices on the rare occasions they come up for sale. His role in that company is enough for a keep in my view. Intothat darkness 11:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gallant

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

Congressional nominee in New York 1. Fails WP:NPOL. Article also is very WP:PROMO. EaglesFan37 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, United States of America, and New York. EaglesFan37 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2026_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_York#District_1 - subject fails WP:NPOL. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline Jimgerbig (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He won the primary, he has adequate coverage and he certainly meets GNG.Radiohist (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gallant has won the primary election, There is notability as the race for the US congressional district progresses. Wikipedia may have a responsibility to afford a similar article to that of the competing incumbent. By facilitating deletion of this article, the argument could be made that Wikipedia is not allowing fair articles on political candidates. This could violate key regulations governing political campaign coverage include: Equal Opportunities, and No censorship as stated in FCC Regulations. Notice: DA 26-68 [5] Jimgerbig (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jimgerbig is the creator of the article.

@Jimgerbig At the moment, Gallant does not meet WP:NPOL since he is still a candidate that only has coverage from WP:RS related to their campaign, primarily being local coverage. Unelected political candidates rarely receive Wikipedia articles, and when they do, it's usually because of extensive national/international coverage (such as Graham Platner).

The FCC guidelines do not apply to Wikipedia or the internet. The FCC guidelines are specifically for broadcast television and radio. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

this article meets the notability qualifications and the FCC guidance extends past the mediums you outlined. [6] Jimgerbig (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimgerbig That is not what the source says at all. The source explicitly mentions only broadcast/radio communications. The article does not meet notability criteria. All of the coverage is either related to his campaign or not from WP:RS. He doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. All of the sourcing is about him winning the primary, not profile pieces about him (which is what notability under WP:NPOL would require for unelected candidates). EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimgerbig, the FCC specifically states that they do not regulate online content. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue with the coverage is that it's all about him as a candidate for this election, and it is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL stuff. If sources are presented that are similar to the examples in Wikipedia:Notability (electoral candidates) § Examples of coverage sufficient for notability then I'd happily reconsider. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it needs some clean up to fully stand alone for Wikipedia:Notability (electoral candidates).

However, there are enough credible sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability for a stand alone article. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article definitely needs a lot of work, but he does meet the general notability guidelines. Magnificentry (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnificentry Gallant doesn't meet WP:NPOL, which is the criteria for political candidates. All coverage on him is about him winning his primary, not articles from WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV about Gallant. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our subject is still a candidate. One cannot even resort to WP:NPOL yet! Let's at least wait for what happens - and that's putting it kindly. For the moment, the best one could do is replace this with a Redirect sign. -The Gnome (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Meets current notability requirements of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Notability (people) Jimgerbig (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This "emerging" politician can have an article once he has "emerged" and meets the WP:NPOL guideline. Buddy Gripple (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 1. WP:NPOL clearly covers this, and there's nothing remotely approaching WP:GNG coverage. It has been standard practice for many years not to allow biographies just because the subject is standing for office, and confused attempts to apply FCC guidelines aside, no real justification has been given to ignore policy. If people don't like the policy, they should propose it be changed, in the appropriate place, which isn't here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am voting keep, this person just won his primary and will be on the ballot for the November election. There is enough standing sources to back up that this can survive a stand alone article. I will say though, it does need some clean up, and the format needs to be organized. I can help in that area but other than that I think it's fine to keep.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 1. Does not meet WP:NPOL and does not meet WP:GNG. There is no coverage from before his campaign, which is the 1 event he has received any coverage for. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, @Jimgerbig, you have uploaded a photo of Gallant as "own work", designating yourself the copyright holder. I cannot see where you have declared a conflict of interest. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and redirect Chris Gallant to 2026_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_York#District_1, as is our longstanding practice for unelected candidates who are not independently notable. He fails to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. The article describes Gallant as an emerging American politician. That is an argument for deletion in itself. Wikipedia has articles about truly notable politicians, not ones who are "emerging". The FCC argument is spurious.If Gallant wins on November 3, the article can be brought back at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see 'emerging' has now been removed from the article, and rightly so. Wikipedia isn't in the business of predicting the future, or of boosting political candidates. While the presence of such boosterism in an article isn't in of itself grounds for deletion, it certainly does little to add credibility to the contributor responsible's assertions regarding Wikipedia policy more generally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's strength lies in its community-driven model, but decisions about articles on major U.S. congressional candidates are often made by a relatively small group of highly active editors. While these editors undoubtedly act in good faith, a handful of participants can effectively determine whether voters, researchers, and journalists have access to well-sourced information about candidates running for federal office.

The issue is not whether Wikipedia should lower its standards—it should not. Rather, it is whether current deletion processes adequately reflect the broader community when applied to nationally significant elections. Competitive U.S. House and Senate races are matters of substantial public interest, and articles supported by reliable, independent sources should receive the benefit of inclusion during an active election cycle.

Wikipedia's credibility is strengthened when important editorial decisions are transparent, broadly participated in, and reflect community consensus rather than the views of a small number of recurring participants. Jimgerbig (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to rebut this - you are making unsourced assumptions about community consensus and how it may or may not differ from the views of people who actually take part in the discussions. Any editor is permitted to take part in discussions, but it is impossible to compel people to take part so as to achieve your desired breadth of participation. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Jimgerbig, the proper place for you to propose loosening the notability guideline for unelected political candidates is in a broader community discussion proposing changes to the guideline, not in a deletion debate about an article that you wrote. In such a discussion, I would write at length about why the current guideline is best for the encyclopedia but this is neither the time nor the place for that. The closing administrator must evaluate how well the various arguments pro and con align with our current notability guideline applicable to this person right now, and make their decisioon on that basis only. Cullen328 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's credibility is strengthened when vacuous and evidence free LLM-generated assertions play no part in assessing whether an article is compliant with the relevant policy requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 1: as a common outcome of electoral candidate articles per Wikipedia:Notability (electoral candidates). There is no evidence that the thin sourcing provided is enough to make this person meet WP:GNG. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 1. Wikipedia has no obligation to carry campaign materials for ongoing campaigns. M kuhner (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We need to at minimum create a sandbox for this particular person considering this is a political candidate in an ongoing U.S. congressional house race. As time goes by: news coverage, sources, and media attention may change and grow depending on the nature of how things go in the future. This conversation might be brought back up again and for that reason the draft should be saved somewhere such as a sandbox. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 1 - I am not opposed to counting articles from a campaign towards building a biography, but there needs to be more than there is here or we'll be writing 400 new articles every 2 years. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dcpoliticaljunkie I believe only creating articles for the candidates who have won their primary elections, like Gallant, would guarantee that we do not fall under the "writing 400 new articles every 2 years" trap. BTW, drag race fans write 400 new articles every year what with the show and all its international spin-offs.Radiohist (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that well over 800 candidates win primary elections for U.S. House seats every 2 years, I cannot see how this would fix the issue aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention international elections. Keeping it to elected candidates and the occasional article when one has coverage outside of the standard campaign stuff is the sensible position and aligns with WP:SUSTAINED. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 1 per above. The Keep proponents have utterly failed to make a policy-based case as to why NPOL and BLP1E should be thrown out the window. (The absurd argument, ignoring the plain text of the regulation, that Wikipedia is subject to the Equal Time Doctrine is especially giggle-worthy.) Ravenswing 03:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the primary is not an election for public office, it's an election for a party to choose its candidate for public office. Winning a primary confers no notability per WP:NPOLITICIAN. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 1. No compelling policy-based arguments for keeping this, whilst all the cited policies (WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, WP:1E) indicate that this should be a redirect at most. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 09:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the general notability guidelines. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/05/gallant-lalota-long-island-00493460 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/primary-day-2026-christopher-gallant-wages-democratic-primary-for-nys-1st-congressional-district/ar-AA26kVV6 Dream Focus 19:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Avesta Ketamine and Wellness

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Local DC-area chain of ketamine clinics. Coverage is press releases (PR Newswire, citybiz, Fox40 cision syndication), directory listings (Psychology Today), passing mentions (USA Today's general Matthew Perry-context article), and routine local business news. No independent in-depth coverage. Article appears to be coordinated UPE/COI editing alongside Ladan Eshkevari LogosUnspoken (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and United States of America. LogosUnspoken (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is unclear to me why the nom is accusing the OP of UPE/COI. They wrote an article on a person and another on the company they founded, so what? This accusation comes close to a violation of WP:5P4 which could be a rationale for a speedy keep.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladan Eshkevari. This nomination may be eligible for an SK2 Speedy Keep. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Rice (actress)

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

This actor does not yet meet notability requirements for WP:NACTOR. Sources are almost all primary and she hasn't had many significant roles as the criteria requires. This very well may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Theatre, and United States of America. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. Does not meet NACTOR, this may change after School Girls opens on Broadway this fall, depending on what coverage she and the show get. Even then, one supporting role on Broadway and one recurring role in a tv series is unlikely to meet NACTOR without coverage that shows those roles are significant.—BrechtBro (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per above discussion. It was created only a few days ago, needs improvement, and is not quite ready for "the limelight". Bearian (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Italy–US diplomatic crisis

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

I propose merging to Italy–United States relations because there is no reason that this needs to be a separate article. The target article is only about 2,500 words. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Italy, and United States of America. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but only a brief sentence. This article was likely LLM generated and contains large swathes of unsourced content. Katzrockso (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sort of. I don't see any solid evidence of LLM usage, and the incident has been covered in multiple news. It's also likely it will have a lasting impact in the history of US-Italy relations. Now, this is of course a biased assessment since we're in the midst of it; later we could well assess its relevance as secondary. But to merge/delete it now out of haste, only to then recreate it from scratch, seems to me a waste of time. Given that there are no serious grounds for deletion I'd wait and see, no prejudice for a renom later. --cyclopia ^speak! 10:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all the LLM generated content has been removed. Martin Mystère (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as it is too early per WP:NOTNEWS. Geschichte (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unfortunately, this AI gets in everywhere, Google Translate is not reliable. Google Translate alters the translation in its own way. One part that was built with AI that was removed was the 'begged' issue.
However, you removed parts that in my opinion were important and clarified the Italian position. Putting a merge makes no sense, the link is already there and this article is for more information. If we start thinning or removing some parts then the article no longer makes sense. Iran's ability to strike from Cyprus to Diego Garcia should have been left in because it was essential to the explanation. Furthermore, it does not seem that the crisis will end anytime soon. Rapidfirreee (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be updated with Rutte's new statements.

https://www.ansa.it/english/news/world/2026/06/24/ruttes-statements-on-us-flights-from-italy-misleading-says-defence-ministry_ffa265ea-4475-4367-afd5-9b4724a8cae1.html Rapidfirreee (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Long Trophy

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

There doesn't appear to be sufficient in-depth coverage of this seemingly minor in-house award to justify a standalone article, which is LLM-generated anyways. JTtheOG (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, Business, United States of America, Colorado, and Montana. JTtheOG (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's been two cleanup passes here: [7] and [8] I don't see anything that I recognized as AI prose here now. Do you still see any issues? Scarpy (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits. However, heavy evidence of LLM use remains. JTtheOG (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if you could speak more to this? - Scarpy (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Particuarly, if you could have a look here? [9]. - Scarpy (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this new version looks much more human-written. Nice work. JTtheOG (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm going to remove the ai generated banner. Is that the only concern, or do you have further thoughts on WP:GNG as it applies here? Scarpy (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yun Bai

AfDs for this article:

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

Most information obtained from artist's website. Brooklyn Museum claim fails verification. First nomination from 2016 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yun Bai. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://whitehotmagazine.com/articles/yun-bai-aka-yunny-bunny/323	interview	✘ No
https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/areas/22	link to "Feminist Art" page of Brooklyn Museum No mention of Yun Bai	✘ No
http://yunbai.com/	dead link to artist's website	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20161125174809/https://plus.google.com/+YunBaiart	web.archive.org times out	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Visual arts. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I checked all the museum collections and private collections that were claimed as having works; they all came up cold. It seems she is not in these collections. The only one that even mention her was Self-Help Graphics, where it showed she was selling a print, but not that she was in the collection. She is also not in the Brooklyn Museum's Center for Feminist Art as claimed. I'll continue to check the article before !voting. Netherzone (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WomenArtistUpdates's source table above. Jay-GH 06:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: China and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:43, 21 June 2026 (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. "Yun Bai. Los Angeles, USA". Brooklyn Museum. Archived from the original on 2015-07-22. Retrieved 2026-06-22.
  The article notes: "Yun Bai was born in Beijing, China and migrated with her parents to the United States at age five. Although she grew up in a traditional Chinese setting—complete with extracurricular activities, strict discipline, and high expectations, she was also heavily influenced by Southern American culture, due to her Southern upbringing. Consistent themes found in Yun’s work include explorations in identity, social stimulus/ experiments, a fascination with science, a feminine comment, sarcasm/mockery, and sometimes, influence from urban culture. Yun also creates artwork under her alter ego, “Yunny Bunny.” ... She graduated from Agnes Scott College, a private women’s college in Atlanta, Georgia in 2001. She has shown both nationally and internationally, and has been reviewed by the Atlanta Journal Constitution, ART PAPERS Magazine, Pittsburgh Pulp, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh City Paper, Creative Loafing Atlanta, Art Asia Pacific, LA Weekly (Top 10 Emerging Artists, 2006), and was recently included in New American Paintings, Pacific Edition, No. 67."
2. Fox, Catherine (2006-03-30). "VIZARTS: Sex Symbols in Exhibits, Painting Is One Way to Flesh Out Kinky Thoughts". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Factiva ATJC000020060330e23u0000f. NewsBank 110AE715DB907908.
  The article notes: "Yun Bai's work is more of a tease. From a distance, the soft colors and floral designs of her paintings at Wertz Contemporary beckon with expectations of something sweet and innocent. Not! When you get close up, it becomes apparent that the flowers are collaged with fragments of photos of sexual organs and sexual acts, which the artist has cut out of porn magazines. Suddenly you're caught in public looking at images that most people likely look at in the privacy of their rooms. Call it pornography with a purpose, though the purpose depends on your point of view. Most feminist artists would make something like this to call attention to the dehumanizing effects of pornography. In her artist statement, Yun says she sees it as a celebration of woman power. I don't buy it, but maybe you will."
3. Venkatasubban, Sharmila (2003-12-17). "Losing Its Luster; A Show About Lust Leaves You Cold". Pittsburgh City Paper. p. 37. ProQuest 368802936.
  The article notes: "Images certainly aren't what they seem to be in Yun Bai's acrylic-on-Masonite works. At first, she seems to have painted dainty flowers onto the black, shiny surface -- like the floral decorations of a Japanese print you might find at Target, perfect for the wall space above a living-room couch. But take a closer look: The plants are collages culled from pornographic magazines, close-ups that actually do look more like stamens than genitalia until you read the fine print that seems to have been copied from those same magazines."
4. Iris (2008-06-24). "'Enclosed, Encased & Enrobed' = Enthralling". Orange County Register. NewsBank 12977466F12F9938.
  The article notes: "Yun Bai’s work also addresses stereotypes. She explains that her "Porn Flowers" works came out of "researching and participating" in the adult entertainment industry during college. Bai says she, like other women in the industry, was driven into it "out of desperation" - a series of emotional family and relationship tragedies left her in need of money "fast" to continue her college studies. So she uses flowers to symbolize the "essence" of these women, who others see as dirty, "women of ill repute." She creates lovely flesh-colored blossoms that on closer inspection reveal that the leaves and petals are made of cropped images of female body parts (lips, skin, breasts …). Yun Bai, "Porn Flowers" It’s interesting how she collected these images. She put an ad on Craiglist, in the personals’ "Women Seeking Men" section, asking people to donate their porn magazines for her art work. When she went to pick them up (accompanied by "a big male friend"), she thanked the donors for indirectly supporting feminism by supporting her art - which seemed to pleasantly surprise some of the men: "So that makes me a feminist?""
5. Fox, Catherine (2006-03-29). "Sex in many guises, and more". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Factiva ATJC000020030629dz6t0000c. Retrieved 2026-06-22.
  The article notes: "It showcases Atlantans David Isenhour and Yun Bai and New Yorker Jeff Sonhouse, all emerging artists worth tracking. And in the pairing of Bai and Ohm in "Secrets and Lies," it offers the kind of provocation that stimulates discussion. ... The good-natured sexuality of Barsness and Isenhour turns dark and dirty in "Secrets and Lies." Bai, a recent graduate of Agnes Scott College, comes on strong with collages that could be subtitled "les fleurs du mal." What appear to be elegant, stylized, Asian-inspired blossoms on black or cream lacquered backgrounds turn out to be collages of female private parts taken from pornographic magazines. Around their edges, Bai inscribes porno-promises that infest e-mail in-boxes."
6. Feaster, Felicia (2006-03-15). "Broken Blossoms: Yun Bai's Fresh Flora at Wertz Contemporary gallery". Creative Loafing Atlanta. Archived from the original on 2007-02-13. Retrieved 2026-06-22.
  The article notes: "It was amusing to watch gallery-goers contemplate Yun Bai's exhibition Fresh Flora on a recent Saturday afternoon. Men and women would mosey into Castleberry Hill's Wertz Contemporary gallery, chatting merrily. Then they would promptly about-face when they realized what was going on in Bai's abstract botanicals. ... To really see Bai's work, you need to practically bury your nose in it. A closer inspection reveals that Bai has added sentences to her canvases, which curl like grape tendrils around the naked body parts. ... In her previous work, Bai used porn at the service of feminist commentary. But Bai's latest exhibition shows her ability to inject new content and complexity."
7. McLaren, Leah (2008-02-16). "The latest picture show". The Globe and Mail. Factiva GLOB000020080216e42g0003w. ProQuest 383374908. Archived from the original on 2026-06-22. Retrieved 2026-06-22.
  The article notes: "Inside, though, visitors can see art like Yun Bai's Elegant, Nasty New Porn Flowers – a series of decorative Asian-inspired floral collages on cheerful lacquer backgrounds, which, on closer inspection, are made up of photographs of orgies. Just the sort of edgy work, in other words, that culture vultures seek out in Chelsea or SoHo."
8. "Yes, these flowers are made of boobs". Thrillist. 2012-01-26. Archived from the original on 2026-06-22. Retrieved 2026-06-22.
  The article notes: "In the hands of Yun Bai, however, they’re made of naked chicks, and they’re the best flowers you’ve ever seen. Also going by the name YunnyBunny™, Beijing-born/Agnes Scott-trained Bai creates flower paintings you’ll actually want to put in your solarium, by combining oils, watercolors, and...yawn!...nudie magazine clippings. There's an unmistakably Asian flair to the designs, which ..."
9. Thomas, Mary (2003-12-06). "At Fe gallery, lust makes attractive exhibit". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Factiva PPGZ000020031206dzc600035. NewsBank 0FF470FB22ECDE81. Retrieved 2026-06-22.
  The article notes: "There's nothing subtle about the strong and evocative works by Catya Plate, Yun Bai and Neil Bender, although it takes a moment to see past their formal prettiness. ... What appear to be refined, floral patterned lacquer works are actually part of Bai's "Porn Flowers" series comprising images cut from sex magazines, purportedly to challenge sexism but perhaps giving it presence instead."
10. Primary sources that don't establish notability but that I'm including as reference material for expanding the article or for finding more sources:
  1. Bai, Yun (Spring 2004). "Yun Bai". ArtAsiaPacific. No. 1. p. 96. ProQuest 1415618241.
    The article notes: "Projects in the Making... The Asian and Southern series is about my upbringing in a Southern culture, other Asian people who are also influenced by Southern culture, and other Asians living in Atlanta. It explores Southern symbolisms, such as the Rebel flag, pork ribs, the music of Outkast and Goodie Mob, with Asian subjects. In the process of research, I have discovered that there were Asians who fought for the Confederacy in the American Civil War. So I thought, "Why can't I claim this Rebel flag? Must it be a hate symbol because hate groups took it over?" Hopefully, my work creates a new face of what "Southern" really looks like. I got my subjects to pose around their Southern culture because that's what they're proud of. It's supposed to be sarcastic and funny, but it's real. Born in Beijing, in 1979, Yun Bai has lived and worked in Atlanta, Georgia since 1985. More about the artist can be found at www.yun-bai.com."
  2. Becker, Noah (January 2007). "April, WM issue #2: Noah Becker in Conversation with Yun Bai AKA Yunny Bunny". Whitehot Magazine of Contemporary Art. Archived from the original on 2026-06-22. Retrieved 2026-06-22.
    The interview notes: "YB: I was born in Beijing, and moved to the when I was five. We moved to Tallahassee, Florida and I lived there for twelve years. I loved that city because it was a collegetown, and the people you went to school with all knew everybody. I especially missed the lush trees...in nearby Wakulla County. We'd have keg parties by the sinkholes, swinging off vines, riding horses, running around cowfields....it was fun. Then as soon as I turned 18, I left and went to college in Atlanta, the nearest major city and lived there for seven years. Yup, I'm a Southern girl."
  3. The subject's website has a press coverage page that has additional reviews and news coverage.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yun Bai to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yun Bai participants: Mr. Vernon (talk · contribs), Arthistorian1977 (talk · contribs), Lenawoo (talk · contribs), and Amethystdust (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not agree that there is significant coverage in multiple independent sources, rather there are some gallery listings. The majority of biographical information is either unsourced, interviews, or supported by the subject's own (dead) website. Please see WP:BURDEN WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria 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."
Regarding WP:BURDEN, the combination of all the sources I've provided above show that Yun Bai meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Brooklyn Museum 2015 is a particularly strong source that provides detailed biographical coverage about her. The remaining sources, taken together, provide detailed commentary about her artwork and go beyond gallery listings.
Regarding The majority of biographical information is either unsourced, interviews, or supported by the subject's own (dead) website. Please see WP:BURDEN – Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of biographical information is either unsourced, interviews, or supported by the subject's own (dead) website

How is this relevant? Katzrockso (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Motta

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

I don't think WP:NPOL applies here, the sources presented do not demonstrate that the subject meets WP:BIO, and I failed to turn up more substantive coverage during WP:BEFORE. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Caribbean, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some precedent that a press secretary of a major government agency is notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist)). Bearian (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I look at the counter-example of Pete Williams, and he looks to have had a much broader career than this subject, so intuitively head-and-shoulders above in terms of notability. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Woburn, Illinois

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

Article about unincorporated community, but only the 1 source. Most GBooks hits are for geology. So, I bring this article for AfD. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 19:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 19:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding a few sources that tells a more complete history of this community— all from The Greenville Advocate. This one in particular walks through some of the names and also suggests the existence of other significant coverage. This article further elaborates on this, and this one could be a useful mention as well. These were on only the first few pages of results on Newspapers.com, so I imagine more can be found in short order. Jordano^5³ 20:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jordano53 But the newspapers.com is a paywall. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 17:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by the last user, though they still need to be added to the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.. I will add this sources VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 17:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also I found this Google Books VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 17:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remesh

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

No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by WP:RS. Appears to fail WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Artificial intelligence, Software, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article appears to be highly promotional in nature. It seems that the primary purpose of the article is to advertise the company and its products rather than provide neutral tone, encyclopedic information, which is inconsistent with WP:NOTPROMO.Bolemanoj (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, total spam. Couldn't even resist citing Crunchbase. MediaKyle (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is enough coverage to establish notability. The Washington Post article that is already cited counts towards notability. And, this passage from "Cyber Republic: Reinventing Democracy in the Age of Intelligent Machines" by George Zarkadakis (a writer with a doctorate in artificial intelligence), provides significant coverage:

For example, the New York–based technology start-up Remesh is using AI in order to automate the forging of consensus in a group. Cofounders Andrew Konya and Gary Ellis and their team have developed a software application that performs two main services. First, it applies natural language processing (NLP) to pick up semantic correlations in the written text that participants use to express their thinking during a deliberation. The application uses those correlations to identify and select specific participant sentences that capture a spectrum from the "most popular" to the "least popular" ideas, or proposals. Second, the application feeds back to each participant those selected proposals, in an iterative way, in order to ultimately arrive at consensus. The difference between "popularity" and "consensus," and how the two are connected, is illustrated in figure 6.3. Assuming that polling does not take place on the basis of a binary "yes-no" option but allows participants to express degrees of satisfaction for a given proposal, a proposal is considered "popular" when a certain number of group participants strongly agree with it.

(The article goes on to describe the startup's application in further detail, but I've omitted further content for brevity.)

We do have multiple reliable, independent sources that provide in-depth coverage, which means that the subject meets WP: GNG. I do agree that the content of the article is egregiously slanted. Most of the sections in the article should be deleted. However, we can build at least a small stub about the subject, and deleting promotional sections wholesale should not be too much work. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not too much work, then please go ahead and fix the article so we can reassess it. As of now, it remains terrible promotional spam, and cannot remain in mainspace. MediaKyle (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article is promotional spam, but AfDs are about the subject that the article covers. There is a qualitative difference. We have sufficient sourcing to keep the article; when or whether the promotional content gets removed isn't relevant to this discussion. It really makes no sense to ask other people on an AfD to clean up an article when you could just do it yourself. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We delete spam for being spam all the time. I personally see nothing here worth saving -- if you do, your argument to retain it would be more convincing if the article wasn't a total brochure. If you don't want to fix it, draftifying may also be an option, but in its current state this article is an embarrassment and we can't serve it to our readers. MediaKyle (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We delete spam for being spam all the time.

WP: G11 is the avenue for deleting promotional content, not AfD.

I personally see nothing here worth saving -- if you do, your argument to retain it would be more convincing if the article wasn't a total brochure.

That doesn't matter in AfDs. Note that WP: ATD states: "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Most vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user." I've presented two sources that demonstrate the subject's notability, which is sufficient to keep the article.

in its current state this article is an embarrassment and we can't serve it to our readers

"Serve"? Do you think we are a dining establishment? Do you think your fellow editors are line cooks? There is no WP: DEADLINE to clean up an article that has received less than a view a day for the past month. As long as we have the sources, that is what matters most. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Not sure about the notability, but the content of the article seems beyond saving. It could be TNTed, or reverted to it's original state as a redirect. This would allow for future expansion if anybody is willing to put in the effort.

CommonsKiwi (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion/comment: For those who want to help and pull the usable sources from this and create a stub from it, I suggest drafting it at Wiki survey#Remesh - I opted not to create an article earlier in the year as I hadn't found enough sources yet but it seems like maybe there will be enough once the dust settles. If anyone has access to this HBR article, could they add in the citation's quote what exactly is said about Remesh? Also, not sure if this Fast Company article goes into enough depth to count towards notability. Superb Owl (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am the originator of the page and have updated it in response to your concerns. The technology itself is interesting and I've added sources to support its application in research. Emily32smith (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article is still problematic, it reads somewhat promotionally and seems to have been written with LLM assistance. Please have a read of WP:LLM, and also disclose any WP:COIs. CommonsKiwi (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see consensus against retaining the page, with support for restoring the original redirect to Wiki_survey#Remesh. But relisting to give participants a chance to review the most recent changes to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Small time outfit. The word revenue is not in the page because they do not have much. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Field slaves in the United States

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

Since most slaves in the U.S. were used as field hands, this article is just a fork of Slavery in the United States and Treatment of slaves in the United States. Given the poor quality of content and sources (three PBS documentaries in a field that is covered by a lot of academic research), merging is no option. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question. So what are you suggesting should happen to the redirect Field slaveField slave and the articles linking there? Thincat (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Change the target to slavery. The current target is nonsensical because there were a lot of field slaves outside of the U.S. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Slavery in the United States I have concerns on the grounds of WP:V and WP:GNG. This article on its own in terms of sources is pretty thin and would do better with more context and sourcing surrounding it. AadamentAardvark (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Slavery in the United States per WP:TNT. This article is just a poor treatment of a topic that is covered in depth in various other places. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bhathal (businessman)

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

Most of the sources are mostly about the business activities connected with him. The subject has no significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United States of America. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nomination fails GNG. REVVAKKA (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of California-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A lot of the coverage is focused on the subject's businesses, but those businesses includes three major professional American sports teams including the Sacramento Kings. The main business, Raj Capital, might be a fork candidate. There's also an indepth profile of the subject and info about the subject's other non-sports businesses, including their investment platform and news of their takeover of their father's large swimwear business. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are clearly not enough sources that support our subject's independent notability. It all emotes the unpleasant aroma of vainglorious promotion, an attempt tellingly created by a kamikaze account. -The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the existence of this article (curiously not cited on his page) makes me think that there should be a page in the stead of RAJ Sports, which is essentially how the page is written already, though I will note I'm not fond of the article's origins, per The Gnome. - Embyarby (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Crawford (musician)

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

I propose merging to Avett Brothers as per WP:BANDMEMBER. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 11:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related AfD discussions. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 11:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge as proposed. His book got some pro reviews, including this one from NPR: [10], but most coverage of the book talks about how the author is in the Avett Brothers. The various personal details in this article can be mentioned briefly in the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The book is the one thing that could justify this article existing. I can build out the book section in this article to see if it makes an argument for not merging. Dflovett (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Satisfies WP:AUTHOR with multiple independent periodical articles and reviews including the New York Times [11] [12], Kirkus Reviews [13], the Charlotte Observer [14] and the Post and Courier [15]. There is also coverage in Library of America [16]. Authors who satisfy WP:AUTHOR do not have to satisfy BANDMEMBER as well, but the book reviews are about his literary output, and not about him being in a band. James500 (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC) ~~I am withdrawing my !vote because PAGEDECIDE is a potentially valid argument for merging a notable topic, and I am not prepared to be in a minority of one over this, even if~~ I suspect the article might become WP:TOOBIG or be excessively swamped with material about the John Quincy Adams book. I suppose you could have an article on the book instead. James500 (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reinstated !vote and struck words. James500 (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering if an article about the book would make sense as an alternative to this article. Dflovett (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but not due to notability. WP:PAGEDECIDE allows and recommends an article be merged into another even if it is notable (more info) if it serves the reader better. In this case we don’t need a short article about one person when they can be included and explained in the larger article about the brothers. FaviFake (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what, are we going to put the reviews for the John Adams book into the article on the band? Ridiculous, that would be a terrible merge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My argument is that a history book on John Quincy Adams seems like a bizarre detour for an article about a pop-folk band (or whatever exactly the Avett Brothers are.) Many of the reviews of the book point out how bizarre and incongruous Crawford writing a book about John Quincy Adams is, and there is little mention of the band aside from that in the reviews. I can keep attempting to improve this article, but that's my reasoning for why this article should be separate. I could be convinced (as mentioned above) that the book should have a separate article, although I don't know of many scenarios where a book has an article but its author does not. Dflovett (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the ultimate decision here is to merge, all that really needs to be merged (or is qualified to be merged) is the fact that Crawford published a book about J.Q.A. in 2026, and even that he got some good reviews, and that can be added as a development in the band's history ("2020-present" section). If the book is getting enough pro reviews per WP:BOOKCRIT then it could qualify for its own article. It might be strange to have a book article when the author does not have his own article, but I don't think that would be an unprecedented situation. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense, thanks! Dflovett (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The book is notable so yes it can have its own article, and Crawford is not only notable for the band. In that case, why would we cover the information about someone notable for multiple things on only one of them? We would have to restore the article or delete the redirect if someone ever made an article on the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there are three notability factors for Crawford, any by itself would not warrant a stand-alone article, but combined I do believe it meets WP:GNG. The podcast is the weakest aspect, but does validate/explain his interest and ability in history. We tend to undercredit non-vanity works in favor of popularity or promotional works.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 11:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to look for some more sources for the podcast section. I agree that it's the weakest but there are NYT articles on the podcast and the book that haven't been added in yet. I think I should also change "Podcast" to "Podcasts" and he has two, plus one from 2023 that appears to have been a limited series. Dflovett (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Crawford meets GNG and he is also an author and hence a merge to the band page would just make it too long and have information unrelated to the band, not benefitting the reader DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NAUTHOR, so merging to a band doesn't make much sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta (blues)

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

Confusing mess that mashes two different songs together. Neither song seems to be notable on its own, as I found minimal sourcing on the Lead Belly song and only false positives on the Mary Wheeler song despite several recordings apparently existing. The sources are a personal blog, a lyric database, and a database that apparently contains a recording of the Mary Wheeler song.

The article has also been in CAT:NN since 2020. If there is an article to be made here, then WP:TNT is required. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems that most musicologists identify it as a variant of Corrine, Corrina. See e.g. Oster, Harry (1969). Living country blues. pp. 418–419.; Radano, Ronald M. Music and the Racial Imagination. p. 172.; Roud number 10030. Clapton got sued over this question in 2016. Internet Archive has Steamboatin' Days available to borrow and admittedly the coverage there is... inconclusive. It'd say it's notable, the question is whether it should be a merge/redirect to Corrine, Corrina or a distinct article. Jfire (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 16:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per JFire's sources (and WP:GNG). A merger can be discussed on the TP.--~2026-35976-24 (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yuan Ping (scientist)

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

Appears to fail WP:NPROF, none of the awards are prominent enough for criteria 2 and the other citations are to Ping's own articles. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Chemistry, China, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: California and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. She has done a significant amount of collaborative work where it appears that her group has done the theory part. Hence her area should be classified as fairly high citation, comparable to experimental sold-state chemistry/physics or materials science. On that basis her h-factor & total citations are a bit low, and there are no (as yet) "high-impact" papers which would be those with > 1K cites. The awards are important for her career, but are all starter grants. I dont see other SIGCOV. The accelleration of her cites/year is very encouraging, but it seems to still be a little early WP:TOOSOON by 2-3 years. It is a close call, and I would change my vote if someone finds additional indicators.Ldm1954 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While she indeed doesn't have any work with citation counts in the thousands, I will add that having a dozen papers with > 100 citations in about as many years is a sign of her being a leader in her field. She also doesn't just have starter grants - she earned the NSF Career Award and the Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, both notable enough to have their own pages. Speaking as a researcher in a related field, I can say that while these fall short of the prestige conferred by more obvious indicators like an APS fellowship, it's definitely nothing to sneeze at either. I think it's borderline per above, but I'm inclined to keep at the moment. RaisedArizona (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sloan and CAREER are both early-career awards, which we exclude from contributing to NPROF C2.1,2,3,4 JoelleJay (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I agree with disallowing early career awards as a qualifying factor, but I will strike that point from the above per prior consensus regardless. RaisedArizona (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that this is a high-citation, high-publication field where someone in the 3rd year of their PhD can already have 15 papers and an h-index of 9, and where someone whose first publication was in 2020 can have 1200+ citations, an h-index of 14, and multiple Nature papers. I might do a full Scopus analysis of coauthors, but an initial pass over her relative citation record indicates a very strong start while still not quite at the level expected for NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Joelle's "strong start while still not quite at the level expected for NPROF" appears accurate to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. At her present rate of progress she'll be there in a few years, but she's not there yet. Athel cb (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Crittenden tornado

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

While this tornado likely does meet WP:NTORNADO, it is extremely short, and nearly all of its citations are duplicated. + 0 aftermath section. Overall, clearly not ready for the mainspace. TornadoEF4 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Kentucky. TornadoEF4 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Different sections of those "duplicated citations" are cited. shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that is such, its still way too short and has no aftermath, it just isnt ready for the articlespace. TornadoEF4 (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had no clue about this being rated. added aftermath section TornadoElliott (Yelp for help?) 21:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

still, this article is way too short. TornadoEF4 (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can expand it. I don't really care of the outcome of this nomination, I just want someone to help with the article. TornadoElliott (Yelp for help?) 12:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article being too short is a reason to edit it, not delete it. Draftification should be for when an article isn't suitable for readers yet due to a lack of sourcing for example but a short, sourced article has always been fine even if it's not perfect. At any rate it now does have an aftermath section and different sources. --Here2rewrite (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The aftermath is 2 sentences.. TornadoEF4 (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's a reason to improve the article, not delete or draftify it. Wikipedia has always been a work in progress. The tornado notability page you link to doesn't even mention aftermath sections, let alone specify a minimum length for them to avoid deletion. That's just not how the Wikipedia I've ever known has worked. --Here2rewrite (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Serious improvements are best done in the draftspace. Its simple as that. You cant just use WP:NTORNADO as an excuse when this doesn't even apply to that, if it wasn't notable, I would be nominating for deletion not draftification. TornadoEF4 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one who brought up WP:NTORNADO. Saying that short articles have to be moved to the draft space is not something I've encountered before, is there an actual policy for this? --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay 1. you just said "the tornado notability page you linked doesn't mention aftermath sections" which refers to WP:NTORNADO, also on that same point it refers to the entire article in general, not just the aftermath. 2. look at WP:DRAFTS, im unsure if it has an exact section but It shows general guidelines and maybe can help you. TornadoEF4 (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRAFTS gives 3 common reasons to move an article to draft space (conflicts of interest, unreviewed machine translation, topic not yet notable). True it says those aren't the only possible reasons, but that stops far short of saying length _is_ a reason. There are millions of articles shorter than this one, it's always been accepted that if the topic is notable and the current article isn't a complete disaster, then it just stays as an article for improvement. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The tornado summary is smaller than the one in the outbreak article.. TornadoEF4 (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If not counting the PNS. TornadoEF4 (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we're going in circles, I'm asking if there's a policy that says shortness is a reason to draftify an article, and you're just saying that it's short without giving a policy. Sorry but I'm still for keeping. --Here2rewrite (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's because there technically is none, but it is heavily preferred that for very short new articles, massive edits are best done in the draftspace.

It is fine if you dont agree with me, I do think we are going in circles and I think its best to just end it off here. TornadoEF4 (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Flintstones Chewable Vitamins

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

Merge to List of The Flintstones media's section "In popular culture", where it already has a paragraph. The sources in this article are pretty bad, almost entirely primary with one AP story about Betty being added in the 90s. A WP:BEFORE search turned up almost nothing that wasn't marketing material, with an article on Mentalfloss (https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/26157/brief-history-flintstones-vitamins) and a 2015 article from Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/problem-childrens-multivitamins-supplements-324545) (see WP:NEWSWEEK) both missing the mark. There is one WP:RS from Marketplace (https://www.marketplace.org/story/2022/12/02/why-are-flintstones-vitamins-and-cereal-still-popular-decades-after-the-show-ended), a public radio publication, but I think two sources here is weak and not justifying of a WP:CFORK Yojo98 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Television, Medicine, and United States of America. Yojo98 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Products-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep and improve (though probably move to just Flintstones Vitamins, currently redirecting there). Vitamins are not "media", they are a commercial product with an end use and impact distinct from their use of a trademark as a sales mechanism. BD2412 T 19:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Flintstones Vitamins would be more appropriate under WP:COMMONNAME. I would say that to have its own page on the merits you described, we would need proof of it fulfilling the WP:GNG requirements. Yojo98 (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment Why would we redirect a nutritional supplement like a children's vitamin to a 'in pop culture' article? It should go to the manufacturers' article first over what would just be a bare mention of the vitamin's existence in the former. Nathannah • 📮 21:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nathannah: My understanding is that the manufacturer changed at one point, although Bayer does seem to be the long-term stable manufacturer now. Still. for a company of that size, I don't know that the one line mentioning this product is a helpful redirect target for readers. BD2412 T 23:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Agree it doesn't need to have a standalone article, and I don't find the proposed target to be too inappropriate. FaviFake (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I won't lose sleep if this is merged. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INPOPCULTURE sections are usually something to avoid unless there's significant coverage. The paragraph is not even sourced. Also, the vitamins aren't a form of media. – The Grid (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your points here, it just seemed like the most apt merge candidate for me. I'm also comfortable with a straight-up delete. Sources could be merged from the current stand-alone article (the AP and marketplace source) to replace the DVD citation that's currently in the list article Yojo98 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Flintstones - potentially as a new "Merchandise" section? That way it could also be home to a mention of Pebbles (cereal). However I'm not wedded to this idea ~~and I'd support a straight delete too.~~ Netstars22 (talk to me!) 21:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Netstars22: Deletion is not proposed in the nomination, and should be off the table given that there are clearly sources to show the subject to be noteworthy within the context of the franchise, even if arguably not independently notable. BD2412 T 23:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah yes, I do see that it's specifically a merge nom now. Updating my earlier nom to note that but I will maintain my opinion on a merge target. Netstars22 (talk to me!) 00:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for children of Generation X, this product was a Brand-name status symbol for conspicuous consumption. If you casually mentioned in the School Cafeteria that you had taken your Flintstone Vitamin that morning, as you fiddled with the alligator on your Lacoste sweater, you were telegraphing your middle-class status, as much as you name-dropped your dad's wood-paneled station wagon, your older brother's frat at Columbia University, your NFL-branded duvet that grandma bought you, your new 10-speed bike, or your mom's new Bicentennial couch from Ethan Allen. The subject of this article was not just about nutrition. Bearian (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian, while I appreciate your anecdotal comment, it would be helpful if you linked to any WP:RS that support the comment you made here. The issue at hand is that the article contains almost none of the information you provided and is mostly a list of products with WP:PRIMARY sources. Yojo98 (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While I am sympathetic to Bearian (I too used to take flinstones vitamins) but I googled (with the hope I could find some sources and couldn't find anything. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the Flintsones instead, this isn't a media item. It's a medical item. Not much for sourcing, this in the Saturday Evening Post [17], but that's about the best I got in my searches. Oaktree b (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pages 85-91 of this FTC report discusses how companies create their product and market them to kids as they will be the "first" to use it, albeit not specifically for these vitamins; there are other original research papers about this phenomenon. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that we don't even have an article on Children's vitamins. BD2412 T 17:44, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see consensus against a standalone article, but a lack of agreement as to a merger target: should we use the media list or the main article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong preference for merge target. I nominated to the media list since that's already the content fork off of the main Flintstones page. I understand it's imperfect given that this isn't media exactly, but it would feel odd in the main page too given the section heading there is "other media". Right now I don't think there's enough WP:RS for an entirely new section in the main Flintstones page Yojo98 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Flintstones vitamins have been around for a long time. -- NYC Guru (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notability on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the subject's age, but on whether there is sufficient sourcing and coverage (I have no opinion there). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

University of Illinois Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering

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

WP:GNG not demonstrated independently of routine university sources. The article relies primarily on the department’s own site and a passing rankings mention, which does not establish significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. As a routine academic department, it does not meet a standalone notability standard on the evidence presented; content can be merged into University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign or create a broader article on the College of Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, United States of America, and Illinois. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This department does not need it's own page when a page for the university already exists. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete into the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign as there is limited sourcing for the department. Also it has a decade-old ranking to justify standalone article as per WP:GNG. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do not demonstrate notability of this department Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Can't justify a standalone page. ScottyNolan (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign The department lacks sufficient independent, reliable sourcing to justify a standalone page per WP:GNG. Staticspector (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would Grainger College of Engineering be a better merge target? Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Exploration with Jarod Miller

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

Fails GNG. OWaunTon (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Animal, and Education. OWaunTon (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hearst Media Production Group#Stand alone programs About as rote and standard of an 'educational animal show on 2010s broadcast TV watched by few children' as you can get, and I'm feeling very ambivalent about even redirecting it, to be honest, but WP:ATD tops that. Nathannah • 📮 00:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ashby, Emily (2025-10-01). "Parents' Guide to Animal Exploration with Jarod Miller". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2026-06-12. Retrieved 2026-06-12.
  The review notes: "Animal Exploration is steeped in kid-friendly educational material. Miller and the other experts often exchange interesting facts -- some of which are also displayed in pop-ups on the screen -- that are sure to stick with kids long after they turn off the TV. Each episode also has a central theme that groups critters of all shapes and sizes by some shared trait ... This fun series also works well for kids thanks to its fast pace and Miller's obvious excitement over the animals he meets; his giddy enthusiasm will encourage kids' own interest in the subject matter. Miller also isn't afraid to connect with his young audience via a bit of silliness; in one segment, for instance, he hung from a branch next to a two-toed sloth to see how long he could last in the animal's lifelong position."
2. Schleier, Curt (September–October 2007). "running wild". Emmy. Vol. 29, no. 5. p. 28. EBSCOhost 27389933. ProQuest 2297366727.
  The article notes: "In September, Exploration with Jarod Miller premiered on eacross the country. The syndicated series marks the coming together of the host's lifelong love of animals and his desire to share that enthusiasm. ... Miller says he will use the show to transmit his love of nature, a joy that has not been tempered by odoriferous skunks, the cheetah that once charged at him or the king cobra that got a little too close for comfort. After all, he has sat on the back of a rhino, fed chickens to a giant crocodile and held a black mamba in his hands. What's not to like?"
3. Galarneau, Andrew Z. (2007-09-27). "A local ambassador to the animal kingdom". The Buffalo News. pp. C1–C2. Factiva BFNW000020070928e39r0001s. Retrieved 2026-06-12.
  The article notes: "A decade later, Miller and his animals are ready for their close- up. "Animal Exploration With Jarod Miller" premieres via syndication on 200 stations nationwide, with its first Western New York appearance coming at 7 a.m. Saturday on WUTV. ... Then, with support from television production company Litton Entertainment, his own show, taking over the company's "Exploration" franchise. ... Each episode of "Animal Exploration" revolves around an idea instead of a geographic location, Miller said. There will be 20 episodes, and the first is about animals that have "the need for speed," Miller said. It goes beyond the obvious ones, like the cheetah, the fastest land animal, and the peregrine falcon, the fastest animal on Earth, he said."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Animal Exploration With Jarod Miller to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the sources proposed enough?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dusi

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

Does not pass WP:NACTOR. Huffpost may count towards WP:NBASIC, but its still just one such source. Queens Chronicle and NY Daily News look iterview-based, and therefore aren't secondary sources. Janhrach (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Albania, and United States of America. Janhrach (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: California and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see where he's done any notable roles. A few of the films are notable, but his parts appear to be minor and offhand I can't find any mention of him in RS reviews. As far as production goes, that's difficult to establish notability for because what a producer does can vary depending on the film. Sometimes it's a sign that a person does a lot, sometimes they're just nominal. You'd need coverage and sometimes even major awards to establish notability, assuming the films themselves are notable. I'll try to keep digging. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Mike Dusi does not have enough media coverage to pass WP:NACTOR. Deerknows (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The overall notability here is extremely marginal. His film roles are pretty non-notable. He's received some coverage for the production roles, but not a lot. It's also almost solely local coverage, so it doesn't really show how he's notable outside of his hometown. The Illyria source is questionable since when I clicked it, I got a dead link. I am leaning towards him being non-notable. The best I could find otherwise is a review for one of his more visible roles and a Variety source that mentions that he was an AP in the cast/crew section. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My thought so far is to redirect him to Dorm of the Dead since that appears to be one of his more known roles, such as it is. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

United States Army Special Forces in popular culture

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

WP:NOTTVTROPES. Cites no sources actually about the topic of the United States Army Special Forces in popular culture * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVTROPES is an essay. The appropriate guideline is WP:NLIST. Sources actually about the topic of the United States Army Special Forces in popular culture as a set exist. Such as https://mwi.westpoint.edu/politicization-and-pop-culture-how-public-perception-of-special-operations-units-intersects-with-civil-military-relations/ https://www.watchmojo.com/articles/top-20-special-forces-units-from-movies-sponsored https://www.businessinsider.com/army-special-ops-rates-delta-force-special-forces-in-movies-2025-3 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/hollywoods-special-forces-184181/ https://fictionfry.com/collections/10-military-action-films-that-captured-the-rise-of-special-forces/ and so on. Has a minimal BEFORE even been attempted in any way by the nominator, who had previously PRODed the page? (I Deproded it....). --~2026-33518-93 (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~2026-33518-93 (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Military-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP: GNG I think you could argue for this articles expansion into US military in popular culture to encompass the Seals and Marines as they have also been featured prominently in US culture. But the tools and tactics of recruitment for the GAE, GWOT, and military industrial complex go through pop culture and it should be addressed.AadamentAardvark (talk)

Delete. WP:TNT case. We have several pagraphs of WP:OR on top, with the few references not germane to the main topic (such as the ref for Rambo being a box office success - sure, that sentence is referenced, and it has zero relevance to the article topic). Then there is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of all works in which USSF appeared. Sigh. Nope. PS. The anon is correct, this is likely a notable topic, but IMHO there is nothing salvageable here. Ping me if a WP:HEY rewrite is attempted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the first thing that comes to mind, when reading this article is Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. While the article that is the subject of this AfD needs lots of work of including reliable sources inline in the article, as a topic it apepars to have received significant coverage in multiple relable sources, including books, news articles, and elsewhere. Therefore the topic meets WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piortus above. Deletion may not be cleanup, but I've seen far too many instances of articles kept using this rationale and then lingering on for years in the same horrible state that brought them to AfD in the first place. Too much OR, a messy unfocused list...it needs to go. The subject is most likely notable, but the article would need to be completely redone to reflect that. Intothat darkness 12:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RightCowLeftCoast.-- Least Action (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. ~2026-35976-24 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganised (roughly and rapidly) the page to give an idea of what it could look like; trimmed a bit; now what's needed is to add the existing sources for individual entries/works; did this to prove that "TNT" (which concerns only "hopelessly irreparable" pages) does not apply (as an essay it should not prevail over the notability guideline, anyway, and Wikipedia being supposedly a work in progress, there's no reason to believe the article will not be improved in time). ~2026-35976-24 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

De Witt Yard

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

I propose redirecting to CSX Transportation because it fails WP:NGEO Bryce M (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, United States of America, and New York. Bryce M (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk Subdivision is a better target; content could actually be usefully merged there. Mackensen (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Mohawk Subdivision per Mackensen. ~~While I agree the topic probably is not notable enough to have its own article,~~ the company is almost never a good place to redirect the page (since major companies' articles never mention minor facilities, it leaves the page open to deletion at RfD in the future). A more specific redirect target is better. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would not be opposed to a keep, either, per TAOT below. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article creator used an unusual form of the name, the yard is commonly known by the name DeWitt Yard. Almost all the sources currently in the article use that name. When I search by that name, I get copious results. This was a major rail yard (two humps) with plenty of coverage. Several sources call it one of the largest in the country at its peak.
[18] two pages in Railway Signaling and Communications concerning the yard
[19] two full pages just to display a map of the yard, plus two pages of text concerning its operation in Yard and Terminals and Their Operation
[20] coverage of a strike at the yard being broken up by the Pinkertons
[21] three paragraphs dealing with the design and operation of the yard when it was expanded, plus diagrams of the retarders that were installed
[22] I don't have a direct link, but this briefly describes two pages of coverage in Railway and Engineering Review
[23] two pages in North American Railyards
[24] a page worth of statistics and details of operations from the American Railway Engineering Association Bulletin
[25] multiple pages of Congressional testimony which go into great detail about how the yard operates
[26] not independent coverage because it's by the New York Central Railroad, but most of a page dedicated to diesel facilities at the yard

I could certainly find more coverage if I kept looking, but this is enough for me to support keeping the article when combined with the recent coverage that is already in the article. Its title should be moved to DeWitt Yard, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mohawk Subdivision (Does not pass WP:NGEO): Per Epicgenius' expounded assessment of Mackensen's (who should have likely added "Merge" for clarity) suggested target. CSX Transportation nor DeWitt, New York are optimal targets although both should have some mention. AFD is not cleanup but Wikipedia improvements are sometimes indicated by combining unimprovable stubs or dictionary entries to create better articles. Articles should be split when the parent article size or depth dictates, not the drive to continue creating stubs or article with bare notability, as if Wikipedia just started out. Sometimes reasons dictate we just don't need a standalone article. As for as the hump yard comments, it was shut down a fairly long time ago. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Selkirk Yard is an entirely different yard, and notability doesn't go away just because something is closed. Is Cedar Hill Yard not notable because the humps were closed? Also, while again it's a different yard entirely, ending hump operation is not the same as closing a yard, and plenty of switching continues at Selkirk. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I've changed my !vote to "keep or merge". TAOT actually does make a pretty good argument that DeWitt Yard is notable (I forgot about the typographical variant). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic meets WP:NGEO as demonstrated by Trainsandotherthings. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Daks

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

Lack of independent coverage about the person. The references are primarily routine mentions or quotations of Daks as CEO of the company rather than coverage about himself. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. - The9Man ^Talk 07:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related AfD discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 07:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 08:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see lots of reliable sources like the Washington Post and LA Times. Is it significant enough? Sure. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources are not about him. They only mention by quoting him. - The9Man ^Talk 05:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 07:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A last shot.....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 07:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the coverage does not mention him specifically so there is no independent coverage of him. Fails WP:GNG. Being a frequently quoted source can't guarantee notability. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete I agree with Dz5t. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - upon a second review I see that interviews don't contribute to notability, and that's basically all we have. Change of !vote. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2026 (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