Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:

1. 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.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:deletion sorting|United States of America|sig=~~~~}} 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/archive 2
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/archive 3
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/archive 4

watch

General

An Act to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees

An Act to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This unsuccessful bill 2013 bill has attracted no attention since its introduction, and l can't find any contemporary reporting. A redirect to its proposed, Ron DeSantis, would be appropriate if it was mentioned in his article, buts it's not, and I doubt it would be DUE to mention it. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related AfD discussions. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

David Haddleton

David Haddleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

If I understand WP:NPROF, this professor doesn't meet the criteria. Hitaki-oro · 🈳🉐 18:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Chemistry, United Kingdom, England, and United States of America. Hitaki-oro · 🈳🉐 18:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets WP:NPROF as his work has been highly cited, clearly meeting Criteria #1. His h-index is 98 per Google scholar. His work has been cited by others 32,434 times. Thus his research has made a significant impact on their scholarly field. Also meets criteria #3 as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry.Netherzone (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Corinth, Chatham County, North Carolina

Corinth, Chatham County, North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Milowent, do your WP:RESCUE as this article fails WP:NPLACE and NO WP:SIGCOV could be found. Bryce M (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, United States of America, and North Carolina. Bryce M (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep

someone just needs to do work on it. ButteyFelicity (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Kevin Buchanan (attorney)

Kevin Buchanan (attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Kevin Buchanan is a former district attorney of Washington and Nowata Counties, Oklahoma. Those counties have a combined population of only about 65,000.

The notability guidelines for government officials say, "Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline".

Kevin Buchanan is a former local elected official of a relatively small local area. There is nothing in this article that indicates that Mr. Buchanan meets the general notability guideline. The only other content in this article says that Mr. Buchanan is a member of the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, but the article gives no indication of why this would establish notability either. IGAEB (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Plus, the article's creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ValkyrieV/Archive. IGAEB (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and Oklahoma. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Jay-Wiki (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Any presumption of notability we make for elected officials is ultimately based on the assumption that they will do something noteworthy during their tenure. But I can't find any indication that this is the case here. Buchanan does show up in some news articles, but only in passing as a mouthpiece of the justice system (e.g. in news articles reporting that he brought a criminal case against a person, or making a statement on behalf of the parole board). Omphalographer (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Robert Blohm

Robert Blohm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. All citations currently in the article are to the guy's own website, which makes sense since he wrote the article himself. Said website lists some newspaper articles and such that he's written; it does not qualify for WP:AUTHOR. I can find no independent coverage of him, so fails WP:GNG. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related AfD discussions. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finance, Canada, and United States of America. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm Robert Blohm attempting to reply to AntiDionysius. I don't know how to format a reply yet, nor do I know if this is the only place where I need reply. I'm eager to adjust.

My Wikipedia page has been up for a good 20 years, and I have done major updating once a decade.

Today I made the only significant addition to my article since a year ago when I did some small editing but had long forgotten my password which was irrecoverable because my email ISP closed its domain listed on my Wikipedia account when bought out by Verizon. So there was frequent anonymous movement by me for a brief period.

Today I only added two things: a "Family History", and a box with no new content except for a photo for the first time. The Family History and the photo have been summarily removed. So I don't see the urgency for summarily deleting the rest of my account which I didn't change but for a word or two, with editorial comment on the change. Also the cautionary automated note on my account disappeared entirely during my work. I was very slow to get back into the ins and outs of editing. This is the first complaint I've received from a person in the 20 years of my article.

I can withdraw that Family History for good. But I would like to restore the photo which I can't see the relation of to the two issues AntiDionysius raises, namely of "standing" either as a commentator and as a policy professional.

Three years ago was the last major change I made to the page, to specifically address any concern such as AntiDionysius is raising: I gathered together and appended thereto an extensive press kit attached hereto https://www.robertblohm.com/cvBlohm%26Bibliography.pdf of 670 only top media references to me and output by me, counterfactually to AntiDionysius' saying he "can find no independent coverage of" me (i.e. no notability) and, referencing my website and probably neglecting to click the extensive list it has of the more recent two decades of activity not directly shown on the site, saying the website "lists some newspaper articles and such that he's written" (i.e. not an author).

That is not to mention my 35 decades of "and such" continuous contributions to the editorial page of the world's most influential newspaper, "The Wall Street Journal", as one of its most frequent and longest outside contributors. Not to mention my position as the oldest and longest participant and official in the North American Electric Reliability Corp. the supranational regulatory body that holds the fate of our AI security in its hands. Nor that I have been among the most regular guests of the International Monetary Fund, to its Annual and Spring Meetings since last decade, like the one I've been preparing to go to in Bangkok next week.

AntiDionysius also says there are citations in my article but they don't count because "all citations currently in the article are to the guy's own website". That doesn't mean to articles I self publish and post there, it means important outside articles that I may post the print versions of or outside articles no longer archived by the publishers after many years. I should also be cognizant of copyright and not flaunting them.

The name AntiDionysius is suggestive of fighting fraud in the form of so-called neoplatonist Dionysius and his centuries later commentator Pseudo-Dionysius considered by some to be covers/usurpers of others.

I am prepared to curate and propagate contents of my presskit directly onto my Wikipedia page as long as it doesn't raise copyright concerns. But that takes time and I can't do it quickly enough to allay an imperative to delete my account. Notably in the twenty years, no one has altered or disputed anything that's been said in the article.

Please inform me that I'm writing this in proper form in the proper forum and missing no chance to engage. Robert Blohm (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)--Robert Blohm (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Blohm (talk • contribs) 18:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking through his resume I can't find anything that would meet NAUTHOR. Delete per nom. msk 19:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Be my guest here: 670

https://www.robertblohm.com/cvBlohm%26Bibliography.pdf Robert Blohm (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)--Robert Blohm (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Robert Blohm (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Robert. This discussion is focused on the article. Your account is safe; you don't need to worry.

However, the article reads as a promotional puff piece for its subject. I will need to review the articles compiled about Robert. SenshiSun (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Béatrice Cointreau

Béatrice Cointreau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. All sources are either non-independent (interviews) or passing mention of the person.

Article is created by a TA ~2026-47494-62 who submitted repeated non-notable AI-generated articles to AfC.

Also pinging @User:Jishara since they accepted the AfC 🍅 fx (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Wine, France, and United States of America. 🍅 fx (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and likely is WP:LLM. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah - it didn't read like LLM anywhere, and the sources I checked all were real sources that supported the info, so I didn't think there was an LLM. As for notability, I accepted based on the Legion of Honor medal per WP:ANYBIO, but if that's an insufficient award I wouldn't be opposed to deletion. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: insufficient valid secondary sources to pass GNG. She might have a famous last name but notability is not inherited here and also, we are not LinkedIn --TitCrisse (t•c) 00:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC).

Lindsay Ashford (blogger)

Lindsay Ashford (blogger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't see any lasting, independent notability for this person. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete: lacks WP:SIGCOV. Not adding anything to the encyclopedia. Marquardtika (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

South Valley, Syracuse

South Valley, Syracuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Milowent do your thing, this article needs significant WP:RESCUE! Fails WP:NPLACE and NO WP:SIGCOV could be found. Bryce M (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, United States of America, and New York. Bryce M (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Removed from Aviation sorting as is unrelated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The 1985

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/The 1985
• Articles for deletion/The 1985 (2nd nomination)

The 1985 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability tagged for 5 years with no sign of improvement. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Delete. 162 etc. (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2008, but that may well have been under lower standards than we have now (or even 2021, when the aforementioned tag for potential GNG failure was added). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: I only get hits from things that happened in 1985, nothing about a band. Not enough sourcing now in the article either to show a pass at musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Specialist publications have covered the subject back in 2000: and . Not quite enough to build an article - more needed. ResonantDis_tortion 07:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence Cold War

Artificial Intelligence Cold War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Performing the second AfD step on behalf of User:MonkeWizard as requested at WT:AFD. I have no opinion on the actual proposal and won't watch this discussion.

I propose merging the Artificial Intelligence Cold War article into Second Cold War, as the AI Cold War/Arms Race is becoming the primary technological theater of the conflict and the Second Cold War page provides context that would be useful in understanding it. WP:MERGECON + WP:OVERLAP. MonkeWizard (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Artificial intelligence, China, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose – Without reliable sources verifying the supposed interchangeability, both topics should be treated as separate for now. --George Ho (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Topics are not related. Artificial intelligence is not remotely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, nor is it a WP:COMMONNAME. I'm very tempted to superclose but I know better. guninvalid (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

JPMorgan homophobic scandal

JPMorgan homophobic scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There's a lot of things wrong here. First and most importantly, Wikipedia is not news and this is clearly a blip in the news. Secondly, the article basically validates the claims of the alleged victim stating that "Brian Larson was [...] fired [...] because of his sexual orientation" whereas WP:NPOV would require something along the lines of "Brian Larson alleges he was fired [...] because of his sexual orientation". Even the article's title is slanted as basically acknowledging that JPMorgan is homophobic (this has not been demonstrated, at least not yet) and that this story raises to the level of a "scandal" which seems an exageration at best. Pichpich (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Just saying NOTNEWS is probably enough of a justification for deletion. we have a whole big "screw you" to NPOV/DUE at the parent article that we can probably merge this article into if we can find out what the "numerous discrimination lawsuits" this article refers to are. msk 16:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete this particular event does not deserve a page of its own and can be added to the main page of JPMorgan Chase. However if the controversies/allegations section is too large perhaps a separate page can be created for it. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Events, LGBTQ+ studies, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to the main JP Morgan chase article and the recent history section. Deleting this article is wiping that information entirely. I would be against that especially considering the relevance and importance of the subject. AadamentAardvark (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete the latest in the line of scandal attempt articles created by the article creator. Not news, not notable. Canterbury Tail talk 21:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Fictional presidents of the Confederate States of America

Fictional presidents of the Confederate States of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Part of that policy includes "Summary-only descriptions of works", which from what I have seen includes a list of fictional characters describing only their relevance to a plot of a book series or a mockumentary or a Family Guy episode. If readers want a summary of those works, they can visit their respective pages. If readers want to learn about CSA alternate history, they can read American Civil War alternate histories. Now if there was any actual coverage in reliable sources of these characters that would allow us to verify inclusion then that would be great, but I cannot find any. The topic of the list itself is not notable. While I can find plenty of discussion of fictional US presidents in sources, I cannot find any discussion of fictional CSA presidents that merits a list article. Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 16:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Lists, and United States of America. Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 16:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom; the subject isn’t notable enough to warrant an article. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 17:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails NLIST and has been tagged as such since April 2020. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per NLIST. It's a Lost Cause. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  Delete: Even though I did create this article and contributed to it many times, I got what I could for info and sources and I doubt we'll be able to find much else for sources or info. As much as it breaks my heart to see one of the articles I created deleted, it's probably for the best that it does get deleted. It's indeed a lost cause. JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence that this subject has any notability. Tagged since a few days after its creation (more than 6 years ago), and still no sourcing other than a film database and an in-fictional-universe site, Meters (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Nominator sums it up well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.

Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NLIST. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Senior Lifestyle Corporation

Senior Lifestyle Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

don't see any sources that pass WP:NORG. none of the article content is supported by the NYT, Tribune, Monitor, etc. sources, they were all added a week after creation by TAs, and mostly just name drop the company by saying it is developing one community or another. Search online only uncovered sources from the trade Senior Housing News, and those sources are of uncertain independence, and besides, lacking the required multiple sources for an article. 1brianm7 (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Business, and United States of America. 1brianm7 (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I won't make any remarks on the notability of the subject since I didn't go through any of the sources in the article. While I did find some coverage on communities that are under Senior Lifestyle Corporation, there wasn't much on the company itself. All I could find was this article which might not be independent because most of it is an interview and this one which might be too short to be considered significant. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep the 2000 Evanston New York Times article is brief mention, but this one in New York Times "The Gray Middle Market" from 2005 is mostly about the company: its three housing projects, Autumn Green, and its role as "the leading developer here of a type of housing for low-income elderly people." That is SIGCOV. And Crain's has covered it for many years (2008, 2012), and the industry media Senior Housing News. The current article should be expanded with new sources and cut where trivial coverage is presented. So it's more a cleanup. Qihonis grigotch (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Qihonis grigotch That NYT source is a good find, I think that could fairly be considered sigcov. Could you mind quoting from the Crain's sources, the second is a paywall after the first sentence (at which point it feels a bit press-release-y, but what wouldn't before sentence two) and the second is a dead link for me. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

JemJem

JemJem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The only sources on this are an interview with the founder and the subject's website. A quick search revealed nothing but some of the companies own press releases. I believe this does not satisfy WP:NCORP. Packrat3860 (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, United States of America, and California. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Waiter! Waiter! More corpslop please! All of the sources are not independent? How delightful, you shouldn't have...

(Delete per nom, if it wasn't obvious.) msk 16:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment – Disclosure: I'm Jay Kim, founder and CEO of JemJem, so I have a conflict of interest (disclosed on my user page). I'd ask editors to consider keeping this article. JemJem (JemJem.com, Inc., formerly ePelican.com, Inc.) has operated since 2014 from Irvine, California, sells certified refurbished electronics on its own site and through major marketplaces including Best Buy Marketplace, Back Market, eBay, Amazon Renewed and Walmart, and was listed on the 2019 Inc. 5000 (No. 3,292) and the 2020 Inc. California regional list. I understand those rankings alone may not meet WP:NCORP, and I'm not in a position to judge that neutrally. If the consensus is that current sourcing is insufficient, I'd respectfully ask that the article be moved to draft space rather than deleted, so it can be improved if independent coverage becomes available. I won't edit the article directly. Thank you for your time. Jay Kim (JemJem) (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NCORP. With no WP:RS being demonstrated that may indicate possible notability, I don't think draftification would help much (see WP:AKON). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

References

Jay Kim (businessman)

Jay Kim (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nothing left after trimming what is unsourced. No significant coverage I could find in a quick search and the sources that remain are press releases by the subject and interviews with the subject. I think this obviously fails basic notability requirements. Packrat3860 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, South Korea, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of California-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete -WP:NOTWHOSWHO — Maile (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. What remains is a press release, a syndicated promotional profile and two interviews on small sites, and my own search turned up only more press releases quoting him. No independent WP:SIGCOV exists, so WP:BASIC is not met. Onatic (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment – Disclosure: I'm Jay Kim, the subject of this article, so I have a conflict of interest (disclosed on my user page). I'd ask editors to consider keeping this article. I founded JemJem in 2014 and have led it as CEO since; the company was listed on the 2019 Inc. 5000 (No. 3,292) under its former name, ePelican.com. I understand the concern that the existing sources are press releases and interviews, and I'm not in a position to judge WP:BASIC neutrally. If the consensus is to not keep it, I would support a redirect to JemJem (or moving it to draft space) rather than outright deletion. I won't edit the article directly. Thank you for your time. Jay Kim (JemJem) (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  Respectfully, a redirect might not work here as I have also referred JemJem for deletion. Packrat3860 (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

References

William J. Pascrell III

William J. Pascrell III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not meet WP:NBIO. Aneirinn (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey and United States. Aneirinn (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Aneirinn (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Letter from the IRGC to the American people

Letter from the IRGC to the American people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems unlikely to have WP:LASTING coverage. This was just one of many propaganda attempts by made by the IRGC during the course of the war, and the article doesn't demonstrate why this one is any more special besides the fact it's directed against Trump (WP:TRUMPCRUFT). Proposing deletion or merge into Timeline of the 2026 Iran war if that's preferred. Johnson524 23:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Timeline of the 2026 Iran war: Oh no! It's Iran's final warning!

But seriously, this is not at all significant enough to justify a standalone article. We are not a news service, and this article is very much a victim of recency bias. Best to mention it in like one sentence in the timeline. Sycerion (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Merge There's no way this is it's own article already. WP:NOTCURRENTAFFAIRS Impressive that the Iranians that they'd read 26 pages of anything. AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per above and WP:NOTCURRENTAFFAIRS. killer bee  04:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Segaton (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Merge into Timeline of the 2026 Iran war per nom. and others. Sal2100 (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Merge into the timeline article and the Analysis of the 2026 Iran war, with details of the letter's contents and analyses going into there. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested by @AadamentAardvark. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Chris Cantelmo

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Chris Cantelmo
• Articles for deletion/Chris Cantelmo (2nd nomination)

Chris Cantelmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Restore redirect to Dimethyltryptamine#Cantelmoism per the previous AfD. There is still no SIGCOV beyond the Vice article. The remaining sources here seem to be sketchy clickbaity websites. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Biology, Chemistry, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: for clarity, the first nomination from January ended in deletion. No redirect was proposed at the time, but one was boldly created in July–which was overwritten this week with the return of article content. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: California and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect. Indeed, none of the sources aside from the Vice article are reliable, and at least one was written by Cantelmo himself. Toadspike [Talk] 09:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep - While the sourcing could be better, I do think it just comes by SIGCOV. As far as I can see the sources are not unreliable, but again it could be better. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@AFeatherlessBipehead: the consensus at the last AfD was that the only SIGCOV was the Vice article. What new sources have you uncovered showing notability? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I will note that all of the sources presently in the article were in the last version, which also had additional (unreliable) sources. I debated tagging this as G4, but this version is not sufficiently identical to the last version. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

See side discussion on the G4 issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Note that the discussion resulted in a change to G4 that would now make this page eligible for speedy deletion. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah okay the sourcing is not great, my vision here was more so address the issues of the article having a weird POV and style of writing, which was mentioned by users in the previous AfD. Would like to change my vote to weak keep on this one. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The article was deleted for lack of notability, not the writing style. You should not be recreating an article that was deleted by consensus unless you can establish that the subject is now notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted strictly for lack of notability, it was nominated for it. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

All of the !votes were about notability. One editor said that the article was not notable and that there were tone issues; the other three !votes (including myself) were only about notability. Articles don't get deleted at AfD because of a slightly promotional tone (see WP:DINC), and I would not have nominated the article for deletion if that were the only issue with it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Dimethyltryptamine#Cantelmoism per nom, still only one good source, which is not enough for GNG. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dimethyltryptamine#Cantelmoism per Voorts. The Vice piece is the only solid source; the rest are self-written, clickbait or unreliable death databases. One article cannot carry a biography under WP:BASIC, and the earlier deletion still stands. Onatic (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Alexandra Olivia

Alexandra Olivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All sources are run of the mill so do not show notability or meet WP:NAUTHOR. PeriodicEditor (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

None of the sources are run of the mill? Book reviews are how authors obtain notability. What? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep because Pburka demonstrated at least 2 of her books are notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This article currently has two sentences and fails WP:GNG. It seems there may not be significant coverage of this person but it is possible there may be of some of their work. Aneirinn (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Meets AUTHOR#3. msk 22:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:NAUTHOR says "a person is likely to be notable if" they meet either #1, #2, or #3, not necessarily that they are. They still have to pass WP:GNG, which the article does not as it does not have anywhere near significant coverage of this individual. It can be debated if they even meet #3. The second is a review by a literary agent of an agency of which she is a client , and the third is not by a reliable source. Aneirinn (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Didn't catch that, thanks. Weak delete. msk 23:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  They do not necessarily have to pass GNG if they meet NAUTHOR. See this recent RfC where everybody agreed that the status quo is, if you have two (theoretically) notable works, even if they do not have their own article, then you meet NAUTHOR and can be kept. 1brianm7 (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I am not voting yet because you need at least 2 notable books to pass NAUTHOR and only 1 has been demonstrated. But no, that is not the case. If you pass NAUTHOR you are notable. All that means is no one is absolutely notable, no matter what guideline they pass - but that also goes for GNG. That is why GNG is a presumption. If we find a compelling enough reason we can rebut the presumption of any notability guideline, including the GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per MSK. Author of at least two notable books (The Radiant Dark and The Last One). As PARAKANYAA notes above, this has long been the standard for authors at AfD. In addition to the reviews above, both were also reviewed by Kirkus: . pburka (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

2028 United States attorney general elections

2028 United States attorney general elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON, there has been no coverage that I can find on 2028 Attorney General elections in the US. We are not even past the 2026 elections so it makes sense that people have not began looking at downballot races for 2028. Propose deleting with no prejudice against recreating after November 2026 when these would possibly start being covered Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Politics, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Draftify instead, pending more substantial coverage, so it can be worked on. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep I don't see why it may be too soon given we have articles for the 2028 Governor elections and 2030 U.S. Senate Races. Coolxsearcher1414 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Those races are far more relevant and consequential AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Draftify seems to be the right move this can be improved and published when it's actually ready or there's more significant coverage. AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

YoungArts

YoungArts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only one source that provides WP:SIGCOV, and it was produced "with financial support" from the The Pérez Family Foundation which is an active collaborator with the article subject. In conclusion, does not meet WP:NCORP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Florida. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep - a notable documentary demonstrates in-depth subject notability, like a notable book on a person would. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Not if the documentary or book are not independent... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Mor Furniture

Mor Furniture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Don't think this meets WP:NCORP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of California-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This does not pass our guidelines for notability for companies. Aneirinn (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Weak sourcing. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Ronin Institute

Ronin Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Prior to me removing one of the references, three of the references on this article were the organization's official website. Of the two that aren't just the organization's website, one of the articles is co-written by the institute's founder. I have yet to find further news articles that would suggest the institute's notability, only occasional references to the organization when one of its members happens to be discussed. Arctic Circle System (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, United States of America, and California. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 04:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Douglas Levin

Douglas Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Kqol • talk 23:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, Technology, and United States of America. Kqol • talk 23:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: California, Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The article appears to be an advert or résumé. Aneirinn (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete; it is far from meeting notability. Sourcing are "about us" pages, company executive pages, interviews thereby extremely failing WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. AmbreDoo (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't make BIO. Khalitate (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Jet Le Parti

Jet Le Parti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Citations are directories (AskArt, EDMTrain), promotional outlets and passing mentions. Kqol • talk 23:32, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Arts, Music, and United States of America. Kqol • talk 23:32, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, England, California, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep the nominating user is correct that the article has or had issues regarding WP:PROMO but neither of the issues mentioned merit a deletion, as AFD is not a cleanup WP:NOTCLEANUP. Could these be improved? Big yes. Additionally these three outlets, kaltblut Magazine, Office Magazine, and Flaunt Magazine covered him in depth, shows a pass of WP:GNG

Lincolnkiptoo26 (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, though several sources in article are directories, primary and paid for sources, there are multiple reliable sources to meet WP:NBASIC 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”.

Are all sources in article primary and trivial? No, multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources have discussed the subject and their works in-depth in some WP:RS recognised sources including:

1. This by the 34th Street Magazine dedicated to arts reporting with the title “Meet Jet Le Parti, The Self–Taught Artist Who Turned his Apartment into a Studio Artist Spotlight | Jet combines the philosophy of art with the art of philosophy.” The article has a clearly stated byline (writer’s name) and it is published under the publication’s Art Section. 34th Street Magazine is a weekly arts and entertainment magazine by The Daily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper of the University of Pennsylvania with a clear editorial independence.

2.This by The Village Voice which is on the list of WP RS with the title “Jet Le Parti and the Poetry of the Impossible Middle Ground”. The piece clearly displays the writers name with an in-depth discussion of the subject and his work. The Village Voice is an American news and culture publication based in Greenwich Village, New York City, known for being the country's first alternative newsweekly.

3.This by Blast entertainment with the “Indie Film Breaks The System With ‘Underground’ Launch” provided an a signifcant coverage of the subject and works and the piece is written by the publications staff writter.

4.This by Whitehot Magazine, a publication dedicated to witting about art.

5.This by Billboard Japan, a is a sister organization of the U.S.-based music magazine Billboard

His EP album is on Apple music which is a WP recognised reliable music source widely cited for music here. Runmastery (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Miss Cosmo USA

Miss Cosmo USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NORG. Sources are about Miss Cosmo International and its Vietnamese edition. Coverage of this franchise is its own website, Instagram, Vimeo and two items in a local Illinois paper. Kqol • talk 23:19, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of coverage and its quality. AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Cole Williams (musician)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Cole Williams (musician)
• Articles for deletion/Cole Williams (musician) (2nd nomination)

Cole Williams (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Deleted in 2021 and recreated. Sources are local New Orleans outlets, his own website and YouTube. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Kqol • talk 23:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and Louisiana. Kqol • talk 23:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Baxter Kruger

Baxter Kruger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Citations are the subject's own ministry site, affiliated theology organisations and blogs. Kqol • talk 23:10, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Religion, Christianity, and United States of America. Kqol • talk 23:10, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Scotland and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Tango (software company)

Tango (software company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The sources are unreliable and do not provide SIGCOV. The company is a young startup with fundraising history that does not establish notability under WP:NCORP. Never-ending string (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Software-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The nomination says that the sources are unreliable and mainly about funding. However, WP:CORPDEPTH says that a headline about a routine event does not prove that the rest of the source lacks substantial coverage. A funding-focused headline therefore does not automatically disqualify a source if the article discusses the company or product in detail.

The dot.LA article does more than report the funding round. It explains why Tango was created, its early development and pilot customers, how the software works, and how it compares with similar tools.

The SiliconANGLE article also contains substantial coverage of the software. It describes the platform, its intended use, and how it differs from robotic process automation. It also includes comments from an independent industry analyst. That is why the article is more than a routine funding announcement.

The G2 comparison gives Tango substantial coverage as one of five platforms. It explains how the software works, its main features, and limitations involving customization and pricing. This is substantial product coverage (WP:PRODUCTREV), not a simple directory listing.

The TechCrunch article, the funding, award, and company-authored sources are supporting sources. However, the dot.LA, SiliconANGLE, and G2 articles provide enough substantial secondary coverage to meet WP:NCORP.

If I have misunderstood any of these sources or the guidelines, I welcome corrections. Thanks. 56bonet56 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete: The funding round pieces are obvious churnalism based on this press release and interviews with the founders; most other sources in the article are similar. The G2 piece is borderline in terms of significant coverage since it is one entry in a list, and that is still just a single source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think either SiliconANGLE or dot.LA is obvious churnalism. I agree that SiliconANGLE is borderline because a substantial part of its opening follows the press release. dot.LA, on the other hand, goes much further and should not be treated as a rewritten funding announcement or churnalism.

I can now see that the SiliconANGLE article is borderline, as I mentioned earlier. However, it contains material not included in the release: discussion of Gong and RPA and comments from an independent industry analyst. That's why it is more than a pure press-release rewrite.

The dot.LA article is different. It covers Tango's earlier "Twitch for work" concept, pilot customers, comparisons with Camtasia and Bit.ai, product limitations, development history, and future direction, none of which are included in the press release. Some information comes from the founders, but the article contains reporter-supplied context and comparisons beyond Tango's PR material.

Under WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, the fact that an article was prompted by a funding announcement does not make the entire source trivial or dependent. Discounting SiliconANGLE as borderline may be reasonable, but saying that dot.LA is "obvious churnalism" does not match the content of the article. 56bonet56 (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you using LLMs to write these comments? Maybe 2-3 sentences in each article are "reporter-supplied context and comparisons beyond Tango's PR material". That is not in-depth independent coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm spending like 45 minutes writing each of the responses in the discussion, so no, AI is not writing them for me. But since English is not my first language, I'm obviously using it to polish the responses so that it's useful in the discussion and so I can correctly express my stance.

Regarding the "2-3 sentences" being "reporter-supplied context and comparisons beyond Tango's PR material", I agree if we are talking about SiliconANGLE. However, the dot.LA article contains around 7–8 sentences (roughly 20% of the article) that is "reporter-supplied context and comparisons beyond Tango's PR material".

I don't want to get stuck on counting it word by word, but the point is that the dot.LA article still seems to me to be in-depth, independent coverage. 56bonet56 (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I can assure you that the LLM is not making your points stronger. I can also assure you that counting individual words and sentences in an article is not helping things either.

The SiliconAngle and dot.LA sources are notices of funding rounds. Even if the article has other things besides the sentence "this company raised X dollars", we generally tend not to count these sources towards notability because they lack analytical depth. That is, sources that count towards notability are generally "accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization" according to WP: CORPTRIV. These articles appear to draw heavily from quotations or projections from the company themselves.

The G2 comparison comes from a marketing firm -- I have serious questions as to the reliability and the independence of the source. Undisclosed advertising is very common, unfortunately. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I can understand why you don't see the company as notable under those guidelines. I just want to ask you for advice then (HyperAccelerated, Helpful Raccoon). Do you think it would be possible to remake the article solely about the software (then it wouldn't need to pass NCORP rules, I assume, and many software articles are on Wikipedia with little to no sources)?

I'm asking because the software is really what interests me, while the company itself isn't really what I'm interested in. I was writing about the company because I thought it should be done this way and to add some background to the software. Additionally, I think it could be genuinely interesting as a Wikipedia article, though probably briefer than the current version. Thanks for response! 56bonet56 (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Software articles still need to meet WP:GNG. As for the software articles with little to no sources, they should either be deleted or should have better sources added. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

+1 HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Does not meet WP: GNG. Can't find sufficient sourcing from a WP: BEFORE to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ~2026-53159-97 (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Crazy Mountain

Crazy Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence this non-alcoholic beer brand meets WP:NCORP. The sole independent source in the article is a Parade magazine piece that itself is a fluffy ripoff from a WP:PAGESIX (marginally reliable) article announcing the new brand. The coverage I found in my WP:BEFORE search is beverage industry WP:TRADES publications and the burst of press-release-driven publicity around its launch, which was not WP:SUSTAINED. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United States of America. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep or Merge: The stub might have been too soon, and maybe there's an argument that it is still WP:TOOSOON. I've added an in depth Inc. Magazine staff writer piece to the stub which also covers 15m in fundraising (). This should help with notability as this goes beyond routine financial announcements and provides the independent, analytical business journalism required by WP:NCORP.

If the community feels it still isn't notable enough/too soon and doesn't have enough sustained coverage despite the brand's financial/celebrity backing, i think it at least be highly relevant biographical detail. In that case, I would fully support a Merge of this section into a "Business ventures" section of the George Clooney main article, rather than outright deletion. Nickdyville (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Coverage of funding rounds is classic WP:CORPTRIV. I could support a merge as suggested, though. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep a couple of other sources including USA Today, Beverage Daily, Food and Beverage Mag, and Westword Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Beverage Daily and Food and Beverage are, as noted in the nom, WP:TRADES publications that do not contribute to corporate notability. The USA Today piece is part of the burst of PR-driven coverage of the launch that wasn't sustained. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I've also tracked down The Lexington Herald-Leader, People (though from about the same time as USA Today), LA Times (but that one's about the funding), VinePair (which is apparently split into two halves, a VP Pro that's a trade mag and VinePair main which is consumer-facing? i'm not the clearest. this one's from the main one), Parade, Fox News (which is an iffy source, though), Business Traveller, and the Jamaica Star, of all places?. I do think that that's enough, even if it's a little clustered - there's some critical analysis and seeming sustained coverage, even on top of the funding and the launch. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

N Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jishara: Thanks for taking the time to look at more sources. I'll be honest I'm on the fence here, outside of the USA piece, @Dclemens1971 assessment is right here. Those specific publications do fall heavily into WP:TRADES and the initial PR launch window, which makes keeping this as a standalone page difficult under strict WP:NCORP guidelines.

That being said, while I agree that standard funding announcements fall under WP:CORPTRIV if you look closely at the Inc. magazine piece, the seed funding is just the news hook, the bulk of the article is independent analysis of the company's unconventional distribution strategy (specifically bypassing traditional retail etc etc). So either the USA piece + Inc piece make it notable enough to Keep. Or we could Draftify this piece to see if more information comes out and Merge the headline information of its launch into George Clooney Nickdyville (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Total Boomer Luxury Communism

Total Boomer Luxury Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An article that appears to be largely AI-generated contra WP:NOLLM. It includes numerous WP:AISIGNS (examples: a term which refers to, has been critiqued when not a single critic is cited, has faced backlash from critics when only one critic is cited). While I suspect one could write a neutral, verifiable article on this essay by Russell Greene, this article is far from that. The sources do not support the claims they are used for:

• The term TBLC is a parody of Fully Automated Luxury Communism (FALC), a concept popularized by writer Aaron Bastani. The source does not mention TBLC (and indeed predates it by six years) and doesn't say that Bastani popularized FALC, just that he authored the book by that name.
• Social Security benefits now often exceed the income per year for a single individual and for a household. Completely unsupported by the source, an op-ed by George Will that per WP:RSOPINION should be attributed and not used for factual claims.
• Furthermore, the "means-testing" for Medicaid long-term care has been criticized for its generous asset exemptions. This is sourced, oddly via the Free Press, to the essay where the term was coined (not independent), and the essay doesn't say that this means-testing is criticized; it is an opinion essay that directly criticizes the means-testing.
• Retired millionaires, in the United States, are the largest recipient of welfare.This claim is attributed to an op-ed that in turn attributes the claim to Greene's essay, creating a citation loop.
• Further, many states allow seniors to deduct property taxes, contributing to the increase in asset values, while downward pressure on younger families due to increased housing prices. Attributed to a WP:FORBESCON opinion blog that does not mention anything about property taxes or property tax deductions.

This is just the result of a spot-check. Several claims are completely unsourced. Given the likelihood of LLM involvement and the absolute failure of WP:V in this article, I believe that WP:TNT is the best path forward. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Suspected AI-generated articles, and United States of America. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete No coverage of the phrase itself outside of Greene. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOLLM and just plain WP:N, since few if any independent sources could be found. If every half-baked term introduced in a highbrow thinkpiece got an article, we would be KnowYourMeme. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Avi Yashchin

Avi Yashchin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Business, and United States of America. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of New York-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete - Sources on article don't seem to be enough for significant coverage, some are unreliable/not independent. Not finding significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources from a Google search either. Timd21 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment – I am Avi Yashchin, the subject of this article, and I disclose that conflict of interest. I have not edited the article and have not paid anyone to edit it or to comment here. For editors' convenience, the independent sources I am aware of with significant coverage of me:
  1. Kira Bindrim, "Ex-Lehman execs set up their own shops", Crain's New York Business, 2 September 2009 (archived; original paywalled here).
  2. Jane Porter, "How to Make the Move From Big-Business Employee to Small-Business Owner", Entrepreneur, 27 February 2012; republished by NBC News.
  3. Christina DesMarais, "Will Clean Tech Be Bigger Than Web 2.0?", Inc., March 2012 (section "Reducing Dependence on Foreign Oil").

  Additional independent coverage that is less in-depth or mainly about my companies, listed for completeness:

  • "Avi Yashchin 2012", New York Real Estate Journal, 23 April 2012.
  • Kelly Pickerel, "CleanEdison, Veterans Green Jobs Join Forces to Put Veterans to Work", Solar Builder, 15 January 2013.
  • "College of Staten Island Partners with CleanEdison", CSI Today, 15 October 2012.
  • Ben Thompson, "Could US jobs report affect presidential race?", BBC News (video, filmed at CleanEdison), 2 November 2012.
  • Vibha Chitkara, "Emerging Tech: AI Vendor Race: Startups to Watch in Synthetic Population and Behavioral Simulation", Gartner, 14 April 2026, ID G00838481 (names Subconscious AI).
  • Zach Cohen and Seema Amble, "Faster, Smarter, Cheaper: AI Is Reinventing Market Research", Andreessen Horowitz, 3 June 2025 (market map includes Subconscious.ai).
  • Elliott Robinson, Andrew Ren and Caty Rea, "The ghost in the machine: Simulation and the future of AI-powered determination", Bessemer Venture Partners (market map includes Subconscious).

  I leave the assessment to editors. If consensus is that this falls short of WP:BASIC, I would ask that the article be draftified rather than deleted. ~2026-52099-05 (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Dzee Textiles

Dzee Textiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, only sources consist of puff pieces, trademark registrations, listicles, and a FDOS corporate registration document. Jdcomix (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, United States of America, and Florida. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete WP:ADMASQ, spam. Look at the creator's edit history. They did disclose COI (did not say nature of COI) in draft submission which was declined. They just created it on their own anyways after that. Disclosing COI does not give permission to spam. The article is non-notable and fails NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: the draft was rejected at AfC for a reason, fails WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO but the paid editor (declared) created it in mainspace anyway. S0091 (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable company, can't find reliable independent secondary sources. Timd21 (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – the sourcing is a state business registry, two USPTO trademark filings and syndicated press-release sites, which fails WP:NCORP. Kukuryza (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Argyle, West Virginia

Argyle, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPLACE and has NO WP:SIGCOV Bryce M (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, United States of America, and West Virginia. Bryce M (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - for lack of significant coverage. I did my own search as required, and found nothing. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• leaning keep This appears to mark the location of the Argyle Coal Co., of which I found the following listing and this bit of company news. Looking at the aerials and topos, it sure looks like a company town, but the address given in the listing is in Yolyn, the next town to the east. Also, the label doesn't appear until relatively late. So there was something of a settlement here, but whether or not it was called Argyle or was just considered a neighborhood of Yolyn I cannot say. Mangoe (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Topographical maps show about 18 structures at Argyle, and most of these appear to be houses (one might be a business), not including the dozen clustered around Yolyn Church (or Chapel) just to the southwest. In fact, the 1996 map doesn't label Yolyn as a community, though it apparently is one. The 1963 map shows roughly the same situation and labels (though I'm looking at the 1989 revision, which might have adjusted the labels). I cited these on the Logan County page, only to have both the citations and entry deleted shortly afterward on the grounds that the maps don't show that it's "unincorporated". That seems facetious to me; all settlements that aren't clearly incorporated must be unincorporated.

But because we're dealing with West Virginia, we have a news desert and a resource desert. Nobody has written about most of these small communities, or at least hardly anything published about them in reliable sources is on the internet. I bet if someone went down there they'd find the place, maybe even with a sign saying "Argyle (Unincorporated)" along the road. But Google Maps doesn't have a street view for that route. And would a photograph of the sign, if there is one, be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia? I imagine Argyle has been mentioned many times in the Logan Banner, but hardly any of that paper is online and searchable; and I doubt many stories will say, "Argyle is an unincorporated community on Rum Creek".

Looking at Google Maps, Argyle is clearly labeled (Yolyn is not), and I can see at least a dozen houses at Argyle, together with other structures that could be more houses or outbuildings, and several more immediately to the southwest, where Yolyn must be. But again, is this a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes? I can't see any reason to doubt that the community exists, has existed for over fifty years, is widely acknowledged even if unincorporated and hardly anything about it is on the internet. Documenting it is very hard, but here I think the usual expectations of documentation should yield to common sense: we know it's there, we know it's a populated place, we can presume it's unincorporated. Minimal or poor documentation such as maps should still be enough. P Aculeius (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Gilliam, West Virginia

Gilliam, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPLACE and has NO WP:SIGCOV Bryce M (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, United States of America, and West Virginia. Bryce M (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• keep A extinct company town which shows up in topos and aerials up into the 1970s at least. I found this material for starters including pictures of the hardscrabble town. Mangoe (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The 1924 map shows over fifty houses at Gilliam, and the 1976 map shows around thirty. There's also a Gilliam Bottom Road nearby at Rolfe, with a sign visible on Google Street Views. I cited the maps, and checked for a post office, finding one from 1892 to 1971 (when the reference ends), and provided a citation for that. There are some things at Gilliam now (at least some are businesses), but no sign along the highway indicating that it's there (though it's labeled on the current USGS map and Google Maps). P Aculeius (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: I've also added a bit more. Gilliam was photographed by Russell Lee, a well known photographer of the 1930s-40s, providing a unique amount of documentation of a West Virginia coal company town, also one with a majority Black working population.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Makes NPLACE. Khalitate (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Mount Vernon District

Mount Vernon District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I believe that this is the only article on a magisterial district in Virginia, as they are generally not seen as notable. Sources are minimal and of poor quality, further highlighting non-notability. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 05:29, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I just checked in my sandbox, and that is the only one linked. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 05:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Virginia. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete We don't typically have articles for county-level electoral districts, I don't see notability here. Reywas92^Talk 15:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Labs Companies

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Labs Companies
• Articles for deletion/Labs Companies (2nd nomination)

Labs Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Although obviously not aided by the company's highly generic name, I can't find significant coverage. Jahaza (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Artificial intelligence, Software, United States of America, and California. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete; I likewise can't find anything that suggests the company meets NCORP. Meadowlark (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete; Google search show no any reliable source that talk about the company. Beside that, all the references are are just profile and blog post which they will never establish notability. Another thing I'm wondering is that, how is this article survive nearly one month without moving to draft because it has no single reliable source. ~2026-52109-50 (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom grapesurgeon (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this is the first legitimate nomination, as the nominal first nomination just yesterday, suffice it to say, wasn't (it was tagged by a TA, and the subsequent nomination page was started by a sockfarm seeking to keep the article). No direct opinion…but I'd be surprised if this is kept. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – CB Insights, PrivCo and Dealroom are funding databases, the remaining items are a funding-round brief and the company's own site, so WP:NCORP is not met. Kukuryza (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete Borders on spam. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't make NCORP. Khalitate (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Act of Congress (music group)

Act of Congress (music group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't pass WP:NBAND or WP:GNG; only one source meets WP:42, while the rest are trivial mentions, concert announcements, or based on interviews. This includes sources offered by a band member on the talk page. CCM Magazine publishes articles for payment and doesn't appear to publicly disclose which are paid articles. Meadowlark (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, United States of America, and Alabama. Meadowlark (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Any evidence about CCM Magazine ? It's listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It appears I got CCM confused with another source (LTTM), and I was wrong about that statement. I've struck it, with apologies. Thanks for pointing that out! Meadowlark (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Kleininger Teran

Kleininger Teran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested draft returned to mainspace based on number of sources, some of which have just been repeated. Many are MLB stats. He's mentioned, especially in context of Yadi without significant coverage. Star Mississippi 18:09, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, Venezuela, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 18:09, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment The user who wrote the article has left Wikipedia, fyi. ~2026-52069-91 (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

While I have empathy for the user, and the retirement apparently is not directly related to this AfD, the AfD is nothing personal and will be judged on the article's merits. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

That’s fine, I’m just letting you know they won’t be able to defend themselves ~2026-52069-91 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of St. Louis Cardinals coaches#Bullpen catchers. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Oppose redirect as search results here will give a much better overview of him: . Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment - full NYT profile is really, really helpful, but I don't see anything else from my scan. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Besides The Athletic profile, there isn't any WP:SIGCOV from what I can tell. Let'srun (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Spanish and Portuguese Jews in the United States

Spanish and Portuguese Jews in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is largely a piece of original research, probably not passing WP:GNG as a topic, which identifies two congregations in northeastern USA as being "Spanish and Portuguese Jews" or "Western Sephardim". It is not clear what this is based on, as the sources do not identify a special kind of Western Sephardic Jews different from other Sephardim. Our page on Sephardic Jews does identify Western Sephardim as being conversos who remained in Portugal and practiced crypto-Judaism, then some of them travelled to Holland where they reconverted or began to practice their religion openly (depending on your perspective). They then arrived in Brazil, from where some people eventually reached British colonial possessions in North America.

The sources on this page do not discuss all stages of this journey, or identify this particular group of Jews as having been and remaining a consistent group. I feel this article would be better served as part of an article on Sephardic Jews in the United States, which is currently a redirect to American Jews.

Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Judaism, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Suggest KEEP. Article provides further insight to this subgroup of Sephardic Jews in US. Might benefir not from deletion, but title change. 1969camaro12121966 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I would have no problem with a move to Sephardic Jews in the United States and a refocussing around that slightly broader topic. The current article is not very informative, but that would likely be of use.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Move as suggested. This needs copy editing, but the Guild won't even start until after this AfD closes. Bearian (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Sephardic Jews in the US is definitely a notable topic, so rescoping is better than deletion. There is at least this paper that is about Western Sephardism specifically, so maybe it is notable even under the current scope, but I do not oppose the title change. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Desi Bartlett

Desi Bartlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The majority of this article is unsourced and reads promotional. The few sources that are used include one dead link, a bio on a web design site, and then a few where her name is mentioned. None of the sources really meet WP:SIGCOV. She may have worked with famous people, however, that does not equal notability for a stand-alone article at this time. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Health and fitness. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Hawaii. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

ATI HPSS

ATI HPSS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened through Proposed article mergers (PAM). Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical PAM process. I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Acoustic Technology Incorporated § Merge proposal at ATI HPSS

 – FaviFake (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Merge into Acoustic Technology Incorporated

Hello. Due to this article being recently created and the HPSS article being absolute trash, they should be moved here as the HPSS article should not be on its own. Robloxguest3 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Gene Pike Middle School

Gene Pike Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Only trivial coverage. Vgbypw (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United States of America, and Texas. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 16:12, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Northwest Independent School District: per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. — GhostRiver 21:07, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Aaron Massey

Aaron Massey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The sources identified are mainly interviews, profiles in the poker press, and databases that document Aaron Massey’s career but do not provide sufficient independent and substantial secondary coverage. Although I have tried to improve the article, at this time it still does not demonstrate the level of encyclopedic notability required. Epicday (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Epicday (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 10:23, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: the sourcing is just not there, no WP:SIGCOV. Marquardtika (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

In Our Garden (film)

In Our Garden (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting because the film appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. Previously redirected to the director, but recreated DonaldD23 talk to me 03:00, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:00, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Giuseppe Andrews#As director (with the history preserved under the redirect), the film's director, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: These are the only sources I can find:
  1. "NY Underground Film Festival". Chelsea News. 2015-02-16. NewsBank 1772BBB69F8F0E48.

     The article notes: "Giuseppe Andrews' "In Our Garden," an overlong (87 minutes) but fascinating video in which two residents of a Ventura, CA, trailer park reenact the director's crude, vulgar, strangely touching romance script. Beware: it starts with a man fishing in a toilet, hoping to catch "the brown-eyed grouper.""

  2. Prigge, Matt (2003-06-18). "Repertory". Philadelphia Weekly. NewsBank 1586FD3017D4E420.

     The article notes: "Trailer Town (2002) (Shown on video): Features at the Five, one of filmmaker Andrew Repasky McElhinney's 50 or so side projects, makes its annual return to showcase the world of literal independent cinema. Cheapies, often from locals but expanding all the way to Florida, are the bread and butter here, and some of them aren't pretty. Like this one, in fact. Director Giuseppe Andrews popped up at last year's round with In Our Garden, a film I was entirely unprepared for. It was the first film I've seen about and starring drunken and/or drugged up trailer folk, spouting casual obscenities and falling in love. Now he's back with the same shtick, and consider me a convert. Now used to his style (and considering exploitation's not wholly feasible when some of the same "actors" return for more), I'd say he's a kind of neo-John Waters. Wed., June 18, 7pm."

  The sources do not provide enough coverage to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment:@Cunard: Andrew Repasky McElhinney is a entirely different filmmaker than Giuseppe Andrews. Are you sure the quote is right (I can't access it)? What is Features at the Five and didn't Trailer Town release in 2003? DareshMohan (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  • @DareshMohan, I quoted this text verbatim from the NewsBank archive. The paragraph discusses two different films: Trailer Town and In Our Garden. I included the full paragraph to give context to what popped up at last year's round refers to. I think it refers to Features at the Five, one of filmmaker Andrew Repasky McElhinney's 50 or so side projects from earlier in the paragraph. The source lists this information under "Features at Five": "$5. 21+ Five Spot, 5 S. Bank St. 215.574.0649. www.armcinema25.com". There is information about Features at Five here and here. I think it's the name of a program Andrew Repasky McElhinney created to show films at The Five Spot, a nightclub in Philadelphia that was destroyed by a fire in 2007. Cunard (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Cameron Brown - Gribbly (game director)

Cameron Brown (game director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Minimal sigcov outside of that inherited from his games. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:00, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean, makes sense. This page has looked pretty same-y looking at the edit history, and the only notable changes that were done were additions/edits to interviews he's done, and also minor edits to the introductory paragraph. He's not even a "big guy" either in terms of what he's done, so that's probably why this page looks so basic. It's also pretty hard to find any other notable information about him considering the fact that he's never gone in depth into things like his biography and whatnot. MrrfyW (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep - sigcov can be inherited through WP:NCREATIVE, and I see that he's directed multiple notable games (The Saboteur, The Dame Was Loaded, and Radical Rex, among others). Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

4th Street Theater

4th Street Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent SIGCOV, doesn't meet NORG. BEFORE search shows some more of the same type of coverage in the Post-Tribune and NW Indiana Times, mostly local previews, occasional notice of auditions, fundraiser, or that they scored a grant. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Organizations, and Indiana. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep 4th Street Theater is an established cultural institution in Northwest Indiana, has had regular seasons of plays for 35 years, and has been recognized by the State of Indiana as a cultural asset with funding from the National Endowment for the Arts obtained through the Indiana Arts Commission. These and other statements in the article are supported by the following references independent of the theater’s own website and postings:

Ref. 3 – VisitIndiana.in.gov website

Ref. 7 – Indiana Arts Commission website

Ref. 8 – Duneland Chamber of Commerce website

Refs. 13, 19, 20 – Chicago Tribune/Post Tribune articles

Refs. 14, 15, 18, 23 – PanoramaNow online magazine articles

Ref. 17 – Northwest Indiana Times article

Ref. 24 – Indiana Dunes website

The 4th Street Theater also received many awards from the North Coast Cultural Association (NCCA), but this association stopped giving the awards and discontinued its website listing previously given awards. Thus, the list of previous awards cannot be accessed and used as a reference in this article and is based on the theater website.

Based on this 4th Street Theater established its WP:NOTABLE footprint. Aamdr (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The notability guidelines for organizations requires coverage of the company itself in independent, reliable sources, which is not met by the Times and Post-Tribune coverage. —BrechtBro (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Could you please explain why Times and Chicago Tribune/Post Tribune are not independent and not reliable. They are not associated in any way with the 4th Street Theater. Aamdr (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The problem with most of these sources is that they are just printing material given to them by the company, so they are still WP:SPS's. Regarding the sources that are independent, they also need to have "substantial coverage", which is to say not merely a brief mention that the company is doing x or y show. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The Times and Post-Tribune are independent and reliable, but the coverage is of routine announcements such as a preview of an upcoming show, and in depth coverage of the company itself is required to establish notability. —BrechtBro (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:NCORP at least a half-dozen qualifying articles from cursory search (search Google for site:chicagotribune.com "4th Street Theater") Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  If one of those articles contains SIGCOV, please share it, otherwise I don't believe there's anything there that I didn't see in my BEFORE, which included searches of chicagotribune.com and nwitimes.com and address in the rationale (chicagotibune.com hosts the Post-Tribune). Even if one of those articles has something, WP:AUD isn't met by the Post-Tribune and a second source is needed per WP:MULTSOURCES. —BrechtBro (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  I will link later on, but a review of an organization’s work is explicitly approved for NCORP. The AUD link says that at least one regional/national source, contrasted with a local source, is needed. A Gannett paper for NW Indiana and/or Chicago fits that bill. MULTSOURCES says “almost” always need multiple, but I’ll look. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  a review of an organization’s work is explicitly approved for NCORP. no, it's not, significant coverage of the company itself is required. A handful of show previews in a local paper and some additional trivial coverage does not suggest notability. —BrechtBro (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'd recommend checking out WP:PRODUCTREV. The Trib is definitively a regional paper, rather than a town paper/special interest org and the reviews are not Zagat-style, nor is there a reason to doubt their general independence/reliability. Non Trib source: (there are prob more, but this one meets at least one standard of WP:100WORDS). Trib sources, all profiles or substantial reviews , , , . Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  The cited newspaper articles are descriptions of the shows written by the journalists and not merely announcements by the theater. And the articles are on important subjects, for example the play about the Holocaust, or about discussion on “what is art?” And these newspapers are important media that definitely meet criteria of notability, as evidenced by having their own Wikipedia pages. Post Tribune is owned and operated by the Chicago Tribune, one of the most prestigious newspapers in the US. The Times of Northwest Indiana is the second-largest newspaper in Indiana, according to its Wikipedia page. These are reliable, independent, and notable sources. Aamdr (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  PRODUCTREV is about covering the products, not the org. All of these, except for #3, are routine promotional coverage of upcoming shows and have no or only trivial coverage of the org. #3 does have some coverage, but lacks proper AUD. The Post-Tribune - which is what this coverage is from - is a local NW Indiana paper and does not have a regional audence per AUD ("e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state") —BrechtBro (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but this is a wildly strict reading of NCORP. A review of a play at a given theater is equivalent to a review of a meal at a given restaurant, which is what PRODUCTREV is about. Saying that it's meant to demonstrate notability of the play Parade (et al) is like saying a restaurant review only demonstrates the notability of market salmon.

  "e.g." means one example, not the only or definitive example. It would be frankly a tad silly for it to argue that only the largest daily newspaper in a state could qualify as having a "regional audience". Post-Trib is not a town paper, it is a regional paper for the NW Indiana region, which is currently published by a paper in a neighboring state. I think that that is clearly regional by any reasonable meaning of the term. But I don't think you're likely to be convinced here, so I'll leave it be for other respondents. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  Notability guidance is clear and consistent that coverage needs to be directly about the subject except in very limited circumstances. I have a more generous reading of NORG than many with regards to theaters that have extensive coverage of their work, as you know from other AfDs, but this one is miles from meeting the NORG bar even when you look at the cumulative coverage -- these aren't even reviews. —BrechtBro (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Keep — Overriding deletion is warranted here per WP:GNG and WP:ORGIND. I disagree with the nominator's restrictive reading of WP:NCORP. Attempting to entirely uncouple a theater organization from the specific theatrical seasons, historical coverage, and curated productions it brings to a community is an artificial distinction. Per WP:PRODUCTREV, robust coverage and deep editorial reviews of an organization's primary cultural output are inherently valid indicators of that organization's broader community impact and notability. A theater is not merely a corporate shell; its notable existence is directly proven through the substantive coverage of its decades-long creative output.

Furthermore, dismissing The Post-Tribune and The Times of Northwest Indiana as having no "regional audience" per WP:AUD is fundamentally incorrect. WP:AUD uses "the biggest daily newspaper in any US state" as an example of a regional/national source, not a restrictive ceiling. The Post-Tribune serves a multi-county metropolitan footprint across Northwest Indiana and is published by the major metropolitan Chicago Tribune. To label a major regional daily—one that has its own established Wikipedia page demonstrating independent institutional footprint—as a trivial "town paper" does a disservice to the community standard. These are notable articles written by reporters and published in notable newspapers, which makes the subject of the articles—4th Street Theater—notable. When combined with the theater's 35-year longevity, state-level backing from the Indiana Arts Commission, and persistent secondary press tracking moves 4th Street Theater past a routine "local business" and into a notable regional cultural institution—the threshold for a sustainable, encyclopedic footprint is clearly crossed. BalaPal (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I read the article and the discussion comments. The article is well written and the crux of the discussion seems to be whether 4th Street Theater is sufficiently notable to warrant Wikipedia article page.

I agree with the two posted comments arguing to keep the article and with the following main points supporting sufficient notability: 1. 4th Street Theater is an established cultural institution in Northwest Indiana, the region with the second largest population in the state. 2. The theater has been recognized by the state, the county, and the Indiana Arts Commission as a major cultural asset and awarded grants. 3. It has sufficient coverage by two independent newspapers – Post Tribune owned and operated by the prestigious Chicago Tribune and The Times of Northwest Indiana, the second largest newspaper in the state. I do not agree with one reviewer, who argues that these newspapers are insignificant and not notable, and that the coverage is just show announcements. They are both regional newspapers reaching the second largest population in the state, their notability is further supported by each newspaper being the subject of its own Wikipedia page, and the articles are written by their staff writers reviewing and commenting on the theater’s productions. I support keeping the article. BalaPal (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Welcoming perspectives from our AfD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I am sympathetic to the idea that reviews would help with notability here, but what is linked above are previews, not reviews as nom explained. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Parker Sedgwick

Parker Sedgwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It seems that almost all the sources included in this article is a passing mention. ReelCosmix (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. ReelCosmix (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. I could not find enough significant coverage in independent sources. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shocksingularity (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Space Capital

Space Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't find independent SIGCOV; what's currently in the article is the usual gamut of WP:CORPTRIV and interviews. Page was also created and maintained for years by an SPA with no activity outside this article, so I suspect UPE. Athanelar (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and United States of America. Athanelar (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of New York-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The available sources do not appear to provide the independent significant coverage required by WP:GNG. The article's maintainer also previously created a sandbox naming Chad Anderson as one of the "key people", which may lend some weight to the UPE concern raised above. Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete, though this article probably could've simply been draftified instead. guninvalid (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Disclosing up front that I work at Space Capital, so I won't cast a vote here. I did want to flag some sources that go past the interviews and report write-ups the nomination points to. A few authors have written about the firm itself at some length:

• Weinzierl, Matthew C.; Haddaji, Alissa. "Space Angels, Multiple Equilibria, and Financing the Space Economy." Harvard Business School Case 719-070 (2019). A 17-page case study of the firm. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=55897
• Weinzierl, Matthew; Rosseau, Brendan. Space to Grow: Unlocking the Final Economic Frontier. Harvard Business Review Press, 2025. ISBN 978-1-64782-716-8. Pages 128–130 are a section titled "Angels and Capitalists" that covers the firm's founding, leadership, its rebrand, its two funds, and portfolio.
• Takeshita, S. 「スタートアップ投資のフロンティアとなりつつある宇宙関連ビジネス」. Nomura Capital Markets Quarterly, Summer 2020, pp. 69–88 (Nomura Institute of Capital Markets Research). Pages 80–81 are a case study of the firm comparing its two funds. https://www.nicmr.com/nicmr/report/repo/2020/2020sum07.pdf (It's in Japanese, which is fine per WP:NONENG.)
• Pyle, Rod. Space 2.0. BenBella Books, 2019. ISBN 978-1-944648-45-9. Pages 155–158 cover the firm's history and model.

There's also a Venture Capital Journal profile (Temkin, 11 July 2019), though it sits behind a paywall.

I'll be upfront that two of these share an author (Weinzierl), so even if you count those as one, that's still three separate authors writing about the firm in depth. I'm not the right person to judge whether that clears WP:NCORP, so I'll leave that call to you all. I'd also be happy to see the older, weaker citations in the article trimmed down. And if the read is that it still falls short, I'd much rather see it moved to draft than deleted. Thanks for taking the time to look. Brendan.Guin (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@Brendan.Guin Out of curiosity, how did you find that Japanese-language source, given that you presumably aren't proficient in Japanese? (correct me if I'm wrong, of course.) Athanelar (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

We have a copy of that issue at the office, which is where I pulled it from. Since it's in Japanese, I had the relevant pages (80–81) translated to check the content: it's a dedicated case-study section on the firm, comparing the two funds (the Angel Fund and Space Capital) in a table, with fund structure, size, investor types, and portfolio counts. So it's substantive coverage of the company, not a passing data mention. The two books (Space to Grow and Space 2.0) I reviewed directly from copies we have on hand as well. Happy to share translated passages if that would help. Brendan.Guin (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. No prejudice against examining the mentioned sources, though. Athanelar (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Comment - I think there are at least two sources here that are substantially stronger than the interviews and routine corporate coverage mentioned in the nomination.

The strongest is the 17-page Harvard Business School case Space Angels, Multiple Equilibria, and Financing the Space Economy. It is specifically about the organization and discusses its development, investment model, strategy and role in financing the commercial space sector. That goes well beyond WP:CORPTRIV.

There is also a 2020 paper from the Nomura Institute of Capital Markets Research with a dedicated section using Space Angels/Space Capital as a case study of VC investment in the space industry. It compares the Angels Fund and Space Capital, discusses their structure and investment approach, and places the firm within the broader transition from angel investing to mainstream VC in the sector. That is independent analytical coverage rather than a funding announcement or interview.

The naming history should not really change this: Via Satellite documents the 2020 brand realignment under which Space Capital became the main brand and Space Angels became a sub-brand. I agree that quite a few of the article's current references are weak for NCORP and should be removed or replaced, but that is an article-quality problem. The HBS case and Nomura analysis give me enough independent, substantial secondary coverage to meet NCORP/SIRS.~2026-51506-97 (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the sources provided?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Star Jasper

Star Jasper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet WP:NACTOR LincolnMagnus (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, and Television. LincolnMagnus (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of New York-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to True Love (1989 film). To establish notability she'd have to have multiple notable roles, but overall it doesn't seem like any of her roles were actually noteworthy. Most of her TV and film appearances are non-named or super minor roles. She did have a bit of a bigger role in Brooklyn South (5 out of 20 roles before cancellation), but there's no coverage for her. She is listed higher up in the cast listing for reviews of the 1989 film True Love, but neither she nor her character are mentioned in the body of any of the reviews I'm finding. It looks like that's her most major film role, so I think a redirect there could suffice but unfortunately none of them are major enough to help her pass NACTOR. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• No opinion on notability, but oppose redirect as those looking for this person would be better served by the search results page, listing all her credits and not just one. Especially as the proposed target would provide no biographical information but just her name listed in the cast. --Cavarrone 20:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm fine with this just getting deleted with no redirect if that's the consensus, but my concern would be that this may encourage someone to recreate the article. At first glance the amount of hits might make someone believe that she passes NACTOR despite there being a distinct lack of coverage. It's not super uncommon for people to create articles and then assume that someone else will come along to provide the necessary sourcing. The likelihood of that happening is probably slim since she never quite made it, but it does happen. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  In that case, the first thing a good-faith editor wanting to recreate the page per NACTOR would see is User:xxx deleted page Star Jasper (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Jasper), and would likely review this very discussion before proceeding. At the very worst the recreated page would be deleted and likely salted, which would not be such a major drama. I don't really see a WP:RPURPOSE to retain such a redirect, "preventing recreation of the page" certainly is not, especially as a redirect do not really prevent it. ≠Cavarrone 12:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Bearian pinging to request input LincolnMagnus (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Her roles do not seem like starring ones, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

ClayFighter

ClayFighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of sigcov as a series. ClayFighter (video game) should be moved to this page. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Visual arts, and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom, the "sequels" section of the original game's article can still suffice for this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:02, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• It would be surprising if a series published by a major publisher on all the major consoles had no significant coverage. This is before the shovelware era, console releases from a big company were virtually always notable. ApLundell (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2026 (UTC)~~
• Oh, I see. I misunderstood. I thought this was the article for the first game in the series. Might as well merge the first game to this list article. ApLundell (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Probably should have ClayFighter (video game) redirect to ClayFighter. This article as a "series" is basically just in-universe material for a minor fighter series from the 90s that does not have significant coverage as a series. Any material of it as a series is just information on its sequels which can be easily fit a legacy section of the first game. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - Cool Boarders was kept as a set index article, see its AfD. Isn't this a similar article? --Mika1h (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Verisk Analytics

Verisk Analytics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This WP:LISTED company had nothing left in the article once I'd removed the massive wall of acquisitions in the "History" section. I've looked for other sources out of a genuine belief that there must be some, but I haven't managed to find any; so rather than leaving this up as a WP:MUSTBESOURCES situation, consider this AfD a cry for help to see if anybody can find any sources to back up the presumption under LISTED, otherwise it would seem this needs to be deleted. Athanelar (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Athanelar (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - I haven't found any more RS either and one of the WSJ refs is a 404. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep since nominator was in an edit war. Catfurball (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  That's not a valid rationale. Athanelar (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Athanelar (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep.

I am affiliated with the company and therefore have a conflict of interest. I would like to note that I identified several independent reliable sources that appear to provide significant coverage of the subject and may be useful in evaluating notability.

The current article may have sourcing and development deficiencies following removal of acquisition-related content, though they have since been readded. However, the availability of multiple independent secondary sources suggests that this is an article-development issue rather than a notability issue.

The subject has been covered by national business media and insurance industry publications over an extended period, including coverage of its history, IPO, business model, industry role, strategic evolution, leadership changes, and financial performance. These sources appear sufficient to support consideration under WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.

Examples include:

• Verisk Scores Standout IPO (Wall Street Journal, 2009), discusses Verisk's IPO, which was the largest U.S. IPO of the year. [wsj.com]
• Year's Biggest IPOs Make Debuts (Wall Street Journal, 2009) covers Verisk's first day of trading and performance following its IPO, highlighting the company's prominence among the year's largest public offerings and providing additional independent national business media coverage of the company. [wsj.com]
• Verisk sees $1.7 billion IPO, to price October 6 (Reuters, 2009), discusses the company's business, ownership structure, financial performance, and planned public offering. [marketscreener.com]
• ISO Parent Verisk Analytics Raises $1.88 Billion in IPO (Insurance Journal, 2009), discusses Verisk's role in the insurance industry and IPO. [insurancejournal.com]
• Successful IPO by Insurance Firm Verisk Analytics Stirs Hopes for More (Reuters, 2009), provides independent analysis of the company and investor interest following the IPO. [insurancejournal.com]
• The Remaking of Verisk as an Insurance-Focused Firm (Again) Is Underway (Insurance Journal, 2022), provides independent analysis of Verisk's strategic evolution, leadership transition, divestitures, and renewed focus on its core insurance business. The article discusses the company's historical development, business strategy, and position within the insurance industry, demonstrating substantial company-focused coverage beyond routine financial reporting. [insurancejournal.com]
• Verisk downplays AI disruption fears as quarterly profit beats estimates (Reuters, 2026), discusses the company's history, market position, proprietary data assets, and role within the insurance industry. [reuters.com]
• Verisk beats first-quarter estimates on strong demand for its analytics (Reuters, 2026), discusses the company's operations, products, and insurance analytics business. [reuters.com]

Additional independent sources:

• Sarat Sethi is buying Verisk Analytics (CNBC, 2026), provides independent coverage of Verisk's history, business model, industry role, customer base, proprietary data assets, and position within the insurance market. The article notes that Verisk traces its roots to 1971 and discusses the company's analytics, underwriting, claims, fraud detection, and risk assessment businesses. [cnbc.com]
• Verisk Analytics Company Profile (Forbes, 2026), provides an independent overview of Verisk's operations, history, leadership, headquarters, and analytics businesses, including underwriting, claims, catastrophe, weather risk, and fraud-detection services. [forbes.com]

Given the existence of substantial independent coverage spanning more than fifteen years, improvement through incorporation of those sources would appear to be a more appropriate remedy than deletion. AliHerbert410 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Athanelar (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Keep - I agree that the current article has a problem: most of the history is basically a list of acquisitions, and those are routine corporate events that do not establish WP: NCORP by themselves. But I think the source search shows that the company itself clearly has stronger coverage.

WP:LISTED specifically notes that public listing does not automatically establish notability, but also points to independent press coverage and analyst reports as the type of sourcing that normally establishes it. There is a detailed Morningstar analyst report on Verisk that discusses the company's history, business model, proprietary data, position in the insurance industry, barriers to entry and competitive advantages. That seems like very solid SIRS coverage rather than a routine company announcement.

There is also a 2026 Reuters article which, despite being prompted by quarterly results, goes well beyond the earnings numbers. It discusses Verisk's proprietary-data model, its history, regulatory role, the possible threat from AI, how deeply its products are integrated into insurance workflows, and independent analysts' assessment of the business. WP:CORPDEPTH specifically says that a headline focused on a routine event does not prevent the rest of an article from providing substantial coverage.

There are additional Morningstar company reports going back many years, and Bloomberg Businessweek has also covered the company's business model. So I think the article needs substantial cleanup and probably a much shorter acquisitions section, but the underlying problem is not lack of notability. The independent analyst and press coverage is there.~2026-51506-97 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I found this Forrester Research, which counts toward NCORP, but nothing more. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  The first collapsed comment links to 10 other sources, including articles in The Wall Street Journal and from the Reuters news agency that are primarily about the company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and improve with these sources, which are available in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library:
  • Verisk Analytics, Inc (Report). MarketLine Company Profile. 2026-08-19. 72 pages/13,460 words.
  • Verisk Analytics, Inc. SWOT Analysis (Report). 2026-08-19. 7 pages.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep TWL indeed contains many SWOT analyses of this company. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as the sources available demonstrate that the company is independently notable based on in-depth coverage in the reliable and verifiable sources listed in the article and as found in basic research. Looking at the article as it existed when I had created the article almost 17 years ago, it was notable then and it's notable now. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Emani 22

Emani 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A stub page about a deceased musician that lacks WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:REFERENCE, which makes it vulnerable for an AFD. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 17:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, United States of America, and California. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. There's lots of news coverage of her death in a car crash, much of which describes her as a potentially notable musician. However I'm having trouble finding much sigcov prior to her death, or about her music. pburka (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  A lot of her music had 100s of thousands of listeners. Even if she is less famous now, she still has a lot of coverage with songs of emani's interlude as a feature, and has amased arge social platforms wth 100s of thousands of followers. ~2026-51183-42 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Can you provide some examples of coverage of her songs in reliable sources? pburka (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, as she received numerous obituaries written by notable news agencies. She received notable obituaries from the news agencies People, TheWrapand Billboard. Her article provides biographical information about her, and as well about her career, and I also found a VoyageLA article from 2018. I also see that her article focuses more on her life and career in text. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to A Love Letter to You 3 as an WP:ATD. I cannot find anything substantial except obits. The VoyageLA article linked above is an interview. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NMUSIC - Fire Starter, a song which she was a featured artist on, charted on Billboard Bubbling Under. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to A Love Letter to You 3 - unbalanced ratio of words and citations. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 11:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think having an "unbalanced ratio of words and citations" is an actual explanation for why you're voting for a redirect. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep She received so much coverage after her death for a reason. A redirect to A Love Letter to You 3 would not make sense as she had her own body of work, as the write up in Respect (magazine) shows: . Thriley (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

2026 Minor League Cricket season

2026 Minor League Cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting because, not enough WP:SIGCOV on independent reliable sources other than the WP:ROUTINE coverage, fails WP:GNG for standalone season articles... Vestrian24Bio 16:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and United States of America. Vestrian24Bio 16:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete: cause this article already in Draft:2026 Minor League Cricket season, so keep in draft until ready articles.

  Sagarsq (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Olivia Dodd

Olivia Dodd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tenuous refs, not much else. Mostly WP:PRIMARY. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 19:14, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, and Poetry. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep I'd hardly call People, ABC, and LondonWorld articles (not interviews, articles) primary or tenuous. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since May. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: England and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

They are a story of her sitting working in typewriter and then getting interviewed. There is no other coverage. It the same coverage in the other two refs, which is affliate news. That is not coverage and it fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 06:17, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Its WP:BIO1E. scope_creep^Talk 06:22, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I haven't checked for sources but there is a review of her work, no? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Reading Beans: If you can find something it would be ideal. That is the whole point of having multiple folk having a look at it. A single review isn't sufficent WP:THREE reviews would be good. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

There is definitely at least three events - her appearance at Edinburgh Fringe (LondonWorld and the Scottish Field reviews), her helping a guy propose with her poetry (People), and her general job as a typewriting poet (which I still wouldn't consider 1 event, as it's not an event so much as her job, and which is ABC). People is early December 2024, ABC is end of December 2024, LondonWorld is July 2025, and Scottish Field is August 2025 (but on the same event as LondonWorld). Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Most of the coverage seems to stem from particular appearances or events. I'm not sure there's enough independent coverage of Dodd herself here to establish notability. Ramonwe (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  I would agree with this. Colepetbun (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet of Dingdongd1887, see investigation. EaglesFan37 (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - I think there's enough for WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not quite sure there's enough keep !votes for a definite consensus as of yet, especially given that Bearian didn't elaborate much.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 21:03, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Voting Rights Lab

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Voting Rights Lab
• Articles for deletion/Voting Rights Lab (2nd nomination)

Voting Rights Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Same exact issues with the article as the last time. Over a quarter of the references were used in the last version of the article. The article doesn't qualify for WP:G4 because it's not substantially identical to the deleted version. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:38, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:38, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep - all the sources cited are reliable, notable, secondary sources (16 unique sources, most of which are rated perennially generally reliable, all of which are independent of the subject of the article). The previous discussion claimed they were primary sources which was not correct. Superb Owl (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Which of them have significant coverage? They're all brief mentions of this nonprofit or quotes from people who work for them. That doesn't establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:14, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

One instance is the coverage of album that was created with lots of notable artists to raise money for the organization (that album was the focus of the stories by NME (here) and Variety (here). That was not mentioned in the last version which only had 5 sources. Superb Owl (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

None of those sources cover the organization in depth. All those sources prove is that the album might be notable (which I also doubt since none of those sources actually review the album). voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Fair points and I see where you're coming from. This group is definitely missing key details that a full profile would provide and I get the instinct to enforce those notability rules strictly and would not complain if that is where this discussion ends up.

My only additional thoughts around why we might want to keep it include this organization being cited by lots of WP:RSP as a reliable source of information (WP:USEBYOTHERS) indicating that it may be a reliable source itself. Given the importance of sources of information to building Wikipedia, I would hope that Wikipedia airs on the side of inclusion in cases of organizations that are sources of information (even if it's not an organization Wikipedia would cite directly, but indirectly through secondary sources). Superb Owl (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or relied upon by others is not relevant to its notability. This is a political nonprofit whose employees get quoted for their opinion in newspapers from time to time; that does not make the organization notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

This article in Politico covering the ad campaign the organization ran (posted by another participant in the last discussion but was just added to the article today) is another example where the organization is a primary focus of the article Superb Owl (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this establishes notability either. A short story on a political nonprofit running advertisements does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH; it's trivial election cycle coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it qualifies for ORGDEPTH; Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.. It is not a brief mention or a routine announcement, but an entire article devoted to the subject. Katzrockso (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

A story about a political ad buy is about as routine as you can get. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:49, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree. Katzrockso (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

It's analogous to the types of routine stories listed in WP:ORGTRIV. I see no difference between this story and a story about a company receiving a round of VC funding. It's clear to me that this story is basically just a laundered press release. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The accusation that Politico, a highly respected news organization, is laundering press releases for promotional purposes is hysterical. Please provide evidence for this contentious claim. Katzrockso (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I also don't think the story is brief in the sense used in ORGTRIV nor analogous to the examples there. Katzrockso (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. I used to write press releases and do press work for a previous employer. Reporters routinely rely on press releases to publish short stories like this when they find it newsworthy. I have my personal feelings about that, but for the purposes of this discussion, that's neither here nor there. Based on my experience, industry practice, and my common sense, I think that the quote from the VRL COO is clearly a press release quote and the information contained in the article was likely sent to various reporters, with Politico apparently being the only outlet to pick the story up. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Even if the Politico article meets ORGDEPTH, a single article isn't enough to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 06:46, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

comment - adding a link to a sandboxed version of the article in case it gets deleted: User:Superb Owl/sandbox/Voting Rights Lab Superb Owl (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:20, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep Maybe someone could info me on the previous version and why it was deleted. But I have to agree with Katzrockso here as I really don't see a problem. Burden of proof is the on the nominator and any supporters. AadamentAardvark (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The former discussion is linked above. It's not my burden to prove a negative. Only a single source has been pointed to as establishing notability of the org during this AfD. What sources do you believe establish notability? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep As I think this represents a case where we're grasping at straws to show why an organization that's clearly received widespread reference in major publications is unqualifiable because there aren't enough sources that name the topic in every other sentence or discuss it in extraneous detail.

See:

CSGinger14 (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

That is not significant coverage of the organization. It is using their data for analysis. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:16, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Bradmoor Island

Bradmoor Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another island in the Sacramento River delta with nothing significant notability wise about this island. Fails WP:NGEO like the 2 other Islands I nominated for deletion: I am also nominating the following articles for deletion for the same reason:

Deadman Island (Solano County) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bacon Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Goat Island (Solano County) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Snag Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:16, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Suisun Bay or List of islands of California#Suisun Bay as appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 22:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: The last article in the bundle had a typo in the {{la}} syntax that broke it; this has been repaired. (No opinion on the articles.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Some years ago I created a number of stubs about islands; all of them pass WP:GEONATURAL as named natural features (islands) and all pass WP:GNG with multiple pieces of additional sourcing that meets WP:SIGCOV. All were made after being specifically evaluated as viable candidates for expansion to B-class or GA. Okay, that is the WP:UPPERCASE; onto the articles themselves. These island stubs, in basically every case, have strong potential for expansion. For example: Island No. 2 (currently a GA) started as this; Fox Island (also a GA) looked like this. The same (including GA passes) is true of Fordson Island (original version), Spud Island ( original version) and about a dozen others. Perhaps most relevantly, the current FA Powder House Island also began as a stub virtually identical to the ones here nominated. These are not mass-created database stubs; they are individual articles created after a specific evaluation of sourcing. Moreover, they were created some years ago, and Web searches have gotten considerably better in the intervening time, so I would estimate that they are now even easier to expand than they were at the time of their creation. Note that a rather large number of island articles I created have been nominated at the same time, to which the same considerations apply, so I will raise the same issues at each (would recommend a bundled nomination in the future to avoid this issue). jp×g🗯️ 17:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  Currently expanding Montezuma Island, from the other nomination. Looking at the dates, I see that I only noticed these nominations quite deep into the week; I therefore humbly request a relist of the AfDs so that I may work on them further. jp×g🗯️ 17:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep as with Hog Island (Petaluma River) per the reasoning offered by JPxG. Clears WP:GEONATURAL as a named geographic feature.

CSGinger14 (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are 4 additional island article nominated here, which participants did not address?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete all with no prejudice against re-creating once significant coverage is found. JPxG is an accomplished editor whom I respect, but their rationale is wrong. WP:GEONATURAL states plainly Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist (emphasis added). What county an island belongs to and whether it's in a conservation district are all derived from coordinates, which is a statistic (and being part of a legal jurisdiction is inherently un-notable, otherwise every speck of dry earth outside Antarctica would deserve an article). This means we need WP:SIGCOV, and we have none in any of the articles:
• Bradmoor Island: Cited to the unreliable GNIS, a AAA road map, and 3 state and county conservation documents, two of which are 404's and one of which (Ref. 4) is a restoration project notice stating "The project is located on Bradmoor Island in the northeast corner of Suisun Marsh, Solano County, CA." That's our significant coverage.
• Deadman Island: Sourced to GNIS, a 1902 USGS topographic map, a 404, and a 1974 news column which says (referring to the boundaries of a land use restriction area) "In the Cordelia area, it picks up the Southern Pacific tracks...crossing north of Deadman's Island to Shiloh Road but circling around the southern edge of the Portrero Hills." This is the only mention of the island.
• Bacon Island: This one has more sources but most are unreliable or trivial: 1) GNIS (natch); 2) a 1913 article describing a real estate inspection whose sole mention is "Bacon Island, 6000 acres" as an entry on a list; 3) a map, which is a 404; 4) a document that never mentions the island at all; 5) a 1913 USGS topo map; 6) a 1954 USGS topo map; and 7) a Metropolitan Water District webpage whose coverage is "Metropolitan-owned lands in the Delta – Webb Tract, Bacon Island, Bouldin Island and Holland Tract – enable us to explore cooperative approaches to improve the declining ecosystem and promote water reliability."
• Goat Island: Sourced to GNIS, a Solano County document that is a 404, and a 1974 news article whose sole mention is "activities including (several things)...and disposal of dredge material on Goat Island could be permitted, however."
• Snag Island: Sources are 1) GNIS; 2) a AAA map; 3) an editorial column about fishing whose information (I kid you not) is "We then headed to the tip of Snag Island to fish - this area was usually good for a striper or sturgeon."; 4) a newspaper column whose entire contents are "After their 14-foot fiberglass boat capsized, George Carroll of Concord and Paul Doolittle of Pittsburg swam to Snag Island, north of the Concord Naval Weapons Station."; 5) a legal notice of a survey; and 6) an article about an oil spill in the area that never mentions Snag Island at all.

At the very best these sources could be used to verify a statement of fact, but they are the definition of trivial mentions, nowhere near enough coverage to establish notability. I don't doubt that better sources might be found, but it is not our responsibility to keep articles that might be improved. It is the creator's job to determine notability first, based on significant coverage, and write the article around the sources. Sorry for the very long reply. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep - we actually know a significant amount more about Bradmoor than just statistics and coordinates, and the bar is not sigcov for named natural features - it's whether we know more than statistics and coordinates - we know native species, water management bringing back a marsh and that it has one of the largest upland hill habitats in the area. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Bradmoor Island, which I have destubbed, per WP:GEONATURAL. Sure, there's not a lot out there on it, and perhaps it is not that interesting, but I've done harder destubs than that (if you want some true un-destubbable geography articles to delete, I recommend taking a look at Category:Antarctica geography stubs). Have not taken a look at the rest yet, will come back once here once I have. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 16:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

2023 U-12 Baseball World Cup Americas Qualifier

2023 U-12 Baseball World Cup Americas Qualifier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All cited sources are non-independent. Couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Tagged for notability by Fram. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Mexico, and United States of America. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable sports for elementary school children. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep: I've already add some independent reliable sources. It's pan american championships and qualified event, one of the most important WBSC Continental event. We should be keep it. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts about the post nomination sources added by Stevencocoboy....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn’t meet WP:NSPORTS criteria. MerlinsCodex (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@MerlinsCodex: Can you give me some example? Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Yup. Here are the policies : WP:GNG. Although WP:NSPORTS already allows some exceptions on notability, this tournament does not give notability to every event. Baseball is not a global sport, and this is a regional event, and a qualifier at that. WP:BLP also has serious policy considerations regarding the documentation of minors on an on-line resource. Finally Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory service : WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The information is already available on https://www.wbscamericas.org/, no need to duplicate here, I found it on the first google search. MerlinsCodex (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I believe that it's enough for notability. We're difficult give notability to every event but it doesn't mean we can't have a page in here. Also Baseball are a part of olympic games event, it's a global sport and this is pan american championships and qualified event, one of the most important WBSC Continental event. We should be keep in here. Although we can found all results in website, but we can still have a page because the other sport event results have already available in website, but we can have a page in here. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

U12 is not notable just because baseball is notable. Geschichte (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense, many sport event at junior or youth level have independent pages. The baseball is a global sport event and a part of olympic games at senior level and a part of world cup at age group level. It's not notable. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

U12 events are trivial and never notable. Rather, it is embarrassing that Wikipedia currently has some U12 articles. Geschichte (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

That's why I've already add some independent reliable sources. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shocksingularity (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Baseball being a global sport doesn't mean an U12 tournament is notable. Nor does " many sport event at junior or youth level have independent pages. " that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  It's not regular national season games in professional and college leagues, it's an international event to qualified world cup, one of the major WBSC Continental event and we should keep it. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Al Menne

Al Menne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP with no secondary. No indication of significance. Refs are routine annoucements and interviews. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:34, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Freak Accident was reviewed at length by Paste and again by Post-Trash, and Them ran a substantial feature on Menne in April 2025 about his first year after coming out and the touring around it. Those are secondary sources written about him, not the announcement items the nomination describes. The article itself is weak,but that is a matter of someone spending 20 minutes on it.Saltshaker96 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Them is a interview for the band, not him. Freak Accident is an album. It may be notable but its not him. If you have WP:THREE WP:SECONDARY sources to prove the man is notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:01, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Dratify. I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV, but Saltshaker96 or other users are free to work on a draft using secondary sources they can find. The Them feature is a interview that doesn't help establish WP:SIGCOV. Lovelano (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC) Lovelano (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep - the Them feature, even when striking the entire interview part, has a very lengthy intro that provides SIGCOV. We've also got Paste Magazine's full profile and some sources on his own independent solo career Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Looks like you included the wrong Paste Magazine link, the correct link is . Andise1 (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, I honestly have no idea how that happened. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Looks like Paste Magazine is a website that changes the URL address shown in your browser as you infinitely scroll through their articles, the idea being that the current URL bar will take you back to whatever you're currently looking at. This almost never works well, though, and websites should stop doing it; you probably scrolled too far down in the article. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

References

I can't see his name mentioned in the first reference. The second is a routine annoucemnent of a single release, its not in-depth nor significant coverage, the third one looks like an interview typical of the non-coverage already in the article and the fouth is an album review, meaning the album is notable. He's not. It is a WP:BLP and it needs real WP:SECONDARY references to prove he has standalone notabilty independent from the band. Its worth noting for the 14,000,000th time that interviews don't count toward notability. They are WP:SPS sources. scope_creep^Talk 06:55, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet. Let's see if a third relist brings in some additional perspectives.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorted by State

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