Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

General

List of The NBC Mystery Movie episodes

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

Unreferenced, fails WP:GNG, according to GlammySammy (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I Agree to This Deletion. It Clearly fails WP:GNG. GlammySammy (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

American Broadcasting System

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

I propose redirecting to Blue Network#Sale because that was a long standing redirect. This version has one source but is mostly unsourced and doesn't have notability for a stand-alone article. If more sources are found, please ping me. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 08:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related AfD discussions. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 08:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Blue Network#Sale: for context, this was originally a BLAR in 2015 (after nine years of mostly only maintenance edits, though in and of itself that is of little relevance to AfD), that was only recently contested on the grounds that there was no prior discussion and that it talks about the ABC radio network prior to it taking on the "ABC" name (notwithstanding that this is exactly what the Blue Network article does–"American Broadcasting System" was nothing more than the parent company Edward J. Noble created to actually buy the network and does not appear to have been the network name itself at any point). Even at that, it's hard to imagine any potential material/sourcing here that can't already be covered in the Blue Network article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

RED Music

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

I propose merging to The Orchard (company) because the subject has not received coverage which warrants a standalone article, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. MitYehor📘^^talk 23:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, and United States of America. MitYehor📘^^talk 23:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Duy-Loan Le

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

Self-promotional BLP that is non-salvageable per WP:TNT. The lady is not notable, since she did not receive independent coverage from WP:RS. MitYehor📘^^talk 20:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, Engineering, Vietnam, and United States of America. MitYehor📘^^talk 20:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non-notable subject, reads like a resume/spam article. Ping me if significant coverage is found. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 02:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep I have found coverage of her in newspaper articles dating back to 1981, and I have started adding citations into the article. The article itself is a bit disorganized and reads like a CV in parts, so I am still working on tidying it up and retaining information that points to her notability.DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Paul Zimmer (internet personality)

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

Tagged for failing WP:GNG, the accusations about financial exploitation are potentially a WP:BLP issue that needs multiple citations from multiple independent reliable sources. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 15:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 15:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep but remove the sections on financial exploitation - GNG is met through two New Statesman articles and one The Cut article. Exploitation is not well-sourced. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Creator's Choice Awards

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

~~Fails WP:GNG/WP:NEVENT~~

All the sources were the organization's own YouTube and Instagram accounts (which I removed per WP:RSPYT and WP:RSPINSTAGRAM). There is no independent coverage at all. This is a brand-new, self-run awards show. Listing famous films and actors as nominees does not make the award itself notable. Lone Wolf ^howl 10:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Awards, and United States of America. Lone Wolf ^howl 10:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete, though part of the problem is that a much more notable award by a very similar name (Critic's Choice Creator Awards) was just announced so all the news is flooded. - it's theoretically possible this award passes GNG but I just can't find the sourcing.

Also, as for the Youtube and Instagram, they're considered fine for information on the poster (so if it's the org's YouTube and Instagram, it's reliable for them) per WP:SelfSource. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I completely understand. So Critic's Choice Creator Awards is awarding online content, while the Creator's Choice Awards is a voting body of Online Content Creators voting for film & tv awards. I want to disclose I am part of the voting body, so I understand the COI and have made sure to mention this on my user page and the talk page. VAkarsh20 (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. This is an extremely new award that was created by a YouTube content creator. There's no coverage of this in places that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Since the odds are exceptionally high that the article was created by someone involved with the film awards, I want to let them know that this isn't a judgement on the quality of the award or the people running it. Most awards are not going to be notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Shoot, take the Dead Meat Horror Awards as an example. Dead Meat is a notable channel and their Horror Awards have been increasing in notability, but they're not quite notable enough yet to pass notability guidelines. Similarly, there are a lot of awards and film festivals out there that have been running for decades and are quite well known in their cities, but aren't going to pass notability guidelines either. Establishing notability for awards is often fairly difficult, as you have to be able to show where they've received sustained coverage over a long period of time. Major outlets reprinting the award wins can help establish notability, but you'd have to show where the award results are routinely reprinted. This is just way too soon for this to have an article. I do highly recommend that you keep going - most things have inauspicious beginnings and while it may take a long time to get to the level of notability (many things do), it could happen. That time is just not right now. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I completely understand! I definitely understand this is very much a new awards show with no independent news coverage. Notability takes time, and I get that. Thank you very much for the comments, and I think it might be best to move this article to a draft state rather than delete so that more independent sources can be used as resources. VAkarsh20 (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Understood. Thanks for making these edits. I was not aware of those rules for sources and will try to fill with independent resources going forward. VAkarsh20 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify Completely understand the issues regarding this article, as well as my COI being a voting member. I think it might be best to shift this article to a draft state, gather more independent sources, and publish the page once the awards show has gained more notability. VAkarsh20 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Sammy Sergi

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

Non notable player with just primary stats reporting and a single primary news report. Does not meet WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. College soccer is not notable. He had a 2 season professional career, but no indication of anything notable there either, and these were not top clubs. If notable, then all professional footballers must be notable! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Football-related AfD discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

The Wings Store

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Appears notable neither as an online marketplace nor as a gaming / eSports brand; the sources do not contain the requisite significant, independent coverage. The only source with nontrivial coverage, Info Argentum, is blatantly promotional. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Argentina, Venezuela, and United States of America. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as failing NCORP, and also failing WP:NOLLM. This is basically a lightly-paraphrased copy of the incontrovertibly LLM-generated Wings Store by the same user, that was speedily deleted under G15 (draftified as Draft:Wings Store by the user as a response to the G15). See the similarities in the AbuseLog/44748026 filter log entry.
For the AI concerns, see also the WP:AIN § User:Soldatipro noticeboard discussion and User talk:Soldatipro § July 2026. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete - run of the mill restaurant that is an AI copy paste. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

This is not a restaurant. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. AI-generated content. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. The subject fails the WP:NCORP guidelines. Brodska213 (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Ai is suspected by this account. S0091 (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Felipe Vasquez (businessman)

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:V The sources I found are paid press releases and database listings. The article also contains several inconsistent claims. For example, the subject is said to have attended multiple schools at the same time, extraordinarily rapid wealth, serve as "Mayor" of Hell, Michigan....Likely fabricated or promotional. Lone Wolf ^howl 09:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, United States of America, and Texas. Lone Wolf ^howl 09:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This is a very strange article without much relevant or reputable sourcing at all. It does seem to be the case that the company had acquired Hell, but they seem to have sold it more recently; otherwise, it's very difficult to pin down good sourcing for anything in the page, which doesn't seem to pass GNG anyway. PA Uploader (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Speedy delete based off of Template:db-promo and possibly Template:db-ban. I'll note that the page creator, Special: Contributions/Sharuiti2, has been banned for gaming autoconfirmed privileges and editing the dormant draft Draft:Simple Modern (company), of which Vasquez is supposedly CEO. guninvalid (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete - for lack of significant coverage about him, rather than the company. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Roger Michalski

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO All the sources I found are primary sources, press releases, and self-submitted speaker bio pages. I could not find any significant independent secondary coverage of the subject. Lone Wolf ^howl 08:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Lone Wolf ^howl 08:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep. I’d like to contest this nomination and respectfully disagree with the assessment that no significant independent coverage exists.

Now I acknowledge that some of the initial sources were company adjacent, however, there is meaningful third-party coverage of Roger Michalski that demonstrates notability:

1. Trade press coverage

Inside Radio, an established broadcasting and media industry trade publication, quoted Michalski directly in an August 2025 news piece covering Salem Media’s business expansion as editorial coverage of an industry development. [https://www.insideradio.com/free/salem-media-pushes-beyond-radio-with-new-investments/article_40836415-bbfb-45b3-b4da-89ef3a276d88.html]

2. Independent interview

In March 2024, Michalski was featured as the subject of a dedicated interview on Liberty Ventures, an entrepreneurship platform hosted by Alexander McCobin, where he discussed his career trajectory and business philosophy, coverage entirely independent of Eagle Financial Publications. [https://www.libertyventures.xyz/content/top-financial-newsletter-editor-shares-the-ins-and-outs-of-the-business-roger-michalski]

3. Multiple SEC-filed press releases over a decade

As VP and Publisher of Eagle Financial Publications, a subsidiary of NASDAQ-listed Salem Media Group, Michalski has been the named spokesperson and quoted executive in multiple official BusinessWire press releases filed between 2015 and 2025, covering acquisitions of DividendInvestor.com, TradersCrux, Intelligence Report, Hilary Kramer’s services, George Gilder’s products, and Jim Fink’s investment services. These are verifiable public record documents. [https://investor.salemmedia.com]

4. Role and significance

Michalski has led Eagle Financial Publications for over 20 years, growing it into one of the largest financial newsletter operations in the U.S. with 230,000+ subscribers under a publicly traded parent company. His role is comparable to other publishing executives who have established Wikipedia articles. I’m actively working to strengthen the article’s sourcing and am open to feedback on how to improve it rather than deletion. Stubbing or a cleanup tag would be more appropriate here than outright deletion given the verifiable public record of this individual’s professional activities.

Greatsokratis (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete - for lack of significant coverage. Interviews and press releases don't count towards notability. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Mary de Young

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

Doesn't come close to meeting WP:NPROF. Very low numbers of publications (only 21) and citations. I found nothing to support her notability, the creator of this page was also asked and provided nothing. V. S. Video (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United States of America. V. S. Video (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. I found and added to the article seven published reviews of three books. I think it's enough for WP:AUTHOR. For a book field, numbers of publications and citations are the wrong criterion; it's books and their reviews that matter. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep I was working on finding book reviews, but David beat me to it. Anyways here are the three I found first.
- The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic (2004)
- The Sexual Victimization of Children (1982)Jahaza (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Withdraw. V. S. Video (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Just confirming: You want to withdraw this nomination as the nominator? SenshiSun (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@V. S. Video: please can you specify if you are withdrawing the nomination? If so, I can speedy close this and remove the deletion tag from the article as every other participant is in favour of keeping. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes. You can close as keep. V. S. Video (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep. Mary de Young meets WP:NACADEMIC. Her work on the Satanic Panic is widely cited her book has over 70 citations (https://scispace.com/papers/the-day-care-ritual-abuse-moral-panic-2ko7g6dgjk?citations_page=10). She received the 2009 Charles Horton Cooley Award for Distinguished Scholarship (https://www.michigansociology.org/charles-horton-cooley-award and was featured on NPR's All Things Considered in 2021 (https://www.npr.org/2021/05/18/997559036/americas-satanic-panic-returns-this-time-through-qanon). This article should be expanded, not deleted.

thank you YosefKT (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep, the book reviews are more than enough for WP:NAUTHOR. I expect a speedy close soon either as withdrawn or SNOW.Ldm1954 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I24 News (American TV channel)

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

Merge to i24 News. Same channel, management, and resources, but different languages. i24 was not founded as an American channel, but the English-language version of the Israeli channel that also broadcasts in French, Arabic, and Hebrew. Our coverage of the channel would be better served by a comprehensive page, with sections for specifics about the different language broadcasts. There already exists a healthy amount of WP:OVERLAP because the article scopes are not clear. See Longhornsg (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Judaism, Israel, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Television-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge The only American hours left on the schedule at this point are opt outs from the master schedule or when their main studio cannot broadcast and they cede to New York for further coverage. Effectively over the last few years those opt-outs are limited to the American morning and prime time schedule, which have become few and far between because of current events in its home country (much of its schedule is from there with live-translation from Hebrew to English), so a merge would be best and the only differentiation left between the two articles (cable slots/NOTTVGUIDE) was long depreciated years ago. Nathannah • 📮 20:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per OVERLAP and as a CFORK. gidonb (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
merge/redirectper nominator, there is already a section about this subject in the suggested i24 News article Happypenguins82 (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

2012 Crittenden tornado

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose draftifying because this article is clearly not ready for mainspace, and I'm not sure why it was ever moved/accepted. At a glance, I am not sure it meets WP:LASTING and the tornado summary and aftermath section, two of the most important things in tornado articles, are incredibly underdeveloped. Several things are also unsourced. With all of this in mind, I say this should definitely be moved to draftspace. Also, I just realized this has been proposed before. I heavily disagree with the outcome, so I'm AFDing it again. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Kentucky. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Support there has been no attempt to tidy the article up, and the tornado also didn’t last very long long either so it may also not have enough summary to warrant an article. It’s better if it remains just a section on the main tornado outbreak page. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify I get the call here. The summary and aftermath are way too thin and much still needs sourcing. Not ready yet. Charlie Zachary Allen Roth (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I am working on improving the article right now. I'm not sure if it qualifies for WP:LASTING; I'll see what I can find. Sobriquetical (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Also, if your successful, maybe we can close this discussion as keep, but as of now, its nowhere near ready. TornadoEF4 (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Support - I once tried to get this AFD'ed before, but it was refused, I highly agree with the fact that this article is nowhere near ready for the mainspace, and im unsure if this tornado even qualifies for WP:LASTING either.

Slight Oppose - My opinions have changed, as the issues have been mostly fixed. TornadoEF4 (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep — I reconfigured the entire article. It should be fine now. I hope draftification is no longer in the discussion. Sobriquetical (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep As the second page editor and expander, keep this page, @Sobriquetical expanded the page more, meaning that this page meets MoS. shane (talk to me if you want!) 22:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep - Much better now then it was just a day or two ago. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep — The article has undergone significant improvements since the start of this nomination and now contains sufficient content and sourcing to support a standalone article. TornadoElliott (Yelp for help?) 17:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Equality Matters

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

Short-lived public relations initiative with WP:ROUTINE coverage by non-independent sources and non-RS. Lacks WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NORG. No need for unncessary fragmentation. Merge into parent org Media Matters for America. Longhornsg (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, LGBTQ+ studies, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge to Media Matters for America. Very little significant coverage (and even then, it is linked to and only notable because of the parent org). aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge: to Media Matters for America. Not enough independent coverage to warrant its own article. Marquardtika (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge and redirect to Media Matters for America as per nomination. Brodska213 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge per above. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

MediaTransparency

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

Lacks the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NORG. Longhornsg (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Andre Relis

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

I propose draftifying because this article is not ready for the mainspace but I believe its subject is potentially notable for their involvement in multiple notable projects as producer per WP:CREATIVE if properly sourced. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, United States of America, and California. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Honor America Days

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

I propose redirecting to United States federal observances#Other because the article currently has one primary source. I found minimal secondary mentions, but I am not convinced that it rises to the level of WP:GNG. If more substantial sources are found, please ping me. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 12:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep, the sourcing affirms that this is an official United States observance, passed by Congress and signed by U.S. president Bill Clinton. Almost every official U.S. national observances has a stand-alone article, nothing broken or unusual here. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect Congress passes a lot of stuff, that doesn't mean they need articles. Rather baffling comparison to other observances when (a) that's not even true, lots of items on that page don't have their own articles and (b) other things with articles actually have substance and significant souces! Why are all of your votes vibes-based or association-based and irrelevant to the GNG? I see local news that Rome, New York, actually has a parade called Honor America Days, but they've been doing that since before this was established; maybe present content and evidence that a standalone page would be justified based on those or others, not mere status of what it is. I can't find any coverage about the legislation when it passed. Reywas92^Talk 14:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: I concede that Randy Kryn is at least somewhat correct, and that we do host multiple pages for entirely imaginary statutory observences (not to say the statutory basis is imaginary, nor that the observence is undeserving, just that any practical effect is imaginary; to name a few we have Loyalty Day, National Aviation Day, and White Cane Safety Day). However, I stand to suggest that this may not be a matter of community consensus and may just be defacto policy. I rise to challenge this paradigm: We've already established that every act of a government doesn't automatically reach notability, (Not every law or act or bill has a Wikipedia Page, nor does every EO, proclamation, Joint Resolution, etc.), therefore, I posit that the standard should be this for ceremonial events: 1) They should have to meet the SIGCOV requirements in full, 2) There should be evidence of routine coverage on a yearly basis, and 3) The average citizen from the country in question should know what the heck the supposed observation is. No matter what, this page fails all of that, and WP:SIGCOV and thereby WP:GNG. Foxtrot620 (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete This is more of a basic proclamation in the same way post offices and events get the same; arguably the term is probably known more for unrelated commercial use (of the annual car sale or retailer type) than as something that ever had government programming and efforts behind it. Nathannah • 📮 23:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

ISBNdb.com

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

This is at AfD, not RfD, since I've already redirectified this subject in subsequent edits. But this topic is not mentioned on the target page and simply isn't notable. You may wish to review Special:Permalink/1366422143 as the last stable revision before I stubbified it. guninvalid (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Alex Bale

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

This person doesn't have the WP:SIGCOV or history of prestigious awards to establish notability. Existing sources are niche film festival sites, primary, or self published. I was unable to locate coverage in sources that would be considered reliable enough to meet criteria for WP:CREATIVE. A high follower count on social media does not mean inherent notability, at least in my understanding. JesseL0vesT0ast (May the toast be with you.) (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, and United States of America. JesseL0vesT0ast (May the toast be with you.) (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since 2023. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

List of U.S. states and territories by population

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

I propose merging to List of states and territories of the United States because of WP:DUP, WP:OVERLAP, WP:SHORTTEXT. This is covered by the main list by a single column, and that page is also more educational, since it has more relevant information. It also falls under the first 2 bullet points of WP:NOPAGE.

Any extra information belongs in Demographics of the United States, not this page which overlaps with both of those articles without adding anything to argue for its preservation. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose This works better as a separate page since the main article does not need to include both estimate and historical census populations or population by house seats and electoral college votes. The Demographics article is already very long and would not be improved by adding this. There is not currently much duplication or overlap. Merging List of U.S. states and territories by population density into this page would make more sense. Reywas92^Talk 15:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I also oppose this merge. This article is huge and should be shortened if anything. Nerfer (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Strong oppose same reason as Reywas92. ~2026-42081-04 (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose as the target article is good enough and the main Demographics of the United States page is long such that a computer with a good performance is required to load the page without issues. haruka amaranth 01:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that the main page is too long, but that's because there is an inappropriate number of graphs and tables for an encyclopedic page, not because there is too much text HerrHeulsuse (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is a perfectly fine standalone article on a complex-enough topic that it should not be merged into an already-busy article. This isn't a US-exclusive thing either; we have Population of Canada by province and territory and List of Chinese provincial-level divisions by population, as examples. Lynch 44 02:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge per nom - it doesn't make sense to have separate pages for every permutation of a list, especially as lists are sortable! Samuelshraga (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Strikeouts for Troops

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

Lack of WP:SIGCOV focusing on its activities to meet WP:NORG. Redirect to Barry Zito, the founding player associated with its coverage. Longhornsg (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Baseball, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. Passes WP:GNG as a standalone topic independent of Zito, based on the coverage already in the article Frank Anchor 01:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge and redirect to Barry Zito per nomination. The organisation does not make GNG or NORG and it can be adequately covered in the Zito article. Khalitate (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

- 3-paragraph blog about Zito and other ballplayers' work with the org
- Fails WP:V
- Chronicles Zito's role launching the org.

Like many other athletes' personal foundations, this can be discussed in a few lines on Zito's page, where it's already covered. The charity itself fails WP:CORPDEPTH and there's unnecessary WP:OVERLAP. Longhornsg (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Redirect to Barry Zito per nomination because the page itself has no sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Kenneth Baer

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Has placed some op-eds, but is a mid-level political appointee and roving spokeman in U.S. politics. Provides cookie cutter quotes to news media on behalf of his clients. Lacks the WP:SIGCOV or impact to establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, England, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: I was doing a search for sources and discovered that were two degrees of separation, which isn't surprising because I was a Democratic committee person for over a decade. Therefore as is my practice I won't "vote" on this matter, and will trust the process. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep Profile seems notable, have few notable news sources too, yet i want more editors to cast theiur vote to make the clarity.Rainfixer (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
This is a passing mention in an op-ed from 20 years ago. The other WaPo source is a photo. The other sources are a marriage announcement and a geneology website. None of these are WP:RS that establish WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete sources are OPEDs and not used for proving notability HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

weak keep More than a few reviews for the "Reinventing Democrats:" book, , , , although the book might be more notable than the author. A redirect to the book perhaps might suffice? Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep - He is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and I think in general as well. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

2027 Women's Baseball World Cup Group A

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

I propose merging to 2027 Women's Baseball World Cup because the topic is covered in the main article and there's no reason for a stand-alone article without a lot of coverage and with mostly repeated information. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related AfD discussions. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I only copied the blueprint from the 2024 Women's Baseball World Cup Group A. So I am not sure what is wrong with this specific page. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong, South Korea, Australia, Mexico, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

15 (software engineer)

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

Redirect to 15.ai. Personal life section is primary sourced fluff, everything else is better covered in the website article. No indication of independent notability. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Comics and animation, Computing, and Internet. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Artificial intelligence, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Redirect to 15.ai. No notability for a standalone article. Skyshiftertalk 12:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep. Passes WP:BASIC; independent notability is met as the subject is a primary focus of both the articles 15.ai and Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal, both of which have plenty of sources that are not currently used in the nominated article. The article is incomplete, but the problems are entirely WP:SURMOUNTABLE. –G M 16:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal is clearly a subtopic of 15.ai, I'm not convinced it needs to be a standalone article (at the very least it needs a hatchet taken to it to pare it down from 80,000 bytes). This is not is convincing case for independent notability. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
What?! That topic is clearly not a subtopic of 15.ai. It easily passes WP:GNG, has WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a long period of time, has multiple sections and paragraphs that don't involve 15.ai at all, and has an entire Legacy section filled with WP:RS talking about how important it was in the general landscape of video games and NFTs. Why in the world would that article be a subtopic of 15.ai as opposed to, say, a subtopic of Troy Baker or a subtopic of NFT controversies? The article itself is GA quality, so I don't know where you're getting this notion at all that the article needs to be rewritten. Proposing that the nominated article and the whole Voiceverse article be merged into 15.ai is seriously baffling and raises the question of whether you actually read all of the article's sources in full (I did). –G M 00:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to 15.ai cause there really isnt much to the article that isnt already discussed at 15.ai, tbh the pseudonymous nature of the individual is going to make quality blp sources extremely difficult and a lot of the sources used i think currently at least border on WP:BLPGOSSIP. i do want to also note an article about this individual was already blanked and redirected once before and i think the reasoning why is still a solid argument for the redirect today Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC) — Ibnqirtaiba is a confirmed sockpuppet of BrocadeRiverPoems, see investigation. reply
Redirect to 15.ai, the subject does not have independent notability as the majority of the sources are about the website and not the individual themselves. MidnightMayhem (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep due to WP:CREATIVE #3, subject created 15.ai which has been primary subject of multiple international independent periodical articles and more. I don't see why independent notability is important that it mandates a redirect, there does not seem to be official policy that require this. We have articles Speechify and Cliff Weitzman, who is notable for nothing outside of Speechify. Arguably Weitzman's article should be a redirect more than 15's because 15.ai's reach was much wider than Speechify. Bronymike2010 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Bronymike2010 see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and WP:NBLP. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Issac I Navarro That's where WP:CREATIVE comes from on the same page, an additional criteria along with the regular notability criteria. Independent notability is moot because subject qualifies CREATIVE #3, warranting an article. Bronymike2010 (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Bronymike2010, and must also pass WP:GNG.

As GM mentions below part of the claim is WP:BLP1E Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Issac I Navarro: No, I'm saying that I disagree with the WP:BLP1E argument. The subject does pass WP:GNG. It's just a matter of improving the article, which I unfortunately cannot because I am blocked due to edit warring. Once the block is over, though, I'll make sure to improve it substantially. –G M 08:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Fully understood. I was pointing out to Bronymike2010, the rationale and policy/guidelines being cited. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Issac I Navarro: No problem. I only wanted to clarify because I saw that you were repeating the same argument above, hoping you'd reconsider. –G M 08:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

What sources are you looking at that illustrate that this is not a case of BLP1E? Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Issac I Navarro: Here's a sample of multiple WP:RS showing coverage occurring at different periods for different reasons:

Feng, Bai (March 15, 2020). "模型参数过亿跑不动？看MIT小哥，少量数据完成高质量文本转语音！" [Struggling with Models with Over 100 Million Parameters? See How an MIT Student Achieved High‑Quality Text‑to‑Speech with Minimal Data!]. QQ News (in Chinese). XinZhiYuan. Archived from the original on February 27, 2025. Retrieved February 22, 2025. (pre-2021 15.ai)
Chandraseta, Rionaldi (January 21, 2021). "Generate Your Favourite Characters' Voice Lines using Machine Learning". Towards Data Science. Archived from the original on January 21, 2021. Retrieved December 18, 2024. (during operation in 2021)
Wright, Steve (January 17, 2022). "Troy Baker-backed NFT company admits to using content without permission". Stevivor. Archived from the original on January 17, 2022. Retrieved October 5, 2025. (Voiceverse scandal)
Abisola, Shojobi (January 3, 2025). "The MIT Project That Paved Way For Modern Voice AI". Independent. Archived from the original on February 27, 2025. Retrieved February 27, 2025. (post-15.ai)
Irpan, Alex (July 21, 2025). "Brony Musicians Seize The Means of Production: My Eyewitness Account to BABSCon 2025". Alex Irpan. Archived from the original on July 30, 2025. Retrieved October 1, 2025. (fandom impact and involvement; the author is a Senior Research Scientist at Google Deepmind with over 26,000 citations on Google Scholar with an h-index of 31(!), so WP:EXPERTSPS applies)

–G M 08:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

WP:EXPERTSPS explicitly does not apply to BLPs: Never use a self-published source as a third-party source about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechify and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Weitzman have been nominated for deletion. Madeleine (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Neutral/Week merge ~~Merge/Redirect~~ per nom and Skyshifter. I am not seeing how this subject would warrant it's own page. That being said, I would prefer a merger over a redirect, as there does appear to be some useful and encyclopedic content. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Issac I Navarro: The above arguments are essentially invoking WP:BLP1E, in that the claim is that the subject is only notable for having created 15.ai. In my opinion, WP:BLP1E is inapplicable here. The subject is covered in connection with both having created and operated 15.ai and separately for a substantial and well-documented role in the Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal that is notable enough to have its own article. BLP1E directly states Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. which isn't true here. –G M 07:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
After reading the sources that GM has pointed out (above), I have striked my redirect. I have a very week stance on a merger due to the bio may pass WP:GNG. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Issac I Navarro: I don't think a merge is appropriate here, as it would then be grounds for WP:SPLITTING again as the 15.ai article should be focused on the website. The Background section is already long as it is and largely focuses on the technology behind what made the website unique. It wouldn't make sense to merge only to include additional information about its creator irrelevant to the website when we could easily fix it by having a separate article per WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPINOFF for this: the main situation where spinoff articles become necessary is when the expansion of a section creates an undue weight problem for the article. –G M 08:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Issac I Navarro: Respectfully disagree that a merge is preferable to a redirect. Note the above blocked confirmed sockpuppet User:Ibnqirtaiba removed over half of the content originally in the article, so its current state cannot reliably be consulted as its basis. With the sources above, there is more than likely content to be added back that would not belong to potential merge targets. WP:MERGE advises against merging where the separate topics can be expanded into standalone articles, and the sourcing presented above establishes that this one can, under both WP:GNG and WP:NCREATOR criterion 3. Madeleine (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per above arguments. Subject meets WP:GNG per above sources, and WP:NCREATOR makes it cut and dried. Merging is not appropriate per GM. At least one editor has expressed intent in improving the article after the AfD ends, so redirecting is less appropriate than keeping. WP:NCREATOR expressly permits coverage of a creator's significant work, rather than requiring every article to be a conventional profile of the creator; particularly important in the case of a pseudonymous creator.

BLP1E applies only when all its conditions are satisfied, beginning with reliable sources covering the person only in connection with one event. The cited coverage above spans the development and operation of 15.ai, the 2022 Voiceverse incident, and retrospective discussion of the project's influence. The sourcing signifies that this is a sustained body of work and its consequences, than a person briefly caught in a singular news event. Madeleine (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep - decidedly not BLP1E - it's a creative process, which is generally not considered 1 event, in the same way that someone known for one book or one song or one company is not a BLP1E - in this case, there's a lot of coverage during and after the project on different stages of it and on the subject's work. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

If 15.ai did not exist- for arguments sake- if we removed all notability inherited from involvement with 15.ai, what does this article look like? Help me understand what encyclopedic content is left if we remove any information about 15.ai? Sesame honey tart 02:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

NCREATOR (and NACTOR, but here NCREATOR)'s whole thing is that this is the way notability can, in fact, be inherited - from notable work to its creator. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

NCREATOR does not give automatic inheritance. At most, it says notability is *likely* if xxx or yyy. So for arguments sake- if we removed all notability inherited from involvement with 15.ai, what does this article look like? Help me understand what encyclopedic content is left if we remove any information about 15.ai? Sesame honey tart 17:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Redirect to 15.ai#History per WP:NOPAGE. I am not seeing anything in the article or the above sources to justify a standalone biography that could expand on information not already in the 15.ai article. The struck !vote above makes a good point that being pseudonymous makes it harder to write a biographical article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Helpful Raccoon: To be fair, that very sockpuppet had removed most of the content that was present on the article and was later proven to have a personal grudge against the subject, so there was some foul play happening with the article and should not be consulted as a reliable basis. As for expanding the article, I find that the sources that discuss the subject's fandom to be sufficient to allow for its own article; additionally, WP:NOTINHERITED expressly mentions WP:NCREATOR as one of the four notability guidelines that do allow for inherited notability. Madeleine (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
bro you are straight up lying bc I removed exactly 200 bytes from the article lmaaaao skyshifter is the one who made the sweeping removals and you are definitely just a gregarious madness sock lol ~2026-43260-11 (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: A WP:HISTMERGE needs to be done with Draft:15 (software engineer). Just a note to @Madeleine961: you should use the WP:MOVE functionality to move pages out of draftspace instead of cut-and-paste moves. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Heather Ankeny

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

subject fails WP:NACTOR, with extremely minimal secondary source coverage that consists only of an IMDB page LincolnMagnus (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. LincolnMagnus (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - poorly sourced; one (unreliable) citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 21:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Granite Mountain Air Station

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

Non-notable airfield stub which fails GNG - precisely two sources, both of which primary and serving no purpose beyond establishing existence - not notability Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, United States of America, and Alaska. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to List of airports in Alaska: no secondary sources beyond database listings. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Tom Cotter (environmentalist)

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

Nothing that shows significant coverage, few passing mentions. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE Accesscrawl (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Environment, United States of America, and California. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

2004 Tashkent suicide bombings

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

I propose merging to List of Islamist terrorist attacks because this page falls under WP:NOPAGE and very likely does not meet WP:NEVENT. There are books that cover this event after it happened, like this one, but this is from the US state department, which was involved in this event, so it is not WP:INDEPENDENT. In terms of WP:NEVENT, coverage does not demonstrate WP:LASTING effects or any casestudies HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Islam, Uzbekistan, Israel, and United States of America. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge to Islamic Jihad Union, the perpetrator. The list is too broad to be a good redirect in lieu of this one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per WP:NEVENT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. There has been substantial coverage over time of this event, as evident from Google Books. The nomination places undue emphasis on a single book, creating a distraction. For a short article, this one does a good job of focusing on the event itself rather than its background or aftermath. gidonb (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Still adding that the target is unsuited as it is far too high level for merging. gidonb (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep - seems to meet CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (quick GScholar search for >2005). Dunno about LASTING (but would err on does meet side given apparent coverage), and dunno about sources' independence (but would err on are independent from quick perusal). - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

2026 Iranian strikes on the Kurdistan Region

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

Merge into 2026 Kurdish–Iranian crisis, the broader political and military conflict that the Iranian strikes on Kurdistan have been a part of, per WP:NOPAGE. Combining the two pages provides a more comprehensive article about the crises, incorporating details of its military dimension as well. Longhornsg (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Iran, Iraq, Israel, France, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose. Per WP:SUMMARY, the 2026 Iranian strikes on the Kurdistan Region is a distinct military campaign that should be covered in detail in its own article, with a summary and main article linkage in the broader 2026 Kurdish–Iranian crisis article. The strikes article contains extensive coverage and sources, and other actors, which would make the crisis article unnecessarily large and less readable if merged. By the same logic, 2026 Iranian strikes on Israel would also have to be merged into the 2026 Iran war article. PawWiki2 (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Dmitry Gorin

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not pass WP:GNG as it does not contain significant coverage from independent reliable sources about the subject. Neither does it pass WP:NBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. The only sources that do not have a passing mention of the subject are not independent or read like a paid-for editorial. This article was most recently nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry G. Gorin and the article had said they were a Los Angeles County District Attorney, however the subject never held that position. Aneirinn (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Russia, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of California-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete - the people who made claims were mistaken: this person does not pass my standards for attorneys. He is not a full-time professor, and he was not the DA. Many thousands of attorneys have been assistant DAs and law clerks at DA's offices, myself included. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Earl Krugel

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

Merge into 2001 Jewish Defense League plot in California. WP:BLP1E. RS cover Krugel only in the context of his involement in the plot. Longhornsg (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Terrorism, Islam, Judaism, United States of America, and California. Longhornsg (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose/keep, there's lots and lots of coverage about him in the context of his involvement the JDL decades before the crime (stretching back to the 1970s). I'd oppose redirecting it to this case, he is not notable for only one event. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Its impossible to tell whether those results are even for the same person just based on a search query. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

They're all about him working with the Jewish Defense League. By this logic we can't determine that there weren't multiple Earl Krugers involved in the same bombing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

This is an index of a search term and are most likely reprints of the same nationally syndicated content related to the case. Provide the actual articles. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

It's the search term indexed in reverse so you can see that there are numerous news articles that discuss him in reference to the Jewish Defense League prior to 2001 bombing happening . This was not even the only bombing he committed . I would not call that BLP1E. He also received equal amounts of significant coverage for being a murder victim; we can't do "BLP1E" if he's received significant coverage for two events, so even discounting the 1970-1990s coverage; it is not true that RS cover him only in relation to the plot. Also, he's not a BLP, so BLP1E does not even apply. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Stil can't view the articles so this doesnt meet WP:V. Longhornsg (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

That's not how WP:V works. WP:OFFLINE sources are allowed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

And if he's redirected to anything, though I still oppose that, it should be Jewish Defense League, not the plot article. He was involved in numerous JDL incidents. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 00:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. He's dead, and the organization has been shut down for 11 years, so new sources are unlikely. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Pentagon rapid response operation

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Short-lived media relations initiative within a government office that existed for only about five months two decades ago. Coverage consists primarily of contemporary reports announcing its creation, with no significant independent secondary coverage documenting lasting impact, historical importance, or broader notability. A brief mention in Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs would adequately cover any relevance, but a standalone article is not warranted based on RS. Longhornsg (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Military, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 00:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs per nom. A media relations unit that existed for roughly five months two decades ago, with coverage confined to its creation, fails WP:SUSTAINED and reads as WP:NOTNEWS. A couple of sentences at the parent article is the appropriate weight. Onatic (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Mavis Tire

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

Plainly it exists and has done so for some time, but notability is neither asserted nor verified by referencing. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NOTTRADEDIRECTORY applies. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, United States of America, and New York. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep. They are a large nationwide US and Canadian business well known. They are even more so now they recently bought Midas_(automotive_service). ContentEditman (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
This page was previously deleted before: https://web.archive.org/web/20231002030252/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mavis_discount_tire. It has now been recreated under a different name.

The article itself reads as highly promotional. It also omits significant information about lawsuits involving the company. For example, the company is discussed in relation to the Schoharie limousine crash, but that is not mentioned in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schoharie_limousine_crash.

Finally, I believe the article is not neutral because it fails to mention notable lawsuits involving the company. More information about these cases can be found here:

https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/mavis-tire-pay-303758-religious-discrimination-and-retaliation

https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/mavis-discount-tire-pay-21-million-settle-eeoc-class-sex-discrimination-lawsuit Ann Willy54 Me (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Then add them and if removed start a talk page about it and ping me. I agree they, and now Midas they bought, have done less than ethical things and should be included. Wikipedia should be neutral, but neutral does not mean white washing someone's history that is notable and also has good references of support. ContentEditman (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

The article lacks sufficient notability. Simply because a company is large or has acquired another company does not mean it automatically qualifies for a Wikipedia article. For example, Driven Brands' tire retail business is even larger, and the company is publicly traded, yet it still does not have a standalone Wikipedia article.

Let experienced editors determine whether this company qualifies for a standalone Wikipedia article. Brodska213 (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep. Considering they just acquired Pep Boys for $700 million, and previously acquired very large chains such as Midas, they have quietly become the largest tire service company in the United States. I agree the article lacks many sources, but that’s not because the subject isn’t notable. ~2026-41131-73 (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC) — ~2026-41131-73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
An acquisition alone does not guarantee that a company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The previous article was deleted because it was determined to be overly promotional and did not satisfy Wikipedia's content policies. It has now been recreated under a different title, but simply renaming or recreating a deleted article does not address the underlying issues that led to its deletion.

You can review the previous deletion discussion here to understand the reasons the article was removed and the concerns raised by editors:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240106084310/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mavis_Discount_Tire Brodska213 (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC) — Brodska213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Odd that an editor with very few edits outside this would actually know anything about notability. You do not have a neutral stake in this, step back. Brokenwit (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I understand your concern, but Wikipedia discussions are based on policies and evidence rather than an editor’s number of edits. The relevant question is whether the article currently demonstrates notability through reliable, independent sources. I’m happy to consider any sources or policy-based arguments that address that question. Brodska213 (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak keep based on what's available and to avoid feeding our critics. This is a well-known company. Bearian (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments grounded in our notability guideline for corporations would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. The subject appears to exist and to have done so for some time. However, existence alone is not sufficient to establish encyclopedic notability. At present, the article does not appear to demonstrate that the subject meets the criteria outlined at WP:NCORP, as it does not cite significant coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. In its current form, the article also has some characteristics of a directory-style entry, which may be relevant to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Additional independent sourcing would be needed to demonstrate the subject’s encyclopedic significance. If reliable, independent sources demonstrating significant coverage are available, they would be welcome for consideration. Brodska213 (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

This and your other comments read like it is at least AI assisted especially given you have only made 35 edits. S0091 (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Oh...actually contributing to the AfD was your first two edits.minutes after you created you created your account. S0091 (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I have made a number of edits across different AfD articles, biographies, and other pages. My initial comments did not specifically state whether I vote to keep or delete the page because I wanted to research the topic more thoroughly first. I only reached a conclusion after nine days of research, which is when I posted my comment Brodska213 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks for the feedback. My account was created recently, which explains my low edit count. Sometimes I write formally to be clear, but I also prefer short inputs. I welcome any style tips you have Brodska213 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. Agree, the article fails NCORP, particularly is it is silent about allegations of ‘unlawful’ and ‘deceptive’ practices and settlements. Whether or not these allegations are valid and should tarnish the firm's reputation, they exist and are possibly ongoing and should be covered. Without more balanced content, the article merely documents the firm's size and acquisitions and, therefore, appears promotional in tone without overtly imparting a positive point of view. BlueAcres (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Locatable Address Conversion System

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT Bryce M (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Travel and tourism, Transportation, and United States of America. Bryce M (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lien, Christopher (2007-05-01). "Becoming LACSLink Tolerant; The USPS wants to reduce the undeliverable mail by five billion pieces over the next three years". Graphic Arts Monthly. Factiva GAM0000020070514e3510000a.
  The article notes: "In August, the USPS starts its tough stance on UAA mail by requiring mailers to make an investment if they want to continue achieving automation discounts. This investment requires the addition of Delivery Point Validation (DPV) software and the LACS (Locatable Address Conversion System) Link tool as a part of CASS certification. ... The LACSLink database contains over 5.5 million address conversions introduced by municipalities. Most of these conversions result when an emergency-response system (such as 911) is implemented and the rural route addresses need to be converted to a street style format. It also contains conversions such as renaming or renumbering of existing city-style addresses, which is an ongoing process. ... By offering LACSLink processing as an additional address-correction service, mailers can help their customers keep data current. The updated address will be needed to make sure the right customer is targeted across multiple lists."
2. Vieira, Verónica M.; Howard, Gregory J.; Gallagher, Lisa G.; Fletcher, Tony (2010). "Geocoding rural addresses in a community contaminated by PFOA: a comparison of methods". Environmental Health. 9. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-9-18. PMC 2867955.
  The article notes: "We converted pre-E911 to post-E911 addresses using two methods: automated ZP4 address-correction software with the U.S. Postal Service LACS database and E911 data provided by Wood County, West Virginia. ... The standard address-correction software package, ZP4, includes a LACS (locatable address conversion system) database from USPS that quickly converts rural routes and pre-E911 street addresses to valid post-E911 street addresses. An additional concern for rural areas is that successful geocoding of these newly converted addresses is limited by the accuracy of street map files and their ability to keep pace with E911 readdressing projects. ... The LACS database in ZP4 converted 13 of the 37 street addresses (35%) and 9 of the 26 rural route boxes (35%). The 9 rural routes converted by ZP4 LACS were also converted by the E911 table, and the resulting post-E911 conversion addresses were the same for both methods. Of the 13 street addresses converted using ZP4 LACS, 10 were converted by the E911 table, again to the same post-E911 conversion address. By running ZP4 LACS after matching to the E911 table, we converted 3 more addresses for a total of 59 converted addresses, and improved the conversion rate from 88% to 92% with a minimal amount of additional effort."
3. "Address Validator Port Reference: Locatable Address Conversion System". Informatica. 2025-09-03. Archived from the original on 2026-07-18. Retrieved 2026-07-18.
  The article notes: "Output port that indicates whether a United States address has been converted from a rural address format to an urban format. The United States Postal Service (USPS) converts rural addresses so that emergency services can find the addresses more easily. The Address Validator transformation compares the address with the Locatable Address Conversion Service (LACS) reference data. LACS data is part of the United States reference data set. If an address is in the LACS database table, the USPS has created a new version of the address in the urban format. ... Select Locatable Address Conversion System to identify a rural address for which the USPS has created an urban version. If you select the Locatable Address Conversion System port, select the Locatable Address Conversion System Link Return Code port."
4. "LACSLink". SAP. Archived from the original on 2026-07-18. Retrieved 2026-07-18.
  The article notes: "LACSLink updates addresses when the physical address doesn't move but the address is changed. LACSLink technology ensures that the data remains private and secure, and at the same time provides licensed users easy access to the data. LACSLink is an integrated part of address processing; it isn't an extra step. You must have the old address data before you can obtain new addresses. LACSLink is a USPS product that is available for U.S. records with the USA Regulatory Address Cleanse transform only. LACSLink processing is required for CASS certification."
5. Hughes, Arthur Middleton (2012) [1994]. Strategic Database Marketing (2 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 73, 76. ISBN 978-0-07-177348-5. Retrieved 2026-07-18 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "LACS (locatable address conversion system) LACS enables companies to update their mailing lists when addresses have been converted by local authorities from rural to city style address."
6. Stone, Bob; Jacobs, Ron (2008). Successful Direct Marketing Methods: Interactive, Database, and Customer-based Marketing for Digital Age. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-07-145829-0. Retrieved 2026-07-18 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Locatable Address Conversion System (LACS) converts rural routes with box numbers and other addresses the USPS considers “nonstandard” into city-style or standard address delivery points. This USPS database currently includes more than 5 million records, covering mostly southern and midwestern regions."
7. Berson, Alex; Dubov, Larry (2011). Master Data Management and Data Governance (2 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 439. ISBN 978-0-07-174458-4. Retrieved 2026-07-18 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "LACS (Locatable Address Conversion System) Provides information about permanent address conversions resulting from renumbering, street or city name changes, and so on. This is a critical piece of information that helps in matching customer records"
8. Baran, Roger J.; Galka, Robert J.; Strunk, Daniel P. (2008). Principles of Customer Relationship Management. Mason, Ohio: Thomson Learning. p. 187. ISBN 978-0-324-32238-5. Retrieved 2026-07-18 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The USPS Locatable Address Conversion System (LACS) corrects address lists electronically for areas that have undergone permanent address conversions. LACS, when used as a back-end process, can ensure a high quality mailing list. The LACS database consists of address conversions that the USPS has obtained and verified, primarily as a result of emergency 911 system implementation."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Locatable Address Conversion System to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Weingarten rights

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

I propose redirecting to NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. because the concept of Weingarten rights is adequately covered on the lawsuit article and in greater detail.

If there were multiple Supreme Court cases about this matter, then perhaps it would make sense to have a separate article covering the concept in general. But since there is just this one, let's just keep it to the main article. Sjedits (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Support per nom. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 13:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge There is content here (or at least how it is presented) that is not in the "NLRB v..." article section "Significance". And the NLRB v. article directs to this as the main article, but that section in the NLRB v. article is actually longer than this one. They need to be brought together and combined to cover the topic, and the logical place for that (IMO) is in the article on the court case. Lamona (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

National Roofing Contractors Association

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Sources identified in last AfD were primary in nature. We need third party sources from outside the roofing industry which this article lacks. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Business, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep This article about the president , this one about a scholarship . They've been offering advice on how to fix your roof in about every Gnewspaper article you pull up, could be seen as experts in the area, that also confirms notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply
An award given to roofers . Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per sources provided by Oaktree squeaking it through. Jishara (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep: as per @Oaktree b. Xcccccccc123 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Note that Xcccccccc123 (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Alabama Council for Technology in Education

AfDs for this article:

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

A promotional article, with no references, and all available online sources are for the the promotion of fairs in different regional campus. Easily this can be a redirect to institutions like Faulkner State College which hosts the biggest regional fairs, but not a standalone article itself. Chiserc (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United States of America, and Alabama. Chiserc (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2009, but that was 17 years ago and standards, especially for organizations, are tighter now. (No opinion on if this meets 2026 standards.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. Unreferenced and promotional, with the only findable material being announcements of regional campus fairs, which does not meet WP:NORG. As WCQuidditch notes, the 2009 keep predates the current standards for organisations. A redirect to a suitable host institution would be an acceptable WP:ATD. Onatic (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Readying The Museum

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

Page does not meet WP:GNG and has major sourcing issues. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete in lieu of ATD which I am unable to identify. I am familiar with this initiative, and while I admire their work it does not appear that they attained notability. Maybe there's a social justice in the arts ATD available? Star Mississippi 02:29, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge to Arizona State University Art Museum ~~Keep~~ - I think it is likely notable per in-depth significant coverage in these three independent reliable sources: New York Amsterdam News ; ArtNews ; The Art Newspaper (it's behind a paywall (subscription required) however I was able to read the full, comprehensive article). If the article does not pass this AFD, then an alternative to deletion (ATD) would be ASU Art Museum, the institution that founded this initiative. A sentence or two could be added to the ASU Art Museum article based on the above sources. Netherzone (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. The strongest would-be source is most likely repackaged WP:PRESSRELEASE material, with much of the content uncritical quotes from the founder and content from the organization's website. Longhornsg (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge selectively to Arizona State University Art Museum. A sentence or two at this target, as Netherzone suggests, would give due weight to that project without the need to establish independent notability. Owen× ☎ 07:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge to Arizona State University Art Museum as a reasonable alternative to deletion. – The Grid (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge per nom I agree that the page should be merged to Arizona State University Art Museum as per WP:ATD. Staticspector (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Sorted by State

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

A page that knows where it met you.

General

Sorted by State