Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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[edit]

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

  • 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.

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  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, 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: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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to United States of America.
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[edit]

Conner Rayburn[edit]

Conner Rayburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No indication this subject meets either WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
(Also, note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conner Rayburn 2nd nom, as well as this nomination, should be moved to correct titling – e.g. (2nd nomination) and (3rd nomination) respectively – I'll let an uninvolved Admin, et al. do that...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

International Confederation of Labor[edit]

International Confederation of Labor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This has twice been turned into a redirect (by User:Czar and User:Elmidae), but then recreated by an anonymous user. It does not contain any independent, reliable sources. I've looked for such sources in attempt to improve the article, but came to the conclusion that there is just one: this article in a Spanish newspaper. That's clearly not enough to establish notability. I'm undecided on whether this should be deleted outright or turned into a redirect (either to International Workers' Association or to syndicalism, as both of those articles briefly describe the ICL). Carabinieri (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

oops
  • Redirect to Contemporary anarchism, where it is covered in greatest depth. For independent notability, I think what I wrote on the talk page three months ago still holds: Echoing what was written a decade ago, I check back on this article every few months and find no reliable, secondary source with which to write an encyclopedia article. If such sources exist, they're inaccessible to me. (The other language Wikipedias don't have comparable sources either.) Even the Time article, which is a bit of a joke, only refers to the specific "Third International Congress of Anarchist Federations", not a persistent "International". In any event, the article appears overblown without secondary sourcing to back it up. czar 04:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Hm, yes indeed. Looks like that redirect (similar title) was undone at the same time this was nominated and I was pinged for both. Thanks czar 23:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to International Workers' Association#IWA today, its most prominent related mention. re: redirect target, as a split from the IWA, I think ICL has a closer relation with that topic than with "syndicalism" as a whole.
As my edit summary went in March, this topic continues to lack significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Right now, secondary source coverage doesn't do more than confirm its existence. Ping me if you find additional offline and non-English sources? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This has been existence for only a year so is probably WP:TOOSOON. However, the participation of the long established and highly notable IWW, as well as other notable organisations, should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. I think the previous attempts at redirecting to the IWA article were not constructive since that article does not cover the membership of the ICL in any detail. There is an element of WP:PRESERVE that comes into this. SpinningSpark 11:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Lucas Rockwood[edit]

Lucas Rockwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails relevant notability guidelines. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article subject seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR; the vast majority of the sources cited by the article are WP:PRIMARY (traceable to the subject's own books, interviews, or companies he has found/is affiliated with), and none are particularly in-depth. A search for more sources turns up noting that would indicate the subject has a claim to encyclopedia significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

John Bixler[edit]

John Bixler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable actor. Has been tagged for no sources since 2007. Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails to meet any notability guidelines. Sasquatch t|c 19:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ronnie Gene Blevins[edit]

Ronnie Gene Blevins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Unclear notability. He has a lot of acting credits from films and television, but none of them are major roles. Not sure if his breadth of work makes him notable. Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Added references to article-- seems to pass GNG as a character actor, though he has few major roles.Gilded Snail (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

David Meltzer (author)[edit]

David Meltzer (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer, whose notability claims are not reliably sourced. As always, neither being CEO of a company nor writing books constitute automatic inclusion freebies for every CEO or every writer -- for either endeavour, the notability test is the depth of reliable source coverage the person has or has not received in media. But the references here are not notability-supporting media coverage: five of the eight are primary sources (self-written contributor or staff profiles on the websites of his own employers, his books metaverifying their own existence in online bookstores, etc.), two of the remaining three are podcasts, and the only one that's actually a genuinely reliable source is just a short blurb in a listicle which quotes him speaking about himself rather than being written about in the third person. None of this is substantive reliable source coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over a notability criterion, but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show any substantive reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thomas D. Everett[edit]

Thomas D. Everett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Notability not established. Not high enough in hierarchy to be automatically notable. Doesn't seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC, although there are other people with the same name. Not much media coverage. Another editor tagged this for speedy deletion as a copyvio, but it isn't, since U.S. federal government publications are in the public domain. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Eastmain (talkcontribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 10:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 10:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being executive director of the US Federal Highway Administration is certainly a role that could get a person into Wikipedia if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing, but it is not such an "inherently" notable role that he would be exempted from having to have any good sources just because he exists. But two of the four references here are primary sources which do not count as support for notability at all — and the other two are brief glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage about him. The inclusion test for people like this is not just the ability to verify that he has been named in newspaper articles once or twice — it is whether he has been the subject of enough coverage to clear GNG, and there's no evidence here that he has. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Freelandia[edit]

Freelandia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Only 1 reliable source. Hardly the requirements to pass WP:NCORP. The previous AFD doesn't offer any strong reason to Keep other than WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a list of low-cost airline travel charter companies to which we could merge/redirect this? If so, do that. If not, delete. bd2412 T 00:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Possibly List of low-cost airlines? Snowycats (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Snowycats, that's just a list of airlines and they all have individual articles. Don't think this is suitable for it. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Tyw7 - Yeah, I felt like it was a stretch. Just putting what is there for reference. Snowycats (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't much on the internet about this company, but a search through newspapers.com turns up a lot of non-trivial coverage about this company in the 1970s, coverage picked up by wire services and printed throughout the country. Therefore, meets WP:GNG. When I get a chance over the next few days I'll add some sources to the article and additional content. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I've added some sources now. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep based on news sources provided by RecycledPixels. While I can't access them, the sources' titles alone suggest that significant coverage is given. Comment: An article of this length could be split into sections for readability purposes. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, WP:ITEXISTS does indeed apply to subjects that have existed at any point in time; specifically, it applies to any subject that is not a hoax, and it is an extremely weak argument. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a rather significant difference between something currently existing, and something previously existing; exempli gratia, si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, not in the eyes of Wikipedia. If it exists or had existed and you argued notability based on that, WP:ITEXISTS applies. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I am Wikipedia. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Create WP:ITEXISTED, and add my offending vote to the page; as this is an examples of this happening. If this website still exists after we're all long dead, don't expect it to be the same as it is today; if it is, then I'll be immortalised!!! :D -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Jared Seide[edit]

Jared Seide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Refs are own web-sites, interviews or mentions. Nothing here from an independent reliable sources. Searches yield the same but nothing better (LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook etc.). Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find good sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see any actual press in the references.. Certainly nothing there to justify a large biography. I found 2 mentions in google news but not great sources. He isnt there yet.. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with nom 9H48F (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I still think this is delete. Here a a set of sources that User:Jaredseide added in a recent edit. When they added them, it broke the Afd formatting, so I am re-adding them:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Political positions of Pat Buchanan[edit]

Political positions of Pat Buchanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Most of the content on this page is primary sourced text and/or bad text sourced to op-eds and non-RS. Any well-sourced noteworthy content can be merged with the Pat Buchanan main article. The main article does not suffer from size constraints. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I definitely agree to only merge important, reliably sourced topics. Trillfendi (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete; an appropriate sampling of some of these topics can and should be covered in the main article. Articles like political positions of Fred Thompson should also go too. Neutralitytalk 22:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Trash Gordon[edit]

Trash Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Does not meet GNG - only source is a Sesame Street episode. Should we redirect or merge, and either way, to The Robinson family (Sesame Street) or List of human Sesame Street characters? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the specific discussion on redirect vs merge.. The merge/redirect target seems to have been settled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Youtube suspensions[edit]

Youtube suspensions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Not sure why we need an article on this. This (at best) could be a redirect to the main YouTube page. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I am guessing it's spurred on by coverage like this. I see that this could turn into a list of incidents noted by reliable sources (e.g. Reuters 2007 Variety 2018) which would suggest more lasting notability than any given situation on its own would merit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a WP:POINTy article with no real point; zero cites, and states the obvious, that a private website can suspend users at any time for any reason. Poor copy of Twitter suspensions with no examples at all. Nate (chatter) 01:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Barkeep49. Markus Pössel (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment Nothing but the Twitter article boilerplate has been added to this article. There's nothing to keep right now. I highly suggest a relist on this (and I don't forsee the article creator adding anything to this). Nate (chatter) 03:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment I went ahead and started the table with the items Barkeep49 mentioned and the other top search result on "youtube suspensions". Maybe other editors will improve this article. I'm ambivalent on whether it serves an encyclopedic purpose; all three entries have their own articles which cover their YouTube issues. Schazjmd (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I cannot help but feel it will end up as a fork, for all those "personalities" who are not notable enough for their own page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven, I didn't know of the existence of Twitter suspensions when I made my !vote but would think it would evolve in that direction. And as one of the foremost skeptics of certain claims of YouTube personalities (e.g. subscribers and views) I am OK with that and with having lists of non-notable people. Much better a list than an article imo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
If it is not notable it does not get an article, we do not need a list to appease egos in the hope they just are happy to be mnetioned here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
What is the it? People can be not notable but be a part of a notable grouping (list). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
No, because lists should not be a get around notability. That (in effect) is creating a fork.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, from my lengthy searches today, it doesn't look like there's any coverage of a YouTube suspension unless the suspended account is already generally notable (or notorious). I haven't found any coverage of an account being suspended that didn't already have an article. If there's no independent coverage to provide as a reference, a suspension shouldn't be added to the article. I didn't add any brief-mention coverage, such as "popular channels X, Y, and Z were suspended" in "YouTube pulled monetization for anti-vax" articles. Schazjmd (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Our description of notability for lists suggests that in some cases non-notable entries can be appropriate. I am suggesting this is one such circumstance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge into YouTube, doesn't seem appropriate for its own article. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge into the YouTube article. This seems like one of those articles you'd find in an excessively detailed fan-made project. Does not belong on Wikipedia, but may have some sort of usefulness on the YouTube page.

Nike-Deacon[edit]

Nike-Deacon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No ample third-party source to expand the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge Along with the rest of these rocket stubs. Reywas92Talk 17:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Nike T40 T55[edit]

Nike T40 T55 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Rocket does not have third party source and thus fails WP:GNG.Suggest to merge all Nike rockets to a single article as there is not enough source to sustain individual articles for all of them. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments: There is a severe lack of notability here. Most of these "similar" articles use one source, the Encyclopedia Astronautica. Some confusion is that most of these "rockets" have been named but this one appears to be two individual rocket stages. We don't need individual dictionary entries on every type rocket that has been launched as that would seem to be a large number. There are around 4,987 satellites in orbit and there is a big listing but I don't think we need an article on each or on every rocket. Otr500 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Otr500, what do you suggest doing then? There's a ton of stub articles on the Nike rocket family. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I would need to look at them. If you care to find a suitable place, maybe a relevant article talk page, and ping me we can look at them. I ran across something similar with (I believe) jet engines that seemed to be a large indiscriminate individual listing of engines. It was in passing and I was otherwise busy so didn't look closely. Otr500 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge with other like rocket stubs. Otr500 (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Doug Richardson[edit]

Doug Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:FILMMAKER. All of the refs are amazon links to nowhere as well. This article was created by a user who has not been active in 13 years and who has a history of deleted pages as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 13:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Draft move to draftspace as the article is in a dire state and is not suitable for mainspace in this condition, but he does pass WP:Creative with screenplays for multiple very notable films. Also worldcat shows over 6,000 library holdings which indicates that there should be many reviews of such popular books, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Assuming facts in the article are true, meets WP:CREATIVE #3. I see no real reason to draftify, the article is honestly not as bad as all that. I'll try to do some work on it in the few hours before this AFD closes anyway. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep moving to keep from draftify as the article has been improved and is acceptable for mainspace, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Choke Creek[edit]

Choke Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any reviews, a gsearch doesn't bring up anything, not even "trade" reviews, no they ie. kirkus, publisher's weekly don't review everything:)) (probably reflects the small number of library holdings - 5), book was published by Bridle Path Press, an indie press of which the author is on the editorial board, see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Nike-Nike[edit]

Nike-Nike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No third party source of topicSuggest to merge all Nike rockets to a single article as there is not enough source to sustain individual articles for all of them. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. These rockets share a name, but they aren't all the same. I don't think they should be merged. These rockets were designed and used before the Internet. I was able to find some old reports that had been scanned into PDF format and add them as references, but other references may only avail;able in hard copy. When you do a search for a U.S. military topic, you can focus your search by adding site:mil at the end of your search so that you will only get results within the .mil top=level domain. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 06:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    Eastmain, the source you added only supports the fact it's used 16 times. Hardly significant, I think. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with merge to a yet to be determined target: We can do better than dictionary entries. Something like Black Brant (rocket) would be better presented. Otr500 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: As long as we don't end up with a large article like Project Nike, obviously receiving a lot of work, has been sectioned tagged with no references since 2011. Otr500 (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Eastmain: Merging the articles does not get rid of them, they can still receive individual coverage under one article title, and at a point can always be split if sources provide context for justification. Otr500 (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorted by State[edit]

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