Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

Eisner Award for Best Writer/Artist–Nonfiction

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

I propose merging to Eisner Award for Best Writer because there is very little coverage of this award and it fits in the other page. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 11:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related AfD discussions. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 11:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Comics and animation, Awards, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:08, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

If you must merge it with another article, the one that makes the most sense is Eisner Award for Best Writer/Artist. Thematthewmurray (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Killing of Martin Nitzken Jr.

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

Unlikely to have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Law, Police, United States of America, and Kentucky. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 10:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Erik Linder (dancer)

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

This reads like a LinkedIn profile. Biruitorul ^Talk 08:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dance, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Medical racism in the United States

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

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

Moved from Talk:Race and health in the United States § Merge proposal (merge Medical racism in the United States into Race and health in the United States)

– FaviFake (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal (merge Medical racism in the United States into Race and health in the United States)

These two articles effectively cover identical subject matter. While there is a difference in the potential scope of the two article titles, that differentiation is not expressed by the actual content of the articles. Thus, the effective scope of these two articles are identical (duplicative).

Currently the general (non country-specific) title of Medical racism redirects to Race and health, presumably due to the similarly heavy overlap of subject matter two separate articles on those general subjects would undoubtedly create.

A merge between these two articles would remedy the duplication of subject matter. Furthermore: a merge would provide an opportunity for editors to address an issue seeming to plague both of these articles at the moment: the reality that much of their content appears to have been generated by large language models (Artificial Intelligence) rather than by human authors. Other issues, such as improper formatting of citations and outdated statistics, could also be remedied.

It would be preferable for this subject to have a single quality article, rather than the status quo of two plagued articles on duplicative subject matter. SecretName101 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

As a point for further discussion, I would also recommend possibly spinning-off the topics of Health status of African Americans and Health status of Hispanic and Latino Americans as separate articles where the more lengthy exploration of health specifically pertaining to those two groups can be moved (articles already exist for Health status of Asian Americans and Health status of White Americans). As the current article is lengthy, and those are both subtopics worthy spun-off articles. SecretName101 (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Health and fitness, Medicine, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Tithi Bhattacharya

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

The subject does not seem to have significant independent coverage WP:GNG. Current sources rely on institutional or passing-mention sources. WP:NACADEMIC also not clearly met. Textcurator (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, India, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Multiple books with multiple reviews meets WP:NAUTHOR. Please be mindful of WP:DILIGENCE. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The book reviews already in the article are enough for WP:AUTHOR and, incidentally, are also significant independent coverage of her work giving her a pass of GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Second Trump travel ban

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

Moved from Talk:Second Trump travel ban § Merge

– FaviFake (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge

I propose merging Second Trump travel ban into Travel bans under the Trump administrations. Seamlessly (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: In their original template, the nominator used § Travel ban in the second Trump administration as the target. FaviFake (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Support – The pages have too much WP:OVERLAP and the nominated page needs the context from the proposed target to be fully understood. FaviFake (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge I think the combined article will be more useful than the current articles and will support coverage of Trump travel bans in general that would not fit well into sub-articles. M kuhner (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

High-risk freight corridors of the United States

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

"High-risk freight corridors" isn't a thing, none of the sources use this term and they're not about a single topic (variously about freight corridors in general, high-risk roads in general, and case studies of specific roads). WP:SYNTH / WP:OR violation. ~ A412 ^talk! 13:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete - WP:SYNTH / WP:OR violation. I don't see any evidence that "high-risk freight corridor" is an established concept in transportation or logistics. Jfire (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Strong delete, fails WP:Synth. The article is solely about an "informal term" that appears to never actually be used (based on the provided sources) and then continues to discuss the economics of improving roadways. Looking at the edit history, it was already moved info Draft space previously due to failing WP:Synth with the recommendation that it is not moved into mainspace until it is revised and goes through AfC. Article creator made a very minor change and moved it back themselves. Also lacks notability as a result. FlammablePizza (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete—this is just Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-risk trucking corridors in Arizona all over again. Imzadi 1979 → 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Pink Dreads

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

Notability isn't established through reliable sources to show how this meets WP:NSONG. This song did NOT peak at number 10 on the Billboard Hot 100 as the article claims; it was #10 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100. I don't think one appearance on that list is much claim to notability without additional support. The sources provided are a broken Billboard.com link (I found it on the site eventually and it's just a video interview); a YouTube video; an X post saying it was #10 on the Bubbling list; and it's not clear if the RatingsGameMusic site is a reliable enough source.

Additional BEFORE search shows some mentions of the song (an article on another song by DDG and PlaqueBoyMax mentions their previous collaboration on this one; an article on PlaqueBoyMax mentions the number of Spotify streams this song got) but I don't see enough to prove its notability.

If kept, significant grammar clean up is needed. Phrasing like "...but the producer's businessman extorted the song to make it trained to Billboard charts" and "DDG announced that would not message his producer of the allegations that have been dropped out" make no coherent sense. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to DDG (rapper): seems acceptable, this does not appear to meet musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

So we know that DDG announced the allegations of his producer and his businessman extorted the song, but why do you have to delete tho. Like it’s a song article, but I didn’t know that the song was peaked at the Billboard Hot 100. The point about this is because it’s usually about the article of song. I didn’t possibly known that this article don’t make no sense, but I can change it. Constrayevan (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Dean Withers

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

I propose deleting this article as most of its sources are not WP:RS. Source 7, which is Twitter, is not a good source for Wikipedia. Orange&Black News is also not a good source for Wikipedia, plus he has no other notable history beyond TikTok. ReelCosmix (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Libertarianism, Politics, Internet, United States of America, and Colorado. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG by my understanding, NYT and GQ are reliable sources. The twitter ref is an acceptable use of a primary source for supporting his religious views(though I question if that claim is worth including at all). I don't know anything about Orange & Black, so no opinion there. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer 💬(they/she) 02:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep, meets GNG and I also found a BBC article about him. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 08:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep - sources in the article are enough to pass the GNG. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep per GNG. Just to pile on some more sources: Chalkbeat, NYT, PinkNews. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep - Subject seems to pass WP:GNG based on WP:RS brought during this discussion. Retro music11 (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I know I am a fairly junior editor and new to AfD, but Withers strikes me as plenty notable. He achieved quite a presence during the '24 election. PurpleInvestments (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Leela Gray

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

Current congress candidate in Florida. Fails WP:NPOL EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, Politics, United States of America, and Florida. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: California, Indiana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Disclosure: I have a connection to the subject, and my comments here are limited to sourcing and policy.

Keep. The nomination appears to evaluate the subject only as a current congressional candidate under WP:NPOL. I agree that candidacy alone is not sufficient. However, the article has an independent basis under WP:GNG/WP:BASIC and military-biography considerations. Gray's appointment to brigadier general was Senate-confirmed and is verified by official records, and her senior Army command roles are documented by official military sources. In addition, there is independent regional-media coverage centered on Gray's biography and public profile, not merely routine ballot-listing coverage.

To the extent the current version contains promotional or resume-like language, that is a fixable article-quality issue. I would support trimming unsourced claims, reducing campaign emphasis, and replacing affiliated or primary sources with independent coverage where available. The better outcome is cleanup and improvement, not deletion.

Sources supporting the above:

Creative Loafing Tampa Bay - Independent regional-media article centered on Gray, with substantial discussion beyond a routine candidate listing.
Tampa Bay Times - Major regional newspaper coverage centered on Gray's public profile and congressional challenge.
Congress.gov nomination record - Official congressional record verifying Gray's Senate-confirmed appointment to brigadier general; used for factual verification of rank and seniority.
U.S. Army Reserve official biography - Official source verifying command of the 86th Training Division, senior Army assignments, service history, deployments, and awards.
DVIDS 2017 AUSA interview - Pre-campaign military-media record identifying Gray as U.S. Army Central's Deputy Commanding General and Director of the Army Reserve Engagement Cell.

Ecmullen (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think being a brigadier general helps meet any of our notability guidelines, but maybe I'm forgetting one. pburka (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Drafity - While I appreciate Ecmullen laying out the current sources, we need multiple, high quality sources that discuss the subject in depth to provide notability under WP:GNG. The Tampa Bay Times and Creative Loafing Tampa Bay would qualify, but the other sources listed are not independent and while they can be used to confirm basic facts (such as appointment to brigadier general), they are not to be used for notability. I do anticipate more coverage as the election comes closer, so I think drafity is the best course here.

Yojo98 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Leeward Islands Tournament

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

I propose merging to Leeward Islands Football Association. Both articles are under-sourced stubs, and the Tournament one hasn't been updated since 2014. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, Lists, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Caribbean, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Also, this is the first AfD in the new Saint Kitts and Nevis delsort. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 20:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge as above. Giant Snowman 19:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge – It will really help the Leeward Islands FA article by getting the tournament info in. RollonLaurent (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Aegypan

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

Inadequate references as the article stands to confirm notability. I searched for suitable references, but haven't been able to find any (as it's the kind of page I'd usually be in favour of). Medievalfran (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United States of America. Medievalfran (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete, unless better sourcing can be found. I found an entry on LinkedIn that connected Alan Rodgers to Aegypan, but I don't know if that's the same Alan Rodgers, and Alan Rodgers Books also exists, so who knows? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I found no results when searching for this on Google News. Trotsk6 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 18:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Fails GNG; one out of the only two sources in the stub is unreliable. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 19:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of California-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Rich Jeffries

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

Had a few short-lived announcing gigs in the 80s and nothing more. Only source is an obit on legacy.com. Found no sources whatsoever, just a couple directory listings. Tagged as having only one source since 2015. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE, also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, United States of America, California, and Georgia (U.S. state). Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Some brief mentions in books , . Minimal coverage found, I don't see notability. The one source in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete, not WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 18:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Gimkit

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

Stub that appears to fail WP:NWEB. Interestingly enough, the current version of the article appears to have started as an editor replacing the previous draft (which appears to be LLM-generated). The previous draft was previously declined twice, first due to its subject matter failing WP:NWEB and then WP:GNG, before being unceremoniously moved to mainspace by another user from what appears to have been no further discussion. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Video games, Entertainment, Games, Education, Internet, Websites, United States of America, and Washington. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep, quick search of Google Scholar shows that it's been mentioned in a fair amount of academic articles. It's a stub but can be grown. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 23:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

American Housing Corporation

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. I'd also like to point out that the article was a stub prior to this edit, which appears LLM-generated. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, Suspected AI-generated articles, United States of America, and Texas. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep, probably notable for being a startup that promised housing in 2024 but still hasn't delivered in 2026. Past LLM history of the article not relevant. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 19:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Mon Mothma's Senate Speech

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

I propose merging to Welcome to the Rebellion per WP:OVERLAP and WP:MERGECON. The current page for the episode the speech is from is far from exceeding the limit per WP:SUMMARY, and the cultural influence of the speech could be better reflected there, where it can be discussed in relation to the show and episode itself. This page isn't meaningfully distinct from any regular page for a TV show, other than including a plentiful amount of direct quotes WP:OVERQUOTE Yojo98 (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United States of America. Yojo98 (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge, this is just WP:FANCRUFT and belongs on Wookiepedia. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 03:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nom, fails WP:CFORK with excessive quotations and cruft. This can be adequately covered at the episode article. MidnightMayhem (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Tatsumi Romano

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

per WP:NACTOR. Only one significant role and other coverage seems low quality, jocelyn's dance ^talk 23:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. jocelyn's dance ^talk 23:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. jocelyn's dance ^talk 23:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Lake Calabay

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

Does not appear to meet GNG, lacks significant coverage and independent reliable sources on the topic. Jacob Rampino (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related AfD discussions. Jacob Rampino (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. jocelyn's dance ^talk 22:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Hunter's Creek, Florida#Geography, merging any relevant additional detail there; note this could have been done boldly instead of through AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Support redirect, but oppose a merge. The current material does not meet WP:V and should be replaced with a clean WP:BLAR redirect without transferring any text to the target page. Jacob Rampino (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
RedirectHunter's Creek, Florida#Geography, the lake does not appear to have enough notable sources to meet GNG and also does not appear to have any standout qualities that would render it fit for it's own write up.Blubberypancakes (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Sully v. Drennan

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

Old SCOTUS cases aren't always notable, and this one in particular seems to have a real dearth of sourcing. It's barely even cited in the judiciary, let alone in secondary sourcing (google scholar and westlaw turns up literally one passing mention and nothing else). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and Iowa. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I came to the same conclusion last month when I tagged for notability, and my further searches today (Google Books, HeinOnline, the Internet Archive, Newspapers.com, etc.) didn't find anything close to significant coverage. I guess there's no harm in a redirect to List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113 (or even a very brief merge, which is what Lethargilistic has done with some of the other non-notable cases from this volume). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
I honestly hadn't thought of a redirect because we deleted all the redirects, but if we're coming to a consensus that this one isn't notable, then yeah, that makes sense, actually... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
We deleted the redirects because they were made en mass without checking. We've checked this one. lethargilistic (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Volume 113. I'd do it now rather than discussing further, tbh. In 2008, a now-deceased Wikipedian made a bunch of articles for Volume 113 specifically, mostly by copying the decisions without trying to turn them into articles. It's interesting to try to find sources for them, but I mostly TNT the ones that are notable. lethargilistic (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
I've now done what I typically do for them. I didn't turn up even one notability source for it, so I would redirect it now and keep the categories. lethargilistic (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Redirect makes sense to me. I'm no legal scholar or anything, but i expect an article on a US Supreme Court case to say at the outset what makes it important to the public. This one doesn't do that and i have no idea what the heck its about. I was able to dig up only one reference to it, footnote 591(!) of a 1983 law review article , its a just in a list of "local government bond cases" in 1884-85 with no commentary.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Redirect per Extraordinary Writ. This article is basically just the text of the opinion, without any attempt to explain the meaning or significance of the decision. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

List of United States tornadoes in June to July 2026

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

delete and/ or move to List of United States tornadoes from May to June 2026 Tornado Elliott (Yelp for help?) 15:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
del WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Altenmann >talk 17:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Steve White (actor)

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

Seems to fail WP:NACTOR. Searching his name in conjunction with associated works (Mo Better Blues, Def Comedy Jam turned up nothing but directory listings or passing name-drops. Only source in the article is a directory listing too. I could not find any biographical information whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and United States of America. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete: I couldn't find any reliable sources, and seems to fail WP:GNG too. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 12:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Not enough coverage to justify notability, was about all I could find. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete - There aren't any WP:RS to indicate a WP:GNG pass. Retro music11 (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

International Academic Competitions

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

No significant independent coverage of the organization is present. The references are primary and routine sources documenting competitions operated by the organization. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. - The9Man ^Talk 07:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 08:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Daniel Daks

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

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

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

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 08:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Davis Kitchel

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

Insufficient significant independent coverage of the person. References are primary, affiliated, profiles or routine company history coverage. - The9Man ^Talk 07:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related AfD discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 07:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 08:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 White House shooting

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose merging to Security incidents involving Donald Trump because this incident does not appear to be receiving enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage to warrant its own article, but this incident has received enough coverage to warrant a dedicated section of the article Security incidents involving Donald Trump. NesserWiki (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, Politics, United States of America, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.. NesserWiki (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

~~Merge. I thought we'd had this discussion. This is a different incident.. SenshiSun (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)~~

Comment: The first nomination–which also proposed a merger to the same target as this one–closed only just a day or so ago with no consensus, with No prejudice against revisiting this a month or so from now. (For comparison, the standard waiting period in this scenario is two months.) Unless we've just experienced the quickest month (or two) ever, this would appear to be pretty early for a renomination. (No opinion on the article itself, the proposed merger, or any mention at the target article regardless of the outcome of anything else.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Misconstructed, similar discussion just closed as no consensus per Wcquidditch. Yogi Berra all over again. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per recent no consensus that was only 7 hours old at the time this was opened. Please have patience. Raskuly 🐰 04:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose for now Well. Since the first nomination close without a consensus, I probably wont consider merging this page because of the fact that another nomination has been created after the other closed, just wait for some time. Hotrodguy84 (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

: No vote. Should not have been nominated so soon. SenshiSun (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Executive Order 14300)

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

I propose merging to Nuclear Regulatory Commission because the executive order is not independently notable from the commission (also WP:MERGECON). This can be covered under the History section of the target. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Pining @ElijahPepe and @LionmerterTHE who BLARed and restored, respectively. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nom. I don't understand the desire to create articles about executive orders just because they exist. This doesn't even seem to be a specifically partisan problem; compare Category:Executive orders of Joe Biden where there are plenty of numerically titled articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge per above. FaviFake (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge — Per nominator. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment

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

Fails WP:NCORP Bryce M (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Film, Organizations, Sports, and United States of America. Bryce M (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NORG failure since last May. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Law-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete, not WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 15:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

David Lloyd (literary scholar)

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

The article is primarily sourced in relation to political activism rather than scholarly or literary contributions. WP:GNG and WP:NPROF are not satisfied. Academic appointments alone do not automatically confer encyclopedic notability. Textcurator (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, Education, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. He appears to be the author of multiple reviewed books, which suggests a pass of WP:AUTHOR. This is not to say that the article is well written or that its focus on political activism is justified, but sufficient evidence of notability exists. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Clear WP:AUTHOR pass. I have added reviews of all the listed books; see . Jfire (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the many reviews identified above. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Obvious AUTHOR pass. Zero^talk 01:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Torin Herndon

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

No evidence of this tech executive meeting WP:GNG. Most of the sources are just interviews or quotes from him. No real WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 08:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

there is several outlets who have covered this ceo. he has been mentioned in news articles for the past 9 years as a business professional. he has been on multiple talk shows. his company sells products to several different countries. he founded a company with palmer luckey. Pubmixwiki (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

not to mention, there is an entire article which was approved that is about the company he founded and runs. when it mentions his name, there should be a page on who he is Pubmixwiki (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pubmixwiki: Mentions in news articles aren't really enough. Which would be the WP:THREE best sources covering Herndon in-depth (not just repeating things he said)? JTtheOG (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe there is more significant coverage of Herndon than simple passing mentions in company articles.

Some of the stronger sources include:

Time Extension's in-depth interview with Herndon discussing the design, engineering, and development of the Chromatic handheld. The article is centered on Herndon and his work as CEO and lead engineer, rather than merely quoting him in passing.

Wired's feature on the ModRetro Chromatic, which identifies Herndon as CEO and lead engineer and discusses his engineering philosophy, previous work at Oculus and Anduril, and role in the development of the hardware. The article contains substantial commentary from Herndon and coverage of his contributions to the project.

Popular Mechanics' review and feature on the Chromatic, which includes a discussion with Herndon regarding the company's goals, preservation philosophy, product strategy, and the development of the platform. The article specifically identifies him as CEO, co-founder, and engineer.

Additional coverage discussing Herndon's career and leadership role can be found in Observer's reporting on ModRetro, which notes his previous engineering work at Oculus and Anduril and his leadership of the company.

I agree that routine announcements or brief quotes would not establish notability by themselves. However, the sources above provide substantive coverage of Herndon's career, engineering work, and leadership responsibilities rather than merely mentioning him in passing. Pubmixwiki (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

An interviews is just a transcript of things he said.

The Wired story mentions him 4 times, each time just repeating things he said.

Popular Mechanics is another interview. Same case as above, no coverage about him, just re-stating his own words.

Observer mentions him once.

All passing mentions and interviews. JTtheOG (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG.

Sky Research

AfDs for this article:

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

A few sources about the founder bribing a federal official does not make him or his company notable. The rest of the sources are PR puff or not RS. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Companies. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 08:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge and redirect - transfer relevant sourced details about bribery of Army Corps of Engineers personnel to Northwestern Division, transfer associated details as necessary, delete the rest. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Janet Elizabeth Rieder-Henderson

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

Article created by a LLM (by user Editor13002 with previous AINB issues). Possible WP:COI (photo comes from a "family album"). The sources provided fail to prove the subject notability. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Suspected AI-generated articles, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom, LLM might qualify it for speedy delete? Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 15:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete: If it were possible to demonstrate that this mid-twentieth century woman scientist were notable, that would be great. But I don't think it is. The current references are (1) her name in a directory, which is not significant coverage; (2) a blog, which also reads as if written by LLM; (3) FamilySearch, which is a self-published source. There is also, not in the article, an image of a newspaper article about Rieder-Henderson uploaded by the article creator, titled "Neither Bearded Nor Booted". This initially looked more promising, but as far as I can read the slightly blurry text, it relies on information from her employer and has the purpose of advertising a course. It's not independent, therefore; and in any case we would need more than one source. I have looked for other mentions of her, and not found anything to add. Tacyarg (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Puffed up, likely LLM-generated (but below the threshold for G15 speedy), no actual pass of GNG or any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Copernicus Society of America

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

This does not appear to be a notable organisation. None of the four sources given mention the CSA at all; three are just about Copernicus himself, and the one identified as the "official website" is of an unrelated organisation in Germany. I have struggled to find anything about them beyond that they finance the Michener-Copernicus Fellowship and make some other small grants; potentially this page could be redirected to the Fellowship page, or to the article on Edward Piszek (the founder). Andrew Gray (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Education-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete, not WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 15:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep The Copernicus Society of America is a historical US-based non-profit organization but it has limited digital presence.🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 05:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. In response to the above point by @The BO77!: I took a look through the archives of the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times to see if there were reliable print sources, which returned no significant coverage.

Jugal Kalita

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC on all counts. No evidence of a highly cited body of work satisfying WP:NPROF#C1, no named chair or distinguished professorship per WP:NPROF#C5, and no major academic award per WP:NPROF#C2. The listed books are routine textbooks with no indication of scholarly impact. Founding the LINC Lab is not a notability criterion. Sourcing is limited to the subject's own university faculty page and primary links, so WP:GNG is not met either. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, Assam, United States of America, and Colorado. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
If people spent more time working on their area of expertise, maybe they would actually do something WP:NOTABLE and thus have a page. WP:GNG, Delete. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment regarding his h-index. Yes, the 18k citations and h-index of 57 look strong, but in NLP/ML, which also happens to be currently the most citation-inflated field in academia, the number is solid rather than distinguishing. His top-cited works are nearly all surveys and reviews (deep learning for NLP, network anomaly detection, etc.), which attract citations as convenient references, not as original contributions. WP:NPROF#C1 asks for a specific concept or method widely attributed to him, and there isn't one. Also, yes there is volume, but no identifiable signature contribution that the field attributes to Kalita by name. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

2026 Holy See–United States rift

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

Although covered by a wide variety of reliable sources, this article is unencyclopedic and unnecessary. As the frenetic news coverage recedes into the rearview, it's becoming clear that the standalone article violates WP:NOTNEWS and the WP:10YEARTEST - do we really need an entire article on this back-and-forth? See also WP:NOTTRUMP.

By combining reports of a January meeting and the April back-and-forth comments from Trump and the pope to create a single "rift", we may also be violating WP:SYNTH. What's covered here can be adequately covered (at a more appropriate level of summarization) elsewhere: at Catholicism in the Trump administrations, Pope Leo XIV, Donald Trump, and Reactions to the 2026 Iran war. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment - this is a very similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) - furious, intense coverage from the news media resulting in a lengthy, overdetailed article, for a topic which in retrospect is more than adequately covered by a few sentences at Catherine, Princess of Wales#Health. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Christianity, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Holy See–United States relations. This appears to be WP:RECENTISM and media circus which by 30 May has subsided in the news. Brandmeister ^talk 21:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Trim the bloat and then merge to Holy See–United States relations. That's the point of having the relations article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Holy See–United States relations. Lova Falk (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Vatican City-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Congrats! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Honestly surprised no one has ever tried to delete a Vatican City-related article before. Or at least that no one's created a delsort for it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge with Holy See–United States relations: This does not warrant a standalone page per WP:NOTNEWS. It's also WP:TRUMPCRUFT and afflicted by WP:RECENTISM. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge WP:notability JD Vance's bad theology and Trump's personal gripes that literally have no affect on the Vatican. There are some relevant news stories but an entire wiki article is wild.

Equation Group

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

I propose merging to Tailored Access Operations because it seems to be about the same organization. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, Internet, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Strongly agree, just want to make sure not to lose the info in both articles. Conservadont (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Support – per nom FaviFake (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge however there is different information on both the pages and merger should be done diligently.Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
so should I just copy the info on Equation Group's article to the TAO's one? or is there a more intricate process at hand? Conservadont (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

James Powell Calvin

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

No coverage, no references. I cannot find almost anything for this person, and nothing that establishes clear notability. Chiserc (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and United States of America. Chiserc (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable. If someone can find a reliable and independent source with some significant coverage, I would not oppose a "Redirect" (ATD) to Delaware State Hornets football or List of Delaware State Hornets football seasons. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - A look at the history page of Delaware State football on here suggests he was coach in 1931, but I can't find anything that backs this up anywhere, including the college's own records (they don't list a head coach until 1933). Nothing else on him. Porterjoh (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom Yojo98 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Adam Nathanson

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is "member of two independently notable bands", which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have any reliable sources -- however, the only footnote present here at all is a very short "our contributors" sketch on the self-published website of a book he contributed to, a primary source that is not support for notability.
It also warrants note that an anonymous IP recently attempted to hijack this article to be about a different Adam Nathanson than it currently is, which was also relying entirely on unreliable sourcing (including circular citations to other Wikipedia articles) rather than anything GNG-worthy. (This obviously isn't a deletion criterion in and of itself, but the fact that it stood like that for three days, before I found it only because the IP had tried to file the hijacked rewrite in redlinked categories that accordingly showed up on the redlinked category cleanup report today, does kind of imply that the page isn't being very carefully watched.)
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more expertise can actually find proper sourcing to support his standalone notability -- but he needs a lot more than just a contributing blurb on a directly affiliated blog. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I’ll add some references later today and you can see what you think. Best, CCS81 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Life's Blood: Nathanson seems to have just bubbled under the minimum coverage to satisfy NPERSON. However, he's definitely a real and somewhat influential musician. I'm inclined to treat this and this as reliable sources that emphasize his role in the early New York City hardcore scene as a member of Life's Blood. Merging anything relevant from the extant article and adding material from those sources could help flesh out the band's article. His later works can be discussed briefly there, but they too are insuffiicient to establish individual notability. I'm a bit disappointed I couldn't find enough to justify retaining a separate article on Nathanson, considering his appreciation within certain circles. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep: since Nathanson was a prominent member of three groups listed as influential in the sources (as well as a less-prominent member of a fourth), having his own article seems most appropriate. I added six sources, for now. CCS81 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

With respect, those sources do not at all establish notability, nor does the !vote you made. This is probably an RS with arguably SIGCOV of Nathanson, but it's thin on the ground and is more a piece of possibly expert commentary than anything else (sadly, it's also the second-best source). This is an interview—a type of piece that generally can't contribute towards notability—with someone else and it focuses on the Life's Blood; Nathanson is only ever mentioned in passing. This is a piece on an interview that barely mentions Nathanson. This gets pretty close to SIGCOV, too, but it again focuses on the bands Nathanson was associated with. This is a trivially small blurb insufficient to qualify as SIGCOV due to the type of source. This is the best source, but it's again a brief profile in a listicle of brief profiles published to a standard that may or may not be RS. This is a primary source. You're right: he's been in a few bands. And I've worked for some very small but notable organizations and had my name occasionally published. I don't meet NPERSON, and neither does Nathanson. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

just remove the artcle, unreliable data and sourcing makes this irrelevant for wikipedia. Better to have it removed please. ~2026-22705-80 (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Note that this comment is coming from the same anonymous user who tried to hijack this article in the first place, so it should most likely be discounted as irrelevant to the discussion process. The real estate businessperson is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he has a job, but the anonymous user's edits did not properly establish passage of WP:GNG — so whatever happens here will have to be carefully considered so as to not just clear the decks for this user to simply recreate the same bad, poorly sourced BLP of a real estate businessperson in this article's place. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Right, and the anon IP does not seem to realize that disambiguation between Adam Nathanson (musician) and Adam Nathanson (real estate) is easily achieved. The IP’s attack on the musician article seems to be motivated by the urge to have this article title for the latter and not anything about the content of the former. CCS81 (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

They and the relevant IPs have been blocked from further disruption on the article. Should this AfD result in a deletion, I'll keep tabs on it to prevent recreation as another article for a non-notable person. If it results in merging or redirecting, I can do the same. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - WP:TNTpalooza. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Aaron Rubin (entrepreneur)

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

A startup owner with routine coverage, mostly about the company. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. - The9Man ^Talk 08:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. - The9Man ^Talk 08:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete I tried searching online but couldn’t find any proper detailed articles about this person. Most of the coverage is about the company he runs. AarvexSK (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Arlington Elementary School District

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

Declined PROD was replaced by materially better article but there is still not enough to establish notability. AR/12News only cite the school district in the context of other Maricopa Co districts and even then, only as WP:ROUTINE coverage. Other sources do not assert notability. In contest of prod, author cites nonexistent WP:NGOVT policy, which makes me wonder if AI was used. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Keep. The article meets WP:NORG through independent, subject-specific coverage. The nomination appears to discount the sources too broadly as routine coverage.
Policy frame: For a school district, the relevant standard is WP:NORG/WP:CORPDEPTH, not the notability guidance for individual schools. The question is whether reliable independent sources address the district directly and in some depth.
Sources analysis:
1. Arizona Auditor General, Arlington Elementary School District Performance Audit (2016) — an independent state audit report devoted entirely to this district. It discusses district operations, finances, transportation, food service, and administration in substantial detail, constituting significant coverage rather than a directory-style mention.
2. The Arizona Republic (Alltucker, Oct 2025) — covers the district's specific test-score outcomes, not merely the district's existence.
3. 12News (Nov 2025) — covers the district's successful 15% M&O override vote with attribution from election results. This is independent local news coverage of a district-specific funding issue.
Calling all county-frame coverage "routine" reads WP:CORPDEPTH too narrowly. These are not mere listings or passing mentions; the sources address the district directly.

On the authorship speculation: WP:NGOVT was simply a mistaken shortcut on my part, acknowledged on my talk page. A typo is not evidence of LLM-generated content. Per WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS, the discussion should focus on the article's sourcing and notability rather than speculation about authorship. Sparks19923 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Was an LLM used to generate this response? Plain clear answer please.

Audits of a school district strike me as extremely routine. Essentially all school districts do them--it's a legal requirement in many places. This does nothing to demonstrate notability.

The test score article mentions Arlington once, in one sentence. This is not substantial. In fact "mere listings or passing mentions" is an extremely good description of this source.

The 12News source is a dead link. I have not further assessed it. M kuhner (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Arizona. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete as notability is not shown, and I don't think it can be. Also, contrary to post above, "is it LLM" is a legitimate question (otherwise our new LLM policy could never be enforced) and I think the answer is fairly clear. M kuhner (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 20:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep, revert AI slop Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, school districts qualify under WP:GEOLAND for presumed notability. However the LLM slop is obvious per above, so the article should be reverted to the pre-slop version which is . Jumpytoo Talk 01:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Fails NSCHOOL, NORG and\or GNG. Reverting to a previous (non-LLM-generated) version, even keeping current sources, does not present multiple significant coverage in reliable and independent sources.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Sid Edwards

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

This individual is a city-level and parish-level politician and the poorly-sourced article about them does not pass WP:NPOL. Aneirinn (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Louisiana, United States of America, Politicians, and American football. Aneirinn (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep - the mayors of larger state capitals tend to get significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Nile Gardiner

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. ElENdElA (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related AfD discussions. ElENdElA (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Draftify (if no one actually wants to add the sources): I loathe this man, but when you type his name into Google News, you'll find a lot of news reports about him. I'd change it to Keep if someone adds the sources to his page. Won't be me though. Handsome Ellis (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since 2023. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: England and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - poorly sourced; two of the three sources are unreliable while the CNN citation is not enough for a BLP. He needs to advise Andrew Giuliani about punctuality. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I think there is sufficient coverage to establish WP:BIO. The current article does not reflect this. I don't think I will be the one to fix it either, but I may come around to it eventually. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to The Heritage Foundation#Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom The section of the article needs some more meat on it post-2005, and outside expected news channel punditry that's pretty much what the subject is known for. Nathannah • 📮 22:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Froggy (brand)

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

The article does not have significant coverage relating to the topic, with the 3 sources being unrelated to main topic. OWaunTon (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. OWaunTon (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Draftify. This article has been around for 14 years, and a few of the sources and links do indicate that there are radio stations which use a "Froggy" brand: , . But of the four footnotes, three are essentially broken links that don't support the text they are attached to, much less do they provide any sourcing for the detail about the "Froggy" branding that is discussed extensively in Froggy (brand)#General theme. I recommend allowing this article to be draftified so that editors can work on finding actual sources for the content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete I found a reference that may be quite useful: . There's a something there, and some of the early Froggy stations tied to Kerby Confer could use that ref. But in good faith I cannot say that the reference supports the entire article or a list of stations that cannot be regularly sourced. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Draftify per Metropolitan90's comment due to its longevity, hopefully a radio enthusiast will pick it up. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 19:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The Osbournes Want to Believe

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

I propose redirecting to Jack Osbourne or The Osbournes because this TV series is not covered by reliable sources under WP:GNG. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 00:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Television-related AfD discussions. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 00:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Grow, Kory (2020-08-13). "Why Are the Osbournes Watching Paranormal Videos in Quarantine?". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on 2026-05-26. Retrieved 2026-05-26.
  The review notes: "So to break up the monotony, Jack — who also co-hosts a ghost-hunting show called Portals to Hell — concocted an idea to keep his folks on their toes: a new television show. On The Osbournes Want to Believe, Ozzy, Sharon, and Jack review homemade, caught-on-camera clips of unexplained phenomena — poltergeists, UFOs, Bigfoot sightings, the whole Mulder-and-Scully routine — and hilariously pick them apart. They film the show in the elder Osbournes’ basement with a small crew, for safety’s sake, and spend an hour each week cracking wise on the strangest videos that Jack and his production team can find, in an attempt to make everyone question reality and creep each other out. In the first episode, there’s even a cameo from “Robert the Doll,” the supposedly possessed figurine Ozzy and Jack visited on their previous series, World Detour — much to the genuine chagrin of Ozzy, who recoils at the sight of it as Jack laughs."
2. Steinberg, Brian (2020-07-09). "The Osbournes Reunite (Partially) for Travel Channel's New Paranormal Series". Variety. Archived from the original on 2026-05-26. Retrieved 2026-05-26.
  The article notes: "Ozzy Osbourne and Sharon Osbourne will join their son, Jack, for eight hour-long episodes of “The Osbournes Want To Believe,” a series that has Jack Osbourne trying to convince his parents of the veracity of shocking clips of purported paranormal activity. In the series premiere, Jack Osbourne shares video footage of poltergeists, haunted dolls, UFOs and unidentifiable beasts. The show debuts Sunday, August 2 at 10 p.m. eastern. ... During each episode, Jack Osbourne shows his parents clips of phenomena that might include Bigfoot, UFOs, poltergeists, creepy dolls and unexplained apparitions, Ozzy and Sharon will review and critique each and their unvarnished commentary and reactions will fuel the program."
3. Paterson, Viv (2020-10-17). "Sharon Osbourne on why she may believe in UFOs a bit more, thanks to son Jack". Hexham Courant. Archived from the original on 2026-05-26. Retrieved 2026-05-26.
  The article notes: "Jack, son of musician Ozzy and Sharon, has just shown them footage he says is "considered some of the most authentic", that shows what many have debated is or isn't the folkloric creature shown on a grainy black and white screen moving across a landscape. It is all part of their new Really TV series titled The Osbournes Want To Believe, which sees Jack trying to talk his famous parents around into considering that supernatural activity and more may hold some truth. ... The family are among millions staying put due to coronavirus travel restrictions. But luckily, after rigorous testing and putting strict safety measures in place, they were able to film the series, albeit with a minimal crew. ... The Osbournes Want To Believe airs on Really from October 19."
4. Fontones, Ashley Catherine (2021-10-13). "East Stroudsburg UFO sighting video to be featured on 'The Osbournes Want to Believe'". The Morning Call. NewsBank 185A4A9BB882DF88. Archived from the original on 2026-05-26. Retrieved 2026-05-26.
  The article notes: "Tune into the Travel Channel this fall, and you may just catch a glimpse of a Pocono UFO. Footage shot by Mycul Lugo of a UFO spotted in Monroe County will be featured on an episode of “The Osbournes Want to Believe,” Season 2. ... On the episode of “The Osbournes Want to Believe,” Jack and Kelly Osbourne try “to convince (Sharon and Ozzy) that aliens exist, and they show them my video to prove it to them."
5. Davison, Tamara (2020-10-21). "Ozzy Osbourne blames terrifying 'cursed' doll for recent health problems". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2026-05-26. Retrieved 2026-05-26.
  The article notes: "Ozzy Osbourne is convinced that a 'cursed' doll is to blame for a barrage of recent health problems. The 71-year-old rock star, who is battling Parkinson's disease, made the admission when chatting to his son on their new show The Osbournes Want To Believe. The series will see Jack try and convince his sceptical parents to believe in the supernatural. During the show, Jack handed Ozzy the cursed doll before his dad threw it to the ground in horror."
6. Jordan, Julie (2020-07-31). "Ozzy & Sharon Osbourne 'Baffled' By Paranormal Activity on New Show The Osbournes Want to Believe". People. Archived from the original on 2026-05-26. Retrieved 2026-05-26.
  The article notes: "In their new Travel Channel series, The Osbournes Want to Believe, son Jack, 34, shows his parents, Ozzy and Sharon, footage of paranormal activity — including Bigfoot, UFOs, poltergeists, creepy dolls and ghostly apparitions — to get their take on the world of the unexplained. ... Jack, who co-hosts Portals to Hell with Katrina Weidman on the Travel Channel, “has always been into it, from when he was a little boy,” recalls Sharon, 67. “He used to have posters in his room of aliens.” ... Plus, Sharon appreciates being able to keep things light: “It’s nice to do one of these shows where it’s not so serious.""
7. "Ozzy Osbourne assesses Barnsley shop's paranormal activity". Barnsley Chronicle. 2020-11-06. Archived from the original on 2023-02-03. Retrieved 2026-05-26.
  The article notes: "An antiques shop widely believed to be haunted has hit the small screen after appearing in a new TV show. Barnsley Antiques Centre was featured on The Osbournes Want To Believe, which sees Jack Osbourne attempt to convince his non-believer parents, Sharon and Ozzy, of the existence of paranormal and supernatural beings. Together the family watched CCTV footage taken at the shop on Doncaster Road in an attempt to find out whether the shop was haunted. ... It seems that Sharon wasn’t convinced with the paranormal activity at the shop as she scored the footage a four out of ten while Ozzy who seemed to believe the clips gave the footage eight out of ten."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Osbournes Want to Believe to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per @Cunard. The cited sources demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, supporting notability under WP:GNG. SupermarketCake (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Redirect per Nom. (do people actually watch crap like this? ) - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 08:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect, per Roxy the dog. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 18:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Tyler Guilfoil

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

I added some sources to this in recent edits, but still think it's borderline for WP:GNG. Interested in thoughts. Hasn't played in the MLB, but plays in a 'partner league'. Porterjoh (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, Baseball, and United States of America. Porterjoh (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Kentucky. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think he meets WP:SPORTBASIC. He hasn't competed or achieved success at the highest levels. Sloopyploop (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

List of DSA controversies

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

I propose merging to Democratic Socialists of America because a standalone list of controversies fails WP:POVFORK. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge I've seen longer controversy sections in articles. This article is about 2/3 the size of Criticism of copyright by bytes, and there is no summary in the merge target. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete or possibly merge with a major cutdown. Intro section mentions issues such as "endorsement of Hamas" with no source. Clear Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations. Julesucks (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
— Julesucks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. A user with 53 edits. Account created on 31 March 2024. Dream Focus 06:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge - Controversies don't need a separate page. killer bee  10:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep article meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, as well as WP:NLIST. There are 31 sources used in this article to bolster notability. These are not even all of the controversies that could be listed but I published it because it exceeded notability requirements in its current form and I was going to add even more as time went on. For those concerned that this is a POV Fork, check out | this category, pages of this type are extremely common, including List of ATF controversies, BBC controversies, and even List of Wikipedia controversies. Go figure. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
It should be noted that none of the pages in that category (other than this one) are about political organizations or parties. Post-1992 American politics is a contentious topic. With topics like the BBC and Wikipedia, the possibility of a dedicated controversy article becoming a WP:POVFORK is not as high as in an article about a political party, in which editors will have vastly differing opinions on said party. In order to make sure NPOV is strictly followed, it is best to have one single article that editors need to collaborate on. Lovelyfurball (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- Seconding this point. No major political party in the Anglosphere has a standalone controversy page or even a controversy section. Just because this article has 31 sources, the vast majority of which are just highlighting positions that diverge from the American political mainstream, doesn't mean it is worth keeping. Amtoastintolerant (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep absolutely no sense to merge this notable, well-sourced article, and having similar articles in common practice anyway, so this is not even a close call. ScottyNolan (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
- Can you highlight a similar article to this? I cannot find a major political party in the Anglosphere that has an entire controversy article, let alone even a controversy section. As Lovelyfurball mentioned Post-1992 American politics is a contentious topic, and most of the article's sources just highlight political positions that diverge from the political mainstream, or just routine coverage of peoples' disagreement with the organization. Amtoastintolerant (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. This article already meets WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. It is also pretty narrowly scoped to verifiable controversies involving DSA with plentiful citations to WP:RSs. The WP:POVFORK argument does not hold water, as Gjb0zWxOb articulated. Any NPOV or sourcing issues in the lead or particular entries should be fixed through normal editing rather than deletion or merger. Merging would likely lead to a significant loss of sourced detail. Furthermore, the current structure by caucus aids neutrality. The article also includes criticism from the left, right, Zionists, and DSA members themselves, which makes a strong case for neutrality. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete or draftify.
- The lede violates WP:NPOV. Example: The lede picture, baldly captioned "The DSA has received criticism for defending antisemitic violence as anti-Zionist resistance", shows New Students for a Democratic Society protesters against the Iran war.
- The article violates WP:CSECTION. DSA doesn't even have a history article yet: History of the Democratic Socialists of America is a redirect. This article could fit into a draft of that article, such as Draft:History of the Democratic Socialists of America, but the current article is almost entirely negative coverage, against CSECTION: "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section".

SocDoneLeft (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:LISTCRIT. What makes something a "controversy?" If Bob the Janitor in Skokie got upset at something the DSA did, is that a controversy? I don't see any sane way of having reasonable inclusion criteria here. Any potential merging should be extremely selective, too. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NLIST and WP:POVFORK, and there are no analogous articles to this one. The author's argument for why this is not a POV fork isn't very persuasive, as it reveals that this is the only page of its kind for a political organization of any type, be it a party or a PAC or a caucus or otherwise. That may come off as an WP:OSDE argument, but it's not hard to see why we've never had an article like this, there's a reason why we don't have "List of (Democratic / Republican) party controversies" articles. Just as sometimes other stuff exists for a reason, this is a case of "sometimes other stuff doesn't exist for a reason." This page simply consists of every time anyone has ever criticized the DSA, regardless of whether the person or organization making the criticism is themselves notable. That is just not a good idea for a Wikipedia article. The only material here that can't be better covered elsewhere is material that would be undue on any article (which is most of it to be clear, which is why I don't favor merging. most of the page is trivial and would not belong on the main DSA article either). That is what it means for something to be a WP:CFORK, it is a page that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, only serves to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.

I am skeptical that this article can be fixed through normal editing. Per WP:POVFORK, even a "criticism of" article needs to provide a balance and include both merits and faults. Would it even be possible to include the other side of the story for any of the criticisms listed here? The whole page was constructed by simply finding negative articles that mention the DSA and cobbling them all together. This clearly fails WP:NLIST for that reason. The list of criticisms as a whole has not been discussed by reliable sources - it has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources - it's just a google search for "criticized" "democratic socialists of america".

Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Just want to reiterate for emphasis, none of the keep !votes as of writing have addressed the WP:NLIST concerns. Simply containing sourced prose is not enough for this topic to meet the notability criteria. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge, The content is well sourced and shows notability but it certainly can fit into the main article nahle.ghini (talk)
Keep Its too large to fit well in the other article, and no reason to do so. Well referenced and long enough to be an article on its own. Dream Focus 23:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge as WP:POVFORK. Having articles dedicated to controversies of political parties/organizations is problematic in and of itself and is uncommon on Wikipedia for a reason. Content which would go in this type of article is best included at the main article to reduce the possibility of the dedicated "controversies" article becoming a POVFORK. Certain parts of this article, like including "endorsement of Hamas" in the lede without explaining that only a single caucus was involved in that specific controversy, are examples of why this sort of article is best merged into the main one. Lovelyfurball (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete or merge if merged, remove the WP:NPOV violating sections and make sure anything which is part of the merge meets notability and sourcing standards as part of that. I agree with the feedback that this article as a whole seems to fail WP:POVFORK. Kharkanan (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
— Kharkanan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. A user with 41 edits. Account created on 21 February 2024. Dream Focus 06:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
That user has made few edits overall, but their !vote here is the only edit they've ever made in this topic area, so it doesn't seem appropriate to respond to their !vote with a link to Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete or merge I see no reason that this should be its own article. Many of these controversies listed are hardly significant enough to write about. I am also concerned with the article's neutrality. The article is written very directly and matter-of-factly. For example, "Some of these controversies include endorsement of Hamas..." is written instead of "DSA has been accused of endorsing of Hamas" or something like that. I am not opposed to there being a controversy section in the main DSA article but it should be massively condensed and rewritten if implemented. Atich9 (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
— Atich9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dream Focus 06:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per arguments made by SocDoneLeft and Vanilla_Wizard. Emphasizing that this is a political organization of 100,000+ members, and several of the sections of this article either do not highlight anything that created a notable controversy (ex. the inadequately titled "2022 support for North Korea", "2024 revocation of AOC endorsement", "2021 Jamaal Bowman Israel trip). Several others solely indicate individual person's disputes with the organization (the entire Post-October 7th departures section). Much of the current article is also tangential to DSA as a whole (ex. "2025 People's Summit", "October 8, 2023 Rally". I believe this article is unworkable in its current state, and largely devoted to highlighting fairly routine political disagreements common in the political realm. Amtoastintolerant (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep These are notable controveries particularly the affilaition with groups connected to the DPRK. The AOC controversy also got significant coverage by mainstream press, as did the celebration of October 7th. This article is not a WP:POVFORK. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Why isn't it a POVFORK? The well-regarded essay WP:Criticism explains that a section/article dedicated only to criticisms or controversies of a topic can't possibly be neutral because it only reports one viewpoint on the topic: negative viewpoints. Many controversies written about on this page warrant inclusion on the main Democratic Socialists of America page, which is why I support a merge, but having a dedicated page which only contains negative coverage does not help. Wikipedia should certainly cover controversies of political organizations, but it should cover them on a single page: the main page for the topic. Lovelyfurball (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
WP:Criticism clearly states:
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

WP:NOTCENSORED on the other hand, is policy. Dream Focus 04:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, it is an essay, as I mentioned in the comment you replied to. It is well-regarded and I posted it because it lays out a good argument against having pages like this. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean pages can't be merged into other pages. In what way is merging the contents of one page into another "censorship"? Lovelyfurball (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Its not "well-regarded" or it would've been promoted to a guideline or policy. Dream Focus 17:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
The purpose of an essay isn't the same as a policy. An essay lays out a certain argument. In this case, it lays out the argument against having this type of page or section and explains the reasons why controversies should be integrated in the main article or section of an article. While WP:Criticism is an essay, WP:POVFORK is a part of a guideline. Lovelyfurball (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is about things that readers or editors might find morally offensive, like nudity or images of Muhammad. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for WP:NPOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete, or at the very least, WP:TNT. This article starts right off the bat with serious NPOV violations in arguing that the DSA has supported antisemitic violence; written in biased, pro-Israel language that affirms such allegations rather than qualifying them as described. The page's contents, with the exception of the Reed cancellation which seems to be fit for being merged to the main article, all focus on these allegations by pro-Israel outlets, making it seem like this article would be more appropriately titled as "Allegations of antisemitism in DSA." This page needs to either be deleted wholesale or rewritten entirely to fit Wikipedia standards on how sources should be treated. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

KEEP : the article does satisfy enough WP:GNG to be a separate article under WP:STANDALONE and is notable enough to be forked. There are other comparable articles on WP:List of Wikipedia controversies. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete or draftify per SocDoneLeft and others, this article is not notable enough to exist on its own and is clearly not neutral. A separate controversies section could be added to the main DSA article, but not like this. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Also worth noting what isn't included. There are plenty of other controversies that have happened with DSA, this article only focuses on I/P-related ones. It reads like a pro-Israel essay criticizing DSA. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep ~~or Merge~~ As so many other participants have stated, the level of detail and reliable and verifiable in-depth sourcing demonstrates that the subject merits a standalone article. I appreciate many of the comments about the structure of the article, but the opportunity for cleanup exists once this discussion is closed. I would also support a merge, with the content integrated into the body of the main DSA article, which would provide an opportunity for readers of that article to see more detail about these controversies. Alansohn (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- After further consideration and in an effort to more clearly express my preference, I think that the sourcing justifies retention and that a standalone article is merited here. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Leaning retention in this case because the content is quite robust and the reliable sourcing is strong. There are a ton of news stories cited that make these controversies notable, per WP:N Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

KEEP - The DSA page is already long. I ask: would merging this page make it more readable or less? A fork is usually a concern either for dodging consensus or because duplicating the same information in two different places risks distortion. This criticism information appears unique and stands well on its own page. There is a link from the DSA page to the controversies page and vice versa. I think adding all of this content will make the DSA page harder to read.

Dd3r1n0 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep or Merge, if the level of detail can fit into the main article. The information has been rigorously sourced, and shows notability. Qualiesin (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep - This article is a compendium of well-sourced information and any merge targets would be too lengthy to accommodate everything laid out here . _signed,Kvinnen (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete The page has a number of NPOV issues. For example, the 2022 section on lifting the North Korean travel ban (the DSA press criticizes the use of sanctions generally) is titled "2022 support for North Korea." The anti-Israel travel pledge is considered a controversy on the page. According to whom? Why was weight given to moderate Democrats who are not part of the organization? It also isn't clear that some of these caucuses are given due weight. Is the Red Star Caucus large enough to be highlighted in two large paragraphs? I had not even heard of it before today. Several of the sources don't even mention the group. Catboy69 (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
+1 What qualifies as a "controversy" on this page is an important issue here. There is a difference between a controversy and a criticism. They both still need to be handled with care and the same neutrality policies apply either way, but we define a controversy as a prolonged public dispute or disagreement - is there even anything in the article that qualifies as one? This page is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE compilation of one-off criticisms (often from non-notable people/groups), not prolonged scandals. In the example you give, the criticism is just a single sentence, The survey was criticized [...]. No prolonged criticism, no fallout or consequences, no response to the criticism, no controversy. Just "x was criticized." That's not notable enough to be included in a criticisms & controversies section, much less to be WP:SPLIT off into a standalone article, and many other sections of the page are no different. Editors just saying something to the effect of "the page is sourced" should keep in mind that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep per sources. Wallpaperwizard (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep: I find@Dream Focus argument persuasive. The article does cite from the mainstream medias and list notable controversies that all backed by reliable sources. Merging this all to another article will create an encyclopedic gap, because the controversies are detailed enough to justify standalone treatment, and also will be mess to the article it well get merge to since much of this sourced detail would still need to be preserved.Instant History (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete or Merge. I was originally on the side of Keep and thought the clear violation of WP:NPOV throughout the article could be fixed, but I was convinced by Amtoastintolerant's and Vanilla Wizard's arguments that no major political party has an entire controversy article dedicated to it, and the existence of one is WP:POVFORK. If this article is kept, it would be fair play to have a List of Republican Party controversies and a List of Democratic Party controversies, and either would be 20 times longer than the DSA article. Sure, the current article is backed by reliable sources, but this would also apply to "list of controversies" articles about the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 23:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Topic itself does not lack encyclopedic value under WP:N. If current selection is incomplete, remedy is expansion and balancing under WP:UNDUE, not deletion. Concerns should be addressed through editing and refinement rather than removal under WP:ATD. Content is curable and it is not evident that the topic is inherently non-encyclopedic. Textcurator (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Would the Keep voters be opposed to this article being renamed to "Allegations of antisemitism in DSA?" There's only two non-Israel controversies here and they can easily be merged back into the main article. It would still be an article riddled with problems, but at least the scope of this article will be appropriately narrowed down. It would also need a section like Antisemitism in the British Labour Party does that cites sources that criticizes such allegations to maintain balance. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The rationales expressed here for a delete/merge of this page are simply to the effect of "controversies do not require a page" or "What is a controversy anyway?", when the tone adopted by multiple WP:GREL address these incidents in a manner which suggests that they are contentious issues causing public furore rather than mere criticism levied by a party on the subject. An example: The headline of this NYT source "A Black Marxist Scholar Wanted to Talk About Race. It Ignited a Fury." The fact that coverage of this nature exists is proof enough for the events listed here to be regarded as "controversial". The argument that this article is a WP:POVFORK is not sound as the page is quite explicit with respect to what it intends to cover and the information present here thoroughly meets WP:GNG and is in alignment with the sources. There is nothing presented here which is an alternate take or perspective on information that exists elsewhere. In fact, the page Democratic Socialists of America must have a section that summarizes the content of this article. Two essays to take into consideration while arriving at a conclusion here are WP:DOESNTBELONG and WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL. An apparent lack of precedent is not a reason enough per se to delete or merge an article. _signed,Kvinnen (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

My comment is based on the definition of "controversy" per Cambridge Dictionary: a lot of disagreement or argument about something, usually because it affects or is important to many people. _signed,Kvinnen (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The rationales expressed here for a delete/merge of this page are simply to the effect of "controversies do not require a page" or "What is a controversy anyway?" I'm going to assume good faith and assume you wrote this without having read the delete !votes. No, the delete rationales are that this page fails WP:NLIST, WP:LISTCRIT, WP:POVFORK, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the former of which I've still not seen any keep !voters address. Standalone list articles have their own notability criteria. The list needs to be discussed as a group for the standalone list to be warranted:

Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists through methods such as only including entries for independently notable items.

This simply isn't the case for this topic, and still nobody has attempted to demonstrate that DSA controversies have been discussed as a group by reliable sources. It's disappointing to see even experienced editors just arguing that this page has to be kept because it cites its sources, while completely ignoring the relevant policies that determine what sourced material is actually notable and belongs on Wikipedia.

An apparent lack of precedent is not a reason enough per se to delete or merge an article The fact that no article directly analogous to this one has ever existed is a very relevant consideration as even criticism/controversy sections are generally frowned upon (and the fact that no such section existed before this page was created means there wasn't even anything to WP:SPLIT off of), but the lack of precedent is far from the only reason why this shouldn't be an article.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete or potentially merge with major revisions. As Vanilla Wizard commented, this is the only page of its kind for a political organization. Additionally, despite the DSA's 44-year history, this article nearly only focuses on Israel/Palestine-related controversies going back only six years. I agree with Personisinsterest that this article could be added to the main DSA article, but it would need significant revisions to avoid violating WP:NPOV. Even then, I am skeptical that a section like this could maintain NPOV (see WP:Criticism). Dofrg (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Here are some of non Iralei/Palestain controversies backed by reliable sources which are not included within the article, but, should be included:
1. 2022 Ukraine/NATO statement controversy: blaming U.S. and NATO “imperialist expansionism” for helping set the stage for the conflict. 1 2 3
2. Venezuela and Nicolás Maduro controversy: DSA has been controversial for supporting Maduro government throughout. 1 2
3. 2020 non-endorsement of Joe Biden: DSA’s refusal to endorse Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election drew criticism 1
4. The 2019 DSA national convention which drew online ridicule after viral clips showed delegates objecting to clapping, background chatter, strong scents, and gendered language during meeting proceedings.1
5. DSA’s “tax the rich” campaigns have also drawn controversy, with supporters arguing that higher taxes on wealthy individuals are needed to reduce inequality and fund public services, while critics describe the proposals as anti-business or class-war rhetoric.1 2 3
Instant History (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Most of the sources you've just linked to are either unreliable, primary (don't demonstrate notability), or 404 not founds. Did you use an LLM to gather these? Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Selective merge. This is at best a WP:POVFORK. Collecting negative information is a problem of WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. Incorporate the information alongside every other part of the history, and remove any WP:BALASP violations. Not opposed to deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep A few policies I would cite include WP:GNG and WP:Verifiability. DSA is a controversial and radical organization and they posit themselves as such. In a world where pushing the limits is what gets things done this not a strike against them necessarily but a statement of proper context. They would not arguably be as effective or noteworthy without controversy. Their controversies are not solely tied to Israel/Palestine as has been insinuated above. The page can be improved but this not enough to justify deletion. The DSA has previously advocated for abolishing the police and prison systems on a city-wide and national level. They position themselves as a radical organization especially on college campuses. I speak from experience, this is how an organization like this would differentiate itself from the university Democrats for example. But this does not come without its questions, worries, or accusations. In terms of notoriety and track record the page should stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AadamentAardvark (talk • contribs) 01:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete the article in its current form is a textbook violation of WP:POVFORK and WP:NLIST. Standalone list articles strictly require that the group or set as a whole has been discussed by independent RS as a distinct, cohesive phenomenon. This article is an indiscriminate compilation built by cobbling together entirely disparate news stories. A standalone list is not automatically granted notability if the grouping itself has never been treated as a unified subject by independent coverage. The article also relies on severe WP:UNDUE and neutrality violations, as it systematically leverages the actions and statements of tiny, non-notable internal factions, some with negligible membership, to frame a national organization of over 100,000 members. Elevating the fringe rhetoric of groups like the Liberation Caucus, whose views the article explicitly admits do not reflect the wider organization, into a standalone national "DSA controversy" page directly violates WP:PROPORTION. The lead also states as a matter of absolute, un-attributed fact in wikivoice that the DSA's controversies include the "endorsement of Hamas" and "justifying antisemitic violence". The actual body of the article shows no broad organizational consensus for these actions. And the lead image caption uses highly loaded, completely unsourced wording asserting that the organization has received criticism for "allegedly defending antisemitic violence as anti-Zionist resistance". This frankly reads as an WP:ATTACK page. Ultimately, because its very scope is structurally designed to violate NPOV by isolating only negative viewpoints, it violates WP:CSECTION and is fundamentally uncurable as a standalone entity. Paprikaiser (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Dark Matter Technologies

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

Not notable company. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 18:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 18:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I can't find any coverage either. Limmidy (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Explain.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete I'm not seeing any evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH.-KH-1 (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Bosko's Party

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

No evidence of notability, sources are a plot summary (the Beck book), a passing mention, an advert, and a "review" which is a short summary and one short line of appreciation. Looking for better sources in Google Books only produces more passing mentions and database entries, no significant indepth coverage. Should be redirected to Bosko instead. Fram (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United States of America. Fram (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment I added a Cartoon Research source documenting its use of music. With the Beck book and the review (which is brief given the era), could pass GNG. Go D. Usopp (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep Here are the multiple independent reliable sources I found:
1. Beck, Jerry; Friedwald, Will (1989). Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies: A Complete Illustrated Guide to the Warner Bros. Cartoons. New York: Henry Holt and Company. p. 10. ISBN 0-8050-0894-2. Retrieved 2026-05-19 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Bosko, Honey; Apr 2; LT; Animation by Isadore Freleng and Larry Martin. While Honey puts on her makeup and dresses, Bosko and friends prepare a surprise party. She applies her cake mascara (with a little saliva) on her false eyelashes and tastefully dresses behind a transom. Meanwhile, down-stairs, funny animal types of all description (but usually round and with pie-cut eyes scurry about looking for hiding places."
2. "Bosko's Party". Motion Picture Herald. Vol. 107, no. 6. 1932-05-07. p. 34. Retrieved 2026-05-19 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "Amusing Cartoon Bosko gives a surprise party in this number of the Looney Tunes. It all goes well in an animated fashion until Bosko's dog gets his tail caught in a mouse trap and finally lands in the dead center of the birthday cake. The youngsters, especially, will like it.-Running time, 7 minutes."
3. Bertino, Tom (1980). "Hugh Harman and Rudolf Ising at Warner Brothers". In Peary, Gerald; Peary, Danny (eds.). The American Animated Cartoon: A Critical Anthology. New York: E. P. Dutton. p. 107. ISBN 0-525-47639-3. Retrieved 2026-05-19 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "For instance, Bosko's Party (1932) is attended by a plethora of cloyingly cute, albeit artistically pleasing, animals. The film limps along with little action or humor. It is only when Bosko and Honey, armed with a ukulele, do one of their Johnny Marvin–Aileen Stanley routines on "Sugar" that the film suddenly takes on a life, carrying Bosko's Party to a raucous finish."
4. Webb, Graham (2011). The Animated Film Encyclopedia: A Complete Guide to American Shorts, Features and Sequences, 1900–1999. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-7864-4985-9. Retrieved 2026-05-19 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "721. Bosko's Party (Looney Tunes) 7 May 1932; p.c.: Hugh Harman, Rudolf Ising prods for WB; anim: Isadore Freleng, Larry Martin, Robert Clampett; ed: Dale Pickett; voices: John T. Murray, Mary Moder; mus: Frank Marsales; prod: Leon Schlesinger; b&w. sd: Vit. 7 min. • Honey's party goes well until Bruno catches his tail in a mouse-trap and lands right in the middle of the birthday cake."
5. "Sound Shorts". The Daily Film Renter. Vol. 6, no. 1649. 1932-05-30. p. 4. ProQuest 3127083067.
  The article notes: "Bosko's Party: Issue from "Looney Tunes" series, in which Bosko is seen preparing surprise party in honour of his sweetheart. Good of its type. Warner. Cert. "U." 680 feet. Release Not Fixed."
6. Davies, Caroline (2015-09-23). "Happy Birthday: how popular song became public property". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2026-05-19. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
  The article notes: "In the 1930s, Happy Birthday appeared in a series of films, including Girls About Town, Bosko’s Party and The Old Homestead."
Beck & Friedwald 1989 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBeckFriedwald1989 (help) is the only source that provides significant coverage of the subject. The other sources provide between one and a few sentences. Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Inclusionary criteria, which says, "Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant." Although the coverage in each individual source is largely brief, I like that the film received critical analysis 48 years after its 1932 release in Bertino 1980 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBertino1980 (help), which indicates the film's significance and notability. Bertino 1980 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBertino1980 (help) said the film "is attended by a plethora of cloyingly cute, albeit artistically pleasing, animals", "limps along with little action or humor", and has a "racuous finish". The filmography section of the character Bosko covers 53 films. A merge to Bosko would be either undue weight or result in the loss of the plot summary. There is sufficient content to keep Bosko's Party as a standalone article.
Cunard (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this AI-written? Sure reads that way. Fram (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not AI-written. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Then it sure looks script-assisted, your comments across AfDs are extremely repetititve and generic, e.g. your latest. Even your DYK noms use the same "the article notes" (Template:Did you know nominations/Observatorio 1873). In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capsule review you even write "the book notes" three times for the same book. No one actually writes like that manually surely? Fram (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It is not script-assisted. It is all manual. Regarding my comments being "extremely repetititve and generic", I present the sources that way by using the same wording like "the article notes" or "the book notes" to save time. The sources I provide in each AfD is unique to that topic and the product of significant time spent searching through Google, Google Books, the Internet Archive, and other research databases. Cunard (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Considering that most of the sources you present here were already in the article and in the AfD, you could have saved yourself a lot of time by only presenting the new ones. Something like Graham Webb above is not significant coverage at all but a database entry with a one-line plot summary. Beck, which you consider "significant coverage", is also a plot summary. What you consider "critical analysis" is a two-line commentary which can easily be included in the main Bosko article. I don't get where you make the leap from showing mostly already discussed extremely brief sources to a "keep". Fram (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 00:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep – Per Cunard sources. Svartner (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Brief mentions, even in the Cunard sources above, nothing showing notability. I can't find much of anything either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete, none of the above are significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ryan Amon

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. JTtheOG (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Weak delete. I found this source in Wired (magazine): , though this probably isn't enough on its own. Aside from this I only found passing mentions. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete, I found this interview by 8dio, but they don't look like a reliable source. I too saw the interview mentioned by Svartner (talk · contribs) above. There are mentions of the subject of the article, such as this from Broadcast Music, Inc. That said this is insufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 20:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

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)} 06:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Swapan K. Gayen

AfDs for this article:

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

Don’t see much here to establish notability as per WPːACADEMIC. Also most sources are primary and not independent of the subject Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, Physics, Bangladesh, United States of America, New Jersey, New York, and North America. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per previous two AfDs consensus here and here. Notability is not temporary. --SatnaamIN (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I guess that what we look for in terms of citations has changed, but he is below what is generally a pass of WP:NPROF#C1 at AfC or AfD in physics in 2026; an h-factor of 32 with 3.6K citation is low for the high citation areas he works in. I confess that I am surprised by the prior AfD statements that he passed WP:NPROF#C1 back in 2020, particularly as his citations must have been lower. I would say that his citations are at about the level of an associate professor in an R1 US Physics Department. He is quite competitive at the full professor level for the R2 University he belongs to. Note that I see no mention of a Chair anywhere, plus there would need to be strong justification for a chair at an R2 University to qualify for C5. To complete the case, being a member of a society is not a qualification for C3, I saw no awards in his CV that might contribute to C2 or SIGCOV.Ldm1954 (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping of @Russ Woodroofe, Kj cheetham, and David Eppstein:Ldm1954 (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

h-index says "after 20 years a "successful scientist" would have an h-index of 20". He has been for more than 20 years and now a full-time professor, SatnaamIN (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

We have pages on notable scientists, which is very different. (And Hirsch's numbers quoted in that page are way off in 2026.) Ldm1954 (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment Flyingphoenixchips, please do not make short AfD justifications such as this. A proper case with policy based justification for the relevant notability criteria (here NPROF) is needed, as well as a WP:Before.Ldm1954 (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: User:Ldm1954 what you just did here? And where is your signatures? --SatnaamIN (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Your vote was lost in an edit confluct, as were my signatures. I restored everything. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I find his Google Scholar profile respectable for a middle-rank scientist, but in no way enough to make him notable. In general I agree with Ldm1954's analysis. Athel cb (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: [[[WP:NPROF#C1]] syas "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. See also notes to Criterion 2, some of which apply to Criterion 1 as well." --SatnaamIN (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment. The 2nd nomination closed as a keep partly because it was far too close to the first nomination. The 1st nomination did not end in a resounding consensus. I !voted keep at the earlier nominations, but I do think we're expecting somewhat higher citation counts now than we did in 2020; Ldm1954 is also surely is better at evaluating track records in physics than I am. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep. Seven publications with triple-digit citation counts is still enough to push me to the positive side of borderline for WP:PROF#C1. I don't think NYAS membership counts for #C3, though, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Well yes, I agree that the specific forsterite laser papers are quite foundational to Cr:forsterite as a tunable near-IR solid-state laser medium... but out of the seven you quoted, three are not standard research papers. one is a US patent, another is a trade-magazine feature in Optics and Photonics News, and the other an Annals NYAS proceedings piece with discussion. Of the remaining four, are the chromium-doped forsterite lasing papers I mentioned which are also from the same group in 1988-89, so they in a way reflect one collaborative result rather than sustained independent impact which to me does not really seem to count towards C1. Gayen is not first author on any of the high-citation works and plus this field of his especially it being applied physics is already a high citation one, so this is to be expected. Also at this point Gayen appears as a middle-author research associate early in his career, this specific citation trace to one collaborative project of his, rather than to a solely independent body of work. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment. :Hey apologies @Ldm1954. I was using my phone so couldn’t quite summarise based on Wikipedia:BEFORE in length, but thanks for summing it all up beautifully. Just adding on, physics is generally a high citation field so his metrics (h-index 32, 3,670 total cites) are respectable but to be expected. C1 typically requires evidence of clear impact above the field average in general. So far there is No major awards, named chair, or distinguished professorship, so C2 and C5 are definitely not met. He is described as a "member" of APS, OSA, and NYAS rather than a Fellow, so C3 does not apply (ordinary membership fyi anre open application). Serving as department chair at CCNY does not satisfy C6, either as generally this is for university-level leadership (president, provost, etc.). Full professor status alone is not sufficient under Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and the sourcing is also extremely thin… a faculty profile, a thesis record, and a Google Scholar page, none of which are independent secondary coverage for WP:GNG. There is not much available online either. As I see it this is just another case of Wikipedia:Too soon well yes he is on the trajectory but not notable yet… As of now it will make sense to delete and recreate it if he passes the guidelines. I’m just surprised the other AfDs passed without more scrutiny. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Physics is not homogeneous enough to say that it is a high citation field without being more specific. To get a better feel for his research impact I tried a Google Scholar search for forsterite (a repeating and specific keyword in Gayen's publications) and found most of the top citation counts to be in the low triple digits, comparable with Gayen's top publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  David Eppstein, he works in experimental solid state physics/materials science which are both high citation fields. For instance, look at the last two of his research areas in GS ( the first two are too narrow), nanoscience and nonlinear optics. Forsterite is a compound of not that major interest; perhaps try olivine, rutile as two more common compounds, and perovskite as one of the most important. However, in general compounds are much too narrow topics. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  N.B., more common is the chemical formula, e,g. see TiO2 where there are a good number of papers with citations in the thousands. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete. I !voted weak keep and (procedurally) keep respectively in the previous AfDs. Looking again, I see several highly cited papers, but two of them are also pretty highly coauthored (with the subject as middle author in a field where that matters). I may have gotten a little more deletionist as time goes on, or perhaps Wikipedia has become a little stricter, but looking at this citation record, I am (weakly) won over by Ldm1954's arguments against notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete – insufficient coverage. Even if there were more articles or citations than there are, there is insufficient independent sourcing to support the existence of an encyclopedia article. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Per Ldm1954. Subject does not pass WP:NPROF. Weighing in "Keep" because of the outcome of two previous AFDs does not seem a great rationale, as consensus can change. WP:NACADEMIC #1 also has the addition of "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". I could not find sources to advance basic notability for a stand-alone article. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
What that phrasing means in practice is "as demonstrated by citations from publications by other people". Those citations are independent reliable sources. (They are not in-depth but the text does not say anything about depth.) As in the hundreds of independent reliable sources for each of Gayen's top-cited publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Trouble T Roy

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Two of the refs are mentions in AllMusic on his role in the group and the other two cover his death. I'd propose to merge it to Heavy D and the Boyz but that's just a redirect to Heavy D. Nighfidelity (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Dance, Music, United States of America, Indiana, and New York. Nighfidelity (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Weak Keep there's an uncited Village Voice interview with Pete Rock in the article. It's borderline, but there are enough sources to justify keeping this. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep - He was well known at the time of his death, which generated contemporary news coverage, and he is still remembered in a retrospective fashion as seen at , plus one of the existing references. The WP:NOTMEMORIAL claim from the nominator may have been influenced by the unnecessarily elegy-like text in the article, which could be toned down. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: It is a memorial. It is missing significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The article goes from a one-sentence lead straight into a Death" and then a "Legacy" section. One source is titled, "R.I.P. Trouble T-Roy: Family & Friends Still Reminisce 20 Years Later". The first Allmusic reference only lists the subject's name, "Died", "Genre", and "Member Of". The L.A. Times Archives source is mainly about the accident. The last Allmusic source is titled "Heavy D Biography by Steve Huey". It has passing mention of Trouble T-Roy's fall and death. The article does not come close to a "full and balanced biography" for a "standalone article". -- Otr500 (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep per borderline sources and lack of WP:SIGCOV. However, I'm still leaning towards a keep considering that the subject is deceased. Retro music11 (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

do not delete ~2026-31839-20 (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep please, his death and role in a famous group is notable enough ~2026-32806-22 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Eric Chen (entrepreneur)

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

~~Repost of deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Chen * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)~~

New nomination statement after it turns out I misunderstood things below: Repost of previously deleted page created at WP:GAMENAMEd title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Chen (2nd nomination) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, China, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of New York-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about deleting this one. Leaning keep just because of the reliable sources out there. These are just two examples of news coverage demonstrating WP:NOTE for the BLP:

https://fortune.com/2025/08/05/eric-chen-injective-cofounder-ceo-blockchain-crypto-gen-z-nyu-dropout-lifestyle-business-leaders-work-life-balance/

https://www.inc.com/annabel-burba/this-founder-cold-emailed-mark-cuban-and-landed-an-investment-from-him/91273238 Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Burleigh, Emma (2025-08-05). "This Gen Zer dropped out of NYU at just 19 to launch his blockchain—now, his $1.3 billion company is backed by Mark Cuban and he never takes a day off". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2026-05-16. Retrieved 2026-05-16.
  The article notes: "Today we meet Eric Chen, the CEO and cofounder of financial blockchain Injective Foundation. ... Over the past seven years, Injective has grown to a $1.34 billion company—and at 26 years old, Chen is just getting started. More impressively, he launched the company at just 19 while enrolled in New York University. Chen was studying finance and mining Ethereum in his dorm room, all while interning at Innovating Capital on a hedge fund desk. The then-teenager was inspired to launch Injective after witnessing the inefficiencies of the traditional market, so he dropped out of NYU and started building his billion-dollar business. ... Because of his business’s massive growth, Chen says he can’t remember a time when he was fully away from his work. The CEO’s fun luxury gadgets—including a $2,900 mattress cover, Oura ring, and racing simulator—help keep him sane, he says, in the thick of his busy schedule. He never buys groceries, opting to eat out in New York City or DoorDash his food. Taking very few swanky vacations, he lives a globe-trotting lifestyle through his business, with trips to Seoul, London, Toronto, Abu Dhabi, and Singapore this year."
2. Cheong, Charissa (2026-02-08). "3 founders who dropped out of college share the moment they knew it was time". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2026-05-16. Retrieved 2026-05-16.
  The article notes: "When Eric Chen went to NYU in 2016, he pictured going into finance or tech after graduating. Then he found he could spend hours learning about blockchain technology without getting bored, and decided to immerse himself in that space rather than stay in college. In the fall of 2018, Chen took a leave of absence from NYU and started Injective, a decentralized crypto exchange platform. Chen saw the moment as a once-in-a-generation opportunity for a young person like him to contribute to a nascent space without much prior experience. Chen faced challenges like investors not buying into decentralized exchanges, and he said not having a degree probably didn't help his case. However, when the industry blew up in 2020, the company was able to raise a seed round, and Chen decided not to go back to NYU."
3. Burba, Annabel (2025-12-15). "This Founder Cold-Emailed Mark Cuban and Landed an Investment From HimHe shares the strategy that helped him get a response—and funding—from the Shark". Inc. Archived from the original on 2026-05-16. Retrieved 2026-05-16.
  The article notes: "Four and a half years ago, Eric Chen and Albert Chon, the founders of financial blockchain company Injective, achieved a feat many entrepreneurs only dream of: They landed Mark Cuban as an investor."
4. O'Connor, Clare (2026-05-07). "Billion-Dollar Company With One Employee? How Agentic AI Is Changing Who Gets Hired". Investor's Business Daily. Retrieved 2026-05-16.
  The article notes: "Investor's Business Daily sat down recently with Eric Chen, CEO of Injective Labs, a $1 billion blockchain company backed by investors like Binance and Mark Cuban. Chen started the company in 2018 at 19 years of age and now runs a team of about 70 people. ... At Chen's software-first company, the adoption of agentic AI is already affecting entry-level roles. Chen says there is less need for junior employees, especially for repetitive or execution-heavy tasks, and the company has largely stopped hiring interns aside from one or two specialized positions."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Eric Chen to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment @Pppery: is the previous AfD for a different individual?.-KH-1 (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
It's the same person. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion that you linked to is focused on WP:PROF, but there's no mention of Chen being in academia in this article? Also, there's this comment .-KH-1 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to work out what happened here. Eric Chen has been deleted many times.

The first deletion, in 2005, was irrelevant - it was deleted as A7 but G10 would have been more appropriate

The two 2008 deletions are about a High School student from California.

The 2018 deletion starts with: Eric Chen is an Associate Professor and Counseling Psychologist of the graduate school of education at Fordham University., and actually seems to be a different person despite my claim above.

The 2024 deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Chen (2nd nomination)) is the same person: Eric Chen is a cryptography researcher, scientist and co-founder of Injective Labs, focusing on development of cryptography related technologies

This popped up on my radar when looking at a report for titles created as a variant capitalization of a salted title, as Eric chen (lowercase c) is salted. That page was deleted 3 times.

The 2005 deletion is essentially the same article as the 2005 deletion of the uppercase C person.

The first 2016 deletion was as a copy of Eric Schmidt.

The second 2016 deletion was yet another unrelated person: Eric (Zhonghen) Chen is a serial entrepreneur, student, and Hong Kong Top Ten Young Persons Nominee

If I had known all of this I wouldn't have started this AfD. But despite all of this I'm not withdrawing as I still think it's best that this suspicious WP:GAMENAMEd article either be deleted or its existence be ratified by possible community consensus. Apologies for being sloppy here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that, just trying to get my head around all of this. I'm still undecided but I think that while there is coverage, it's debatable how much of it is truly independent of the subject.-KH-1 (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep as amid the flurry of sources, there are enough in-depth sources about him, as reviewed in detail above, to satisfy the notability standard Alansohn (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. There's solid independent coverage about Chen himself, not just his company — a Fortune profile and a Business Insider story both center on him, plus Reuters, TechCrunch, CoinDesk, Cointelegraph, and a Forbes 30 Under 30 listing. That's enough to clear the bar. The article's real problems are a few weak sources and some promotional tone, which can be fixed by editing rather than deleting.--Nq Wisit (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

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. ASUKITE 16:08, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hullo (social media influencer)

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

Non notable "influencer" with WP:BLP1E regarding the kiddie porn investigation. Fails WP:BIO, appears to be promotional. WP:ADMASQ. Very questionable referencing at best 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, Russia, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

This subject is notable for the event that took place. Maybe instead of deletion, we could rename and rewrite the article a bit better to fit the incident? ReelCosmix (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: per nom, fails WP:BLP1E, this person was not notable until they were arrested and charged, and no indication their charges meet WP:NCRIME either. MidnightMayhem (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Non-notable person before the alleged crime. Per BLP1E, NOTNEWS, and RECENTISM. All 18 references are different versions of the same news. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2026 (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.

Gana la Verde

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

I have done a little digging, and there doesn't seem to be any coverage by any other reliable source not already cited. After these findings, I do not believe this show is notable and therefore, the article should be deleted. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment I found this write up in CBS about the show: []. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete: It did pop back up in an article last year, but it wasn't the main focus, merely an aside. So that makes two articles' worth of significant coverage, one of middling coverage. I think that fails GNG. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
week keep The two sources in the article plus the two mentioned here get us over the WP:N bar IMO. That's three articles of significant coverage (two from CBS, so only 2 different sources if that matters) plus one mention is probably enough. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist, to reach some quorum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hullo (social media influencer)

Related Articles