Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|California|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to California.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


California[edit]

MonkeySports[edit]

MonkeySports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. All the coverage I find is WP:ROUTINE and doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Speech Prof[edit]

The Speech Prof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search returned only primary sources; I could not find any evidence that he meets GNG. JSFarman (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vandals / Assorted Jelly Beans[edit]

The Vandals / Assorted Jelly Beans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable split record. toweli (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Vandals discography#Extended plays: found no reliable coverage in digital archives. Assorted Jelly Beans is a redirect to a band member's article which doesn't even mention this split, and the target I chose appears to be the only place which does. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Garcia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
James Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable baseball player. Article was deleted by discussion in 2007 and then recreated in 2014. It's different enough to not be speedily deleted, I think. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. SOS[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mr. SOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Enahnced some, but recreation of previously deleted subject. Mikeblas (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie Software[edit]

Moxie Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Annoyingly the company appears to have changed its name several times (previously BSG Alliance and nGenera), so an AfD rather than a PROD just to make sure I'm not missing anything. Best sources I could find: [1] [2] [3]... "not great" would be an understatement. – Teratix ₵ 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Taiko[edit]

San Jose Taiko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While previously deleted for G11, this time the page has been written in a more encyclopedic tone. Unfortunately, there is just not any coverage that I can find. BrigadierG (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References to published academic work demonstrating the significance of this organization to the art of taiko in North America have been added, as well as national recognition from the NEA for the original managing director and artistic director of the organization. 31N2024 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Space Micro Inc[edit]

Space Micro Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by an employee and may have been later editor by one or two other employees. It reads as promotional and there are no cited sources other than the company itself. Unclear this company is notable; we have no article on the company that bought it. -- Beland (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was able to find a few seemingly independent sources, but the majority are clearly either written by the company or (in in one case) a closely related company. I couldn't find anything on Google Books or Scholar.
A closer look at the creator's contributions and talk page shows that this user is clearly only on here to promote the company, and has a conflict on interest. The page itself seems to fit within the definition of WP:NOTPROMO. Ships & Space(Edits) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I also can't find any sourcing outside of routine coverage, which can't be used to establish notability per WP: NCOMPANY.
HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPAL-LP[edit]

KPAL-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States[edit]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most likely fails WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links. WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability
  • Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.
2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Pierre[edit]

Suzanne Pierre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria; for example, publication output with 46 citations in total from 4 documents doesn't suggest significant impact in the field. The 'selected publications' seems to be all publications. There is evidence of grants (one in the form of the award), but none seem to sufficient to meet the prize criteria of WP:NBIO. Klbrain (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Science, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that it's far WP:TOOSOON for NPROF for this 2018 PhD, although the citation record is a reasonable start. The scholarships and grants do not carry much weight for notability, although they may help the subject eventually become notable. Little sign of GNG; I thought there might be some coverage of the national geographic connection, but it looks like this is mostly (only?) another early career award/grant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SPA-created fanpage. Subject has H-index of 4 on 70 total citations. 128.252.210.4 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Matt Hannaford[edit]

Matt Hannaford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

despite being flagged for improvement for nearly a decade now, the article still has major issues. much of the article seems to be either original research, or things Matt has been only involved with tangentially (like stars his coworkers at the company represented). this could be improved if the article met WP:BIO, but even that seems doubtful. Free Realist 9 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 1175[edit]

AfDs for this article:
United Airlines Flight 1175 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING.

I note the previous AfDs and the contentious debate surrounding this article. It was previously deleted at an AfD in 2018, then restored by a deletion review in 2021. It survived a second AfD on the basis of continuing coverage and publication of new information which (allegedly) demonstrated the significance and lasting impact of this incident. This new information was almost entirely related to:

  • The release of the NTSB report in late 2020; and
  • Engine failures on United Airlines Flight 328 and Japan Airlines 904, involving the same type of aircraft and engine.

Any time that an incident resulted in a news spike, it is likely that the release of the accident report may receive at least some coverage in secondary sources, but more often than not, this just means that the official investigation has concluded. Notability would be inherited from the content of that report, rather than its existence. In this case, it appears the report recommended changing routine inspection intervals for operators of PW4000 engines. This is a fairly predictable outcome that impacts a specific group of operators - more notable would be an unexpected finding that leads to sweeping changes to regulations across the industry as a whole, but even then it would be more appropriate to cover this in Pratt & Whitney PW4000 article. The article itself quotes the NTSB as saying they had not confirmed a link to the other incidents mentioned above that generated the media spike. Of the references cited that have been published from 2020 onwards, there is little to indicate significant WP:LASTING coverage of this incident. Most either provide trivial mentions of United 1175 while discussing other incidents, are WP:SENSATIONAL, or do not demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE in the form of detailed case studies, rather they are rehashing what was already reported on in 2018. Other additions to the article in a bid to demonstrate notability have been irrelevant or unencyclopedic - including several paragraphs detailing the history Boeing 777 fatal accidents and hull-losses, an individual's filing of a lawsuit for emotional distress or timelines of the crew performing routine procedures such as initiating fuel crossfeeds and lowering the landing gear. I just removed a sentance and reference from 2018 that said United were planning to offer passengers on flight 1175 refunds! Dfadden (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The event meets Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage in that it has received significant coverage in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 even years after it took place on 13 February 2018.

    The event has become notable since it resulted in a new mandate by the Federal Aviation Administration (WP:LASTING) and it has continued to receive sustained coverage years after the event (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE), even if some of those sources are prompted by another event happening or by regional or local sources that have some connection with the event. If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage years later.

    Sources published from one month to four years after the event (ordered chronologically) that provide significant coverage about United Airlines Flight 1175:

    1. "NTSB's initial probe finds likely cause of engine blowout on United flight to Hawaii". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. 2018-03-07. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    2. Morales, Manolo (2019-08-23). "United pilot recalls averting airline disaster". KHON-TV. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    3. O'Connor, John (2020-06-06). "United, others sued for 2018 in-flight incident". Guam Daily Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    4. "NTSB releases final report on cause of engine blowout on United flight to Hawaii". KHON-TV. 2020-06-30. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    5. Vasile, Zachary F. (2020-07-03). "NTSB: Pratt inspection missed cracked fan blade". Journal Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    6. Andrew, Scottie (2021-02-22). "Another United Airlines flight experienced a right engine failure in 2018". CNN. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    7. Mayer, Erick Haw (2021-02-27). "En 2018 otro Boeing 777 de United Airlines sufrió una falla de motor" [In 2018 another United Airlines Boeing 777 suffered an engine failure]. Transponder 1200 (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      From a Google Translate of https://www.facebook.com/notes/1674174042602267/: "Founded on April 26, 2011, Transponder 1200 is a journalistic medium specialized in aviation that, for more than eight years, has positioned ourselves as a benchmark in the global aeronautical industry. With correspondents in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Ecuador, France, Germany and Mexico, we are a medium in constant growth, innovative and improving our publishing house, always managing to be in the taste of our readers, partners and clients. We are affiliated to the Federation of Associations of Mexican Journalists A.C., by APECOMOR."

    8. Tangel, Andrew; Sider, Alison (2021-03-19). "United's Recent Engine Failure Spooked Denver. It's Happened Before". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-03-19. Retrieved 2024-05-19.
    9. Parvaneh, Fred (2022-04-15). "Captain Behnam, Pilot Who Prevented 2018 Plane Crash, Tells All". Kayhan Life. Archived from the original on 2024-05-19. Retrieved 2024-05-19.
    Additional sources that provide fewer words of coverage:
    1. Tangel, Andrew; Sider, Alison (2021-02-25). "Boeing Moved to Replace 777 Engine Covers Before Recent Failures". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-25. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      The article notes, "After the 2018 failure on the United 777, the FAA mandated that fan blades on the type of engine involved undergo special thermal-acoustic image inspections—using sound waves to detect signs of cracks—every 6,500 flights."

    2. Siemaszko, Corky (2021-02-22). "Plane engine that caught fire on United Airlines flight over Denver has troubled history". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      The article notes, "But an NTSB investigation of the Feb. 13, 2018, malfunction of a Pratt & Whitney engine on the Honolulu-bound United flight faulted the company for not doing more stringent inspections."

    3. Levin, Alan (2021-02-21). "Engine Failure Spurs Boeing 777 Groundings in U.S. and Japan". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Cunard for pinging participants from the previous nomination - I did leave messages for the previous nominator and article creator on their respective talk pages as well.
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is only one factor in determining notability per WP:EVENT. The context of the lasting coverage needs to be taken into consideration against all applicable policies and guidelines. It's less about how long the media coverage lasts for and much more about whether that coverage actually establishes the lasting significance of a particular event. Just because reliable sources exist and continue to be published, doesn't mean the subject merits a stand-alone wikipedia article.
There are clear guidelines on what constitutes WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources in the policy on original research which explicitly states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports.
Considering this, the sources provided above are mostly primary, and while they may be reliable and independent, most provide little evidence of notability for this incident. They do not meet the threshold to pass WP:LASTING or WP:EVENT because:
1. Is reliable and factual, but is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS that does not provide any analysis on the incident - it just reports what was in the NTSB's preliminary report, which is an example of WP:ROUTINE.
2. Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, this article consists of an interview with the pilot recounting the incident and should be considered a primary, not a secondary source. Primary sources rarely establish notability.
3. An individual passenger filing a lawsuit as a result of distress/minor injury an in-flight incident is not inherently notable and is a WP:ROUTINE occurrence. If this lawsuit were a successful class action that determined the airline/manufacturer was grossly negligent, an argument could be made that the lawsuit established notability. As it is, the article is an example of sensationalism, which WP:EVENT states is a poor basis for encyclopedic merit.
4. Is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. There is also no new significant information included in this source. It that just states the final report is due to be released later that week and restates the summary of the preliminary report which is referenced elsewhere - again fails WP:ROUTINE
5. Another routine primary source that reports on the findings of the NTSB final report without conducting any analysis
6. Probably the closest yet to an actual secondary source, as it does discuss the events retrospectively in the context of some analysis, but does not draw any conclusive links between the incidents, just points out that there were similarities. To draw any conclusions that the modes of failure were actually related based on this article would not meet WP:NOR. Thus it does not demonstrate the significance of United 1175 that is required to meet WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING
7. This is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. As I am relying on Google translate to read the text, it is difficult for me to critique. However based on the translation appears to be about the 2021 Denver incident with a mention of United Flight 1175 being only recounting the basic facts of the incident and that authorities will investigate determine if the incidents are linked which might indicate a broader issue with PW4000 engines.
8. I do consider this Wall Street Journal a good secondary source. While it does analyse United Flight 1175 in some level of detail, this is in the context of a broader series of uncontained fan blade failures of Pratt and Whitney and CFM International engines. It is likely this article would demonstrate each of the incidents discussed are notable enough to be mentioned in the articles for the respective engine models. However, notability is not inherited. Eg. The idea that that this particular incident qualifies for a stand-alone article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subject (ongoing issues with the engines themselves) is not actually proof of its notability!
9. Like 2, is an interview with the pilot recounting the incident and should be considered a primary, not a secondary source. Despite being published four years after the accident, it also provides no new facts or analysis that would demonstrate lasting significance.
The three other sources that provide less depth also do provide some level of analysis (although 3. is relatively trivial). However once again, that analysis focusses on a series of separate incidents involving failures of PW4000 engines. As above, I would argue that the actually notable subject being analysed here is the mode of failure of the engine, thus it should be discussed in the article on the engine, rather than a standalone article on this incident.
If we are able to cut the article back to just the information supported by sources 7, 8 and the 3 additional brief mentions, I'd support a merge of this content into the Pratt and Whitney PW4000 article, or a redirect to the same target. Dfadden (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider all of these sources to contribute to the event meeting Wikipedia:Notability (events). You wrote of source 6 "Probably the closest yet to an actual secondary source, as it does discuss the events retrospectively in the context of some analysis, but does not draw any conclusive links between the incidents" and of source 8 "I do consider this Wall Street Journal a good secondary source. While it does analyse United Flight 1175 in some level of detail, this is in the context of a broader series". Even if all the other sources are disregarded (something I would disagree with), these two sources by themselves are sufficient for United Airlines Flight 1175 to meet Wikipedia:Notability (events). Regarding the WP:NOTINHERITED assertion about source 8, the essay is about Wikipedia editors claiming a subject has inherited notability when that subject has not been covered by reliable sources. This is not the case here since the subject has been amply covered by reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Cunard (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination) participants: SportingFlyer (talk · contribs), Pontificalibus (talk · contribs), Dhaluza (talk · contribs), StonyBrook (talk · contribs), SunDawn (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Ambrosiawater (talk · contribs), Oakshade (talk · contribs), Scope creep (talk · contribs), SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), Tigerdude9 (talk · contribs), and Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was pinged by Cunard. The article has reliable sources to meaningful content, dating three years after the event. WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING are passed by ongoing coverage of three years. Ongoing coverage cannot be expected to mean endlessly never ending coverage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to User:Dfadden‘s merge ideas, if properly done, per WP:Editing policy, but mergers, especially complex mergers, should not be done through AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a bit of an WP:IAR delete because of the sources, but this was basically a completely run-of-the-mill aviation event which just happened to be well covered. I expect this to be kept given our sourcing rules, but we generally do not keep articles on flight disasters where no one was hurt and nothing important happened as a result unless they were extremely unusual or well covered (the BA flight flying into ash near Indonesia, for instance). Just because we can source an article does not mean we have to have an article on the topic. I do expect this to be kept, and I almost sat this one out as a result, but common sense dictates this really wasn't that important of an aviation event. SportingFlyer T·C 17:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “ run-of-the-mill aviation event which just happened to be well covered” is a self contradiction, if you accept that Wikipedia covers things that others cover, in reliable sources, where “covers” implies secondary source content, not mere repetition. Run-of-the-mill is like churnalism which is characterised by repetition. The three years ongoing sources are not churnalism. This is no standout article, but it is good enough, and could be a good example of the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The link you have provided to secondary source is a general article. Wikipedia has a policy on how WP:SECONDARY sources are interpreted and used to establish notability. The majority of news reports about contemporary events are actually considered primary sources unless they contain detailed analysis or are written retrospectively and look at the impacts of an event over time. This is covered in the policy WP:PRIMARYNEWS. By the standard of these policies (and arguments in AfDs should be supported by actual policy), it is nowhere near as clear cut simple as saying its covered in reliable news outlets, therefore it meets GNG. Things like interviews with the pilot are most definitely NOT secondary sources in this context. Also, you have misrepresented what churnalism means in regards to WP:MILL - the first line of that policy states "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest." Churnalism on the other hand is "a pejorative term for a form of journalism in which instead of original reported news, pre-packaged material such as press releases or stories provided by news agencies are used to create articles in newspapers and other news media." Eg. repetition of press releases or mirrors of the same work under different mastheads. These are NOT the same thing. Not even close. Churnalism is not even mentioned in the policy WP:MILL (although it is mentioned in WP:RS). Dfadden (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re not telling me anything I don’t know. The article won’t be deleted because it meets the Wikipedia-notability threshold. You need to decide whether you want to argue for deletion, or for a merger, because they are not compatible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because sources cover an event or a topic does not mean we need to have an article on the topic. The Aviation Herald lists this as an incident as opposed to an accident or crash, which are generally notable, and the lasting coverage is basically just a mention that it happened. There's also bias involved here - because two of these incidents occurred on American planes, there's more coverage available to Wikipedia than for the exact same Japanese incident, which does not have an article. As I said, I do expect this to be kept because people will see coverage and stop there, but this event really does not fit the mold of the types of aviation accidents which we are likely to have articles on, and as such I am making a common sense delete vote. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has enough sources, over enough time, to pass the GNG. Passing the GNG does not mean it needs its own article, agreed. It could be merged somewhere, as Dfadden suggests. Merging is not achieved by deleting at AfD. AfD is the wrong venue for merging, especially complicated merges. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with a merge, and AfDs can result in the merge of a page as you well know. SportingFlyer T·C 04:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the argument and WP:LASTING coverage provided by Cunard. If it doesn't have lasting impact, why would CNN give the incident in-depth coverage over three years later?[4] and why would the FAA mandate new inspection processes based on the incident? Oakshade (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing particularly notable about the FAA issuing an airworthiness directive to require changes to inspection intervals as a result of a mechanical failure! That's just an example of an organisation that is responsible for risk mitigation doing its job to provide additional layers of safety. Cracks were missed at the previous routine inspection - so a simple way of addressing that is to require engineers to look more often. Revision of inspection intervals happens nearly every time there is an unexpected mechanical failure of an aircraft component that is otherwise maintained in line with the manufacturers guidance. If this had been an Emergency Airworthiness Directive, then yeah, it would be notable like Qantas Flight 72, another non-fatal incident. Dfadden (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, the media loves to hype up and place undue weight on negative news, and aviation incidents are a common target. News spikes surrounding negative aviation stories have been increasing over the last few decades and are to be expected even for the most mundane of incidents. By triggering negative emotional responses, this can distort our perceptions of how significant an incident really is - as was demonstrated by van der Meer et al. (2019) [5] Dfadden (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am pinged by Cunard as well. The action of FAA to release an airworthiness directive changing how the engine is inspected made the incident to be quite notable. The incident also grounded aircraft on multiple countries, showing that it's not just "another" accident but an accident that is treated more seriously. The article also mentioned that Boeing changed the design of the engine by strengthening its covers, another proof that this is not just "another accident". A routine accident won't spark an international grounding of aircraft and a redesign of the aircraft. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain House Community station[edit]

Mountain House Community station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This proposed commuter train station does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSTATION Sources 1, 4, and 5 have WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this planned station in the broader context of the Valley Link system; sources 2 and 3 are primary sources. With this station not scheduled to open until 2028 at the earliest, a standalone article is WP:TOOSOON. I propose to redirect this page to Valley Link until there is sufficient SIGCOV in reliable sources to warrant a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Stations, and California. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nomination. Appears to be too soon for a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are already lots of references, and their number and length will grow as designs are finalized and coverage of the project and individual stations continues. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You obviously didn't read them as none of the independent sources say more than a sentence or two about the station, and you're making a very bold assumption about a station not expected to open until near the end of the decade. Valley Link already exists. But why let facts get in the way of your personal feelings? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Call This Music?! Volume 2[edit]

AfDs for this article:
You Call This Music?! Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable compilation album that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. The only review I could find is the OC Weekly one linked, no other reviews or WP:SIGCOV found. No clear redirect target as the record label was deleted for being non-notable. Last AfD (in 2006) closed as no consensus. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wael William Diab[edit]

Wael William Diab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with no evidence of notability. Existing references are to:

  • 1/3/7: primary source bios
  • 2: a list of WP:PATENTS, which does not contribute to notability.
  • 4: a press release
  • 5/8/9: WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in non-independent sources
  • 6: self-authored material

WP:BEFORE search does not turn up any significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cogfog[edit]

Cogfog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about the weekly research group meetings of two faculty and their students/Postdocs etc. As such this is definitely not appropriate content for Wikipedia, WP:!. If we were to start to include topics like this then we would have to add the (more notable) faculty meetings and weekly seminars in academic departments around the world. We should not do this, Speedly delete Ldm1954 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kill the Scientist[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kill the Scientist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This band pretty clearly does not meet the notability criteria for musical groups. The reviews are all for a split seven-inch record they did with three other bands. That is not significant coverage. Back at that time, you could get reviews in these type of publications by simply mailing them a copy of your release. It is not indicative of anything beyond that. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. ✗plicit 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CannaCruz[edit]

CannaCruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure there is anything particularly notable about this small business, although I recognise this is an interesting area of commercial activity. Newhaven lad (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice[edit]

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perhaps surprisingly, there are no independent sources to help this pass WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Sources listed are either to SJSU, which houses the arch, or to writings of the artist who created it. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are also from SJSU or authored by artist Judy Baca. It gets trivial coverage in a few places (passing reference in a local paper and local visitor guide) but no significant, secondary coverage in independent, reliable sources. One AtD would be to merge any encyclopedic content to Paseo de César Chávez. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that it's surprising that aren't more independent sources featuring the Arch. That being said, I was able to find a few independent sources discussing the Arch, namely:
- A publication from from the San Jose Museum of Art - here
- An article from the Social and Public Art Resource Center - here
- A feature on GPSmyCity - here
- An article by Mosaic Atlas - here (Admittedly, Mosaic Atlas is partnered with SJSU, but ostensibly they're an independent source)
Personally, I think the article should be kept, but adding the More citations needed template and incorporating the above sources. SammySpartan (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the SPARC piece during my search, but Judy Baca is a [of SPARC] and the author of the piece. It can't be independent. The GPSMyCity piece appears to be copied from an official SJSU page here. And the final piece published by SJSU cannot be independent when establishing notability of a structure at SJSU. With only the SJMoA piece you found, we still need more sources to get this over GNG or NBUILDING. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per new sources above, and an artwork is usually kept if the housing institution, gallery, museum, etc., has catalogued it in some form. This is a specific artwork, not a building, and already has enough to pass GNG related to Wikipedia visual arts pages. As for its value to Wikipedia, please note the navboxes which now include it and the benefit of including this artwork within them (the page and this discussion inspired the creation of the {{Dolores Huerta}} navbox, thanks Sammy Spartan and Dclemens1971). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the artwork is one of the few highly visible landmarks of the SJ public art scene. It has sources on its artistry, historical relevance to Cesar Chavez, and local relevance to San Jose. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Cristiano Tomás I agree with you that it is a highly visible landmark. @Randy Kryn I'd also like to find a way to keep it. But can you show any reliable, secondary, significant coverage that is independent of San Jose State University, the artist Judy Baca who made it, or of the organization she founded? Those sources are what I can't turn up, and that's what is required under policy for GNG and SNGs related to art/buildings. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a building, so building notability wouldn't apply. Visual art pages are usually accepted as established with sources from the holding museum or organization, in this case the University mentions would apply toward notability. And wouldn't the University mentions be secondary (primary would be the work itself)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no SNG for artworks, so it has to pass GNG, which requires independent sources. Sources from the entity that commissioned the artwork (SJSU) and the artist who made it (Baca) cannot be independent from it for purposes of assessing notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No SNG for artworks? I thought there was and, if not, there should be as sourcing to a museum or gallery (which the University would qualify as) has been the standard and used as the sole source on maybe thousands of pages. Better call in (they may be tired of me calling upon their knowledge) Another Believer and Johnbod. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that it would seem that the new sources added above, such as this from the San Jose Museum of Art, would qualify. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with new sources as previously stated. Additionally, speaking purely from an art history perspective here, Baca is clearly notable enough and this work is clearly prominent enough to merit inclusion.--19h00s (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as even though there is a consensus to Keep and no support for deletion. But there is a valid concern about sourcing so hopefully more can be located over the next few days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emji Spero[edit]

Emji Spero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party media -- but this is referenced entirely to sources directly affiliated with the claims, such as the promotional pages of the subject's books on the self-published websites of their own publishers, with not even one hit of proper GNG-building media coverage shown at all.
There is a literary award in the mix here which would be a valid notability claim if the article were properly sourced, but as a specialty award it still isn't "inherently" notable enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of any GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This article is listed for consideration under "deletion sorting visual artists". Perhaps a poet could take a look. Should we remove the unreferenced stuff and duplicate sentences and see what is left? --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Forshee[edit]

Jon Forshee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bio of a composer/academic fails GNG, NBIO, NACADEMIC, NMUSIC. The independent sources do not show WP:SIGCOV; WP:BEFORE search turns up no other reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage or evidence of notability under any of the other SNG guidelines that might apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, France, California, Colorado, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- composer/researcher doing good things to advance his career that are pretty typical for composers at this stage. Significantly TOOSOON at this point. On the non-academic side, lacking the awards or major ensembles (those not dedicated to producing student work) to pass notability; on the WP:PROF side, does not have academic appointments or the sort of extensive influence to pass there. (Some of the journals are important in the field, but book/CD reviews are not articles.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are mostly fair points. Not sure what the "TOOSOON" means--too soon to have a wiki article? Regarding academic appointment, a Google search shows that Forshee was a visiting professor and now instructor. As to the ensembles performing Forshee's compositions, the Callithumpian Consort and Trio Kobayashi are, according to their own websites, not dedicated to performing student works (they list Elliott Carter, Schuittke, Huber, Scelsi, Cage, Lachenmann, Richard Barrett, Jürg Frey, Larry Polansky, James Tenney, basically all widely known composers on the international scene). The articles by Forshee don't appear to be book reviews or CD reviews, but neither do they appear to be rigorous scholarly research articles; they seem to be somewhere in between: interpretive analytical essays? The one in Computer Music Journal is an early review of software by the pioneering computer music composer Trevor Wishart. Part of the motivation for this article is that Forshee is one of the few notable (or borderline notable) students of composer Anthony Davis, who just had his Met Opera premiere of his Malcolm X this season. Dolemites (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability cannot WP:INHERITED from Anthony Davis or anyone else; for each subject it must be established independently according to the criteria. No articles by Forshee can be used establish his notability, only what independent and reliable sources have to say about him with "significant coverage." Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KZTC-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:
KZTC-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSDY-LD[edit]

KSDY-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Fein[edit]

Rusty Fein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moderate success at lower levels but does not meet WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The first source provided above is quite good, especially if you go to C5, where it focuses much more on him. I lean towards discounting the second source above since it mostly talks about his former partner's retirement and him contemplating the same in very few words. It is also the same publication and not independent of source #1 above. However, from the sources in the article, the Skate Today piece seems to cover him specifically in depth. Those are enough to meet GNG vice NSKATE in my view. -2pou (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristo Rey San Diego High School[edit]

Cristo Rey San Diego High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject - the San Diego campus - directly and indepth. Article is a unneeded CFORK of Cristo Rey Network, no objection to a redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  17:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. Per WP:ORGCRIT, local units of larger organizations need to show coverage of the sub-unit beyond the local area. All reliable, secondary sources cited here are local to San Diego. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Redirect to Cristo Rey Network. No sources found outside of non-independent or non-local media that meet SIGCOV requirements. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cristo Rey Network. Not independently notable. It is already listed at the target, and there is not really anything that needs merging. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See WP:NSCHOOL. WP:ORG specifically says in the first paragraph, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, (italics mine) religions or sects, and sports teams. The appropriate guideline is thus not WP:ORGCRIT, but WP:SIGCOV, which says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Non-local sources are not required for GNG, and this article has 3 RS from local television news (CBS8 and 2 from ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV), as well as San Diego Entertainer Magazine and San Diego Business Journal, which are independent of the subject, as defined in SIGCOV. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, yes you are correct. A GNG pass is sufficient (SIGCOV is part of that but independent reliable secondary sources are still required - I think you address that though). My problem with the sources cited so far, however, is that these are all local, and describing the new school for what it has set up to be, and the way it is funded. There is, however, a case that there is something innovative (if not revolutionary) about this school, and that this will attract notice. What would clinch it for me is some national attention, or some attention in something other than a news report. I note that there is, in fact, only one ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV source, but even if there were more, they would all be treated as one for purposes of GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    National attention (or even a non-local source) is NOT a requirement of SIGCOV. That's the difference between the NORG requirement and GNG. Non-profit schools can meet the notability requirement with either NORG or GNG or both. This one meets GNG.
    I also found and added one additional source announcing a full-ride scholarship opportunity from the University of San Diego. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An announcement of a scholarship is a primary source. Primary sources do not count towards GNG. Also the ABC 10 report is clearly not independent. The writer is a staff writer, but it is based entirely on an interview with the head, and ends with a fundraiser. It also has a questionable claim in it. How can someone be 300% below the poverty line? But I suppose bad maths is not an issue. The writer has a declared interest in faith based schools. The CBS8 source also has primary news/independence issues - it is a piece that is bylined "Cristo Rey San Diego High needs more corporate sponsors for work study program." It appears to be predicated on that basis. I do not see how any of this crosses the GNG threshold. If we have no national sources, local sources need to be in depth and to provide sufficient information to write an article. These sources do not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG is a red herring in this thread. In response to @Grand'mere Eugene's comment that this would pass GNG with local sources, WP:NORG supersedes GNG (this is very clear at WP:ORGCRIT). And under WP:BRANCH, a local unit of a national org requires coverage in sources outside of the local area to be considered notable. The only notability this local school has is tied to the unique model of its network, which is why a redirect is best. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:NSCHOOL is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) under the section, "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" that specifies, All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. Either NORG, or GNG, or both. GNG is thus not a "red herring", but one of the ways schools may satisfy WP's notability requirement. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. See, for example: this. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the CBS8 source considered above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the CBS8 and SDEntertainer sources are sufficient for GNG; the arguments that this is insufficient because this is a school affiliated with a national organization are unpersuasive. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that this is not all that the discussion says is wrong with these two local news sources. Sources must be multiple, with significant coverage, independent of the subject, in reliable secondary sources. As above, these are not independent, aspects of them are primary sources, coverage of the school itself is limited and we are still short of multiple. Reliability has not been assessed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dispute your definition of "independent". Just because a TV station interviews somebody with the school doesn't mean it's not independent. And the "byline" you claim earlier is actually part of the headline. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the headline. So the article is not independent. Likewise I said rather more than just that the article was entirely off an interview with the head. The fact it ends with a fundraiser is also pertinent, and that is not the only problem identified with that source. Now you have made 100 edits to Wikipedia in your 3 days here, and nearly half of these are to AfD or RfD. You are very welcome to the discussion, but might I suggest there may be a little more to the evaluation of sources then you may yet be aware of. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lya Stern[edit]

Lya Stern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, have struck my vote and comment. In my defence the erroneous AllMusic bio is the first reference in the article but I should have noticed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Bradford[edit]

Brittany Bradford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable actress and very promotionally written article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I drafted the original stub because she was the only of the six actors listed for Julia that didn't have a page. Given the sources I had available I can see why it reads a little promotional would love to see improvements. Guidelines for notability: "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." On the second point she was the only woman of color in that group of six actors, and one of the few in whole program. Jake (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The actress is notable. It needs work but the article has potential and I can't see any legitimate reason for it to be deleted. 2001:8003:6C0A:B100:94AF:C1F1:3164:C5DD (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:
Comments Source
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV 1. Grobar, Matt (2024-03-05). "Artists First Signs 'Julia' Actress Brittany Bradford, Multi-Hyphenate Amanda McCants". Deadline. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV 2. ^ Reiser, Zach (13 January 2021). "David Hyde Pierce, Brittany Bradford To Star In HBO Max's Julia After Series Order". Theatrely. Retrieved 11 May 2024.
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV 3. ^ VanArendonk, Kathryn (March 31, 2022). "Cozy Up With Julia, a Warm and Welcoming Treat". Vulture. Retrieved 2024-03-22.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS 4. ^ "Brittany Bradford on Alice's Julia Child-Inspired Evolution in HBO Max's 'Julia' [VIDEO]". Awards Daily. 2022-06-06.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS 5. ^ "Go Behind the Scenes of Julia with Brittany Bradford". Town & Country. 2022-04-28. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS 6. ^ "Video Actress Brittany Bradford talks 1st screen role in 'Julia'". ABC News. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV 7. ^ Witter, Brad (1 April 2022). "This French Chef Producer Partly Inspired The Character Of Alice On Julia". Bustle. Retrieved 11 May 2024.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS 8. ^ DeShong, Bonnie (19 May 2022). "An AAFCA conversation with Brittany Bradford from HBOMax series Julia". Chicago Crusader. Retrieved 11 May 2024.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS 9. ^ "Interview: Brittany Bradford and Thomas Sadoski on Introducing Alice Childress's Wedding Band". TheaterMania.com. 2022-05-04. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Photos, promotional, fails WP:SIRS 10. ^ Putnam, Leah; Gershonowitz, Heather (May 12, 2022). "See Photos of Newly-Extended Wedding Band Starring Brittany Bradford, Veanne Cox, More". Playbill.
Nothing found in article or in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per WP:ANYBIO Drama League Award [8] [9] Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep I disagree with the above analysis that the Deadline article "does not address subject directly." It is only a few paragraphs but it recounts her career to date. There is also an indepth review in the NY Times of her performance in "Wedding Band." In this she was the lead, not a supporting actress. While the interviews will not by themselves support GNG, they can be the source of data for the article. Lamona (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. BusterD (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary L. Coleman[edit]

Gary L. Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. PROD was contested with sources from IMDB and of relatives being added, which do not establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not exactly sure how to close a previously PROD'd article with a discussion with no participation at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we can’t build an article on album credits and I don’t see in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: His website and the various music streaming sites, are all I can find. I'd agree with the PROD decision, this is not meeting musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Thistle Dew Dessert Theatre[edit]

Thistle Dew Dessert Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A google search for the topic found only the website, a local guide, and user-generated information. Also I couldn't find any of the first 5 sources online, and 6th source is trivial coverage. Therefore not notable. -- unsigned post by EternalNub

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Helping get rid of non-notable articles
  • Keep: I'd like to AGF that the offline sources are legit, in which case there is SIGCOV. Perhaps an editor with access the relevant archives can verify? -- D'n'B-t -- 10:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to locate one of them, so I'm more confident that the others are legit. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "I couldn't find any of the first 5 sources online" is not an acceptable argument for deletion; see WP:PAPERONLY, which says There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Restricting editors to using online sources would mean that most of the information in the world would be unavailable to us. Toughpigs (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whoa! According to its website, this is an amateur theatre company with 39 seats performing in a Victorian house. No stage productions are currently scheduled -- it appears mostly to screen movies. It serves dessert with its shows (if they ever have any) and supposedly won a non-notable amateur theatre award. The article notes that a non-notable playwright premiered a non-notable work there. No one involved in it is asserted to be notable. Assuming this is all true, why is this an encyclopedic topic? Its website says that its theatre is available for rental for weddings, parties and classes. This seems to be an extreme case of a run-of the mill community theatre company. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it got coverage in The Los Angeles Times in 1999, and the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008. Neither of those are local to Sacramento, so apparently it was a bigger deal in the past than it is today. Toughpigs (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Toughpigs correctly pointed out, sources being offline doesn't matter. Cortador (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

for occasional archiving

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/California&oldid=1225184629"