Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Gpedia: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|United States of America|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to United States of America.
Further information
For further information see Gpedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

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

General

Gobookmart

Gobookmart (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 · NYT · WP Library)

This isn’t irredeemably promotional is why I didn’t tag with a G11. In actuality this is a very bother line promotional non notable article on a website that is in accordance with WP:NOT#INTERNET. The article describes their goals and treats this like a WP:LINKEDIN, the references are very unreliable also. Celestina007 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Cheat You Fair: The Story of Maxwell Street

Cheat You Fair: The Story of Maxwell Street (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non notable documentary with minor awards. Nothing found in a BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Association of Booksellers for Children

Association of Booksellers for Children (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Article has been tagged as needing more references since 2007. I have added one reference but cannot find more and think this is a non-notable organisation. Tacyarg (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Lucas Oswald

Lucas Oswald (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Cannot find any RS or SIGCOV that cover Oswald or his career, only self-published promotional material. Does not appear to WP:NSINGER as all of his success seems to have been garnered as part of bands. – DarkGlow • 18:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Fistful of Vengeance

Fistful of Vengeance (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fistful of Vengeance

Unreleased movie that does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines and does not satisfy general notability guidelines.

Created in article space in August 2021, then moved to draft space by User:Bovineboy2008 with the edit summary: 'film's production is not particularly notable, does not meet WP:NFF yet'. Submitted for AFC review on 20 January 2022, and declined with statement: 'Please expand after the film is released to include reception information, and resubmit.' Moved to article space immediately after decline, with edit summary: 'Deserves a page, and the official title doesn't include Wu Assassins in it (for some reason)'. The title is a secondary issue, but the film only deserves a page if it satisfies general notability or film notability. The article does not speak for itself and establish why the unreleased film is notable, and the references do not establish notability. The references say that the film started production and completed production, but there is nothing notable about the film or its production.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Collider.com Description of teaser No Yes No
2 Deadline Hollywood Announcement of plan to shoot film No No Yes No
3 Variety.com Announcement of plan to shoot film No No Yes No
4 Maactioncinema.com Announcement of film No No No
5 Twitter Text saying that production is complete No No No No

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

---

  • My recommendation is Keep because Fistful of Vengeance is streaming this February 17th and barring anything catastrophic I strongly doubt that Fistful of Vengeance won't be streaming this February 17th. And if the Fistful of Vengeance article is not made/kept the movie itself will still be refered to and/or is already refered to in the articles for Wu Assassins, Iko Uwais, Lewis Tan, Roel Reiné etc.
As for news coverage/notability (per Google News search today): Variety (as noted in the media coverage table above), ScreenRant, MovieWeb, NME, Collider (new article published Jan 21st), Geek Tyrant, Gizmodo, CBR, JoBlo, SlashFilm, Hypebeast, and several Dutch-language and Indonesian language news sites are already beginning to publish several articles covering Fistful of Vengeance since the trailer dropped yesterday (Jan 21).
I am confident that coverage will only get wider in the coming days. And after February 17 (which is only 26 days away from today) you'll have your full plot synopsis and initial wave of critical reception.
Fistful of Vengeance is eagerly anticipated because Wu Assassins has been critically acclaimed for its martial arts choreography, and media coverage anticipates that the excellent fight choreography will continue. Also both Fistful of Vengeance and Wu Assassins are part of the recent wave of Asian-American cinema which started with Crazy Rich Asians in 2018 and continues today.
And if Fistful of Vengeance's status as a yet-to-be-released movie is the issue then why do we also have articles for the upcoming Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (coming May 2022), streaming series Moon Knight (March 2022), Thor: Love and Thunder (July 2022), and so on and so forth?
--Ferdi Zebua (username: Lemi4) (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not sure I agree with Rob that this article is not notable. In my opinion, it is well written and extremely well sourced using a variety of reliable sources. Therefore, I feel it does pass NFF, and the article should remain 19:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeineMelon (talkcontribs)
  • Keep I believe the film does reach notability standards; it's just a stub as of now, but is slowly getting more info on here, especially since promo material just dropped as the release date nears. Iamnoahflores (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary NFL television stations

Primary NFL television stations (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 · NYT · WP Library)

This is not an article: it's a series of lists too extensive/crufty for the encyclopedia (such lists as former TV networks for NFL teams pre-1960, NFL games that were aired on local stations), etc. I corrected a typo and added an inline reference; astonishingly, it is the only one on the page.

It is true that one television station in a given NFL home city airs more than half the games of the home city team in any given year, but with more primetime games and cross-flexing, this is not very important. More importantly, these arrangements are functions of a network affiliation, not of individual station deals. This is, to use my words from another AfD, a source-bare piece of mush that has no place on the encyclopedia. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 04:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support unconditionally. The fact that only one citation exists says a lot. Moreover, what is a "primary NFL television station" when the television contracts are made at the league level? Nathan Obral • he/him • tc • 05:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete If anything, the article should be refocused solely on stations which are a team's official pre-season and other programming partner rather than...a list of stations which carry NFL games, which outside CW/MyNet stations, all Big Four network affiliates do these days. And that's already in each team's article, so this is just so much over-detail already covered by each network's individual NFL coverage article. Nate (chatter) 06:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete I have to agree, it doesn't look like this article content is what we're looking for in a Gpedia article or list. It's not really covered well as a topic in third party articles. I don't disagree that it's a useful reference for enthusiastic viewers of NFL games, but that sorta feels more like original research. Topic might be better suited for an online sports almanac or TV directory. I suggest enthusiastic editors try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie and Mrschimpf: Quite frankly, this is an article since it goes a bit into the history of how the National Football League has been televised. Keep in mind that this article isn't at all remotely about prime time games that air on NBC's Sunday Night Football. You can't just subjectively say that what station in what market primarily airs a specific teams games isn't important. It's very apples and oranges to compare prime time programming, where the game is all but guaranteed to get screened to the entire nation to what will likely be aired on only two markets. Also how isn't this an article? How is a list of Primary NFL stations any different than a local over-the-air markets that say, air Major League Baseball games (e.g. KTLA 5, for many years, aired Los Angeles Dodgers games) for example. That's roughly the equivalent to that. You're basically appear to saying that there's no need to tell people about how NFL games are distributed. Simply put, not every single game is going to be made available (unless of course, you have the Sunday Ticket package) to the general public. It's also very, very presumptuous to flat out say that an article like this isn't needed at all since it's simply in each team's own article already. BornonJune8 (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@BornonJune8 The fundamental difference between the NFL and the other leagues is that the NFL controls all the regular-season television inventory. If you air an NFL regular-season game, that's because your network has a contract with the league to show NFL games. If you air an MLB, NBA, or NHL regular-season game (outside of the national rights packages associated with each league), it's because you have a contract with the team. An almanac, 506 Forums, etc. would be a good place for the lists which have some value to someone, but not here. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 07:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: Again, you come across quite subjective when you say that an almanac, 506 Forums, etc. would be a good place for the list which has some value to someone, but not here. So says the person who initially nominated said lists for deletion to begin with. Bare in mind that there's extensive information about what is in the Primary NFL television stations article virtually all of the induvial articles for the local stations. And why it may be true that unlike with other pro sports leagues, the NFL controls all the regular season TV inventory, what exactly does that have to do with which exact station (i.e. the "home market") principally airs one particular franchise's games? I must reiterate that a local viewer usually week in and week not, is only allowed (unless otherwise) to see the teams from their home market. Yeah, the NFL may control the TV inventory but they're still divvied up region to region. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
There's a lot of things that are of value to people that don't belong on Gpedia. There is a policy that outlines Gpedia:What Gpedia is not, and I believe specifically 2.6 Gpedia is not a directory applies here. I must admit I'm not sure what it means to "come across quite subjective" but that seems to be a personal attack, albiet a lighter one. However, a weak personal attack is still wrong. Please limit your comments to the matter at hand rather than the person making them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and Paulmcdonald's well reasoned rationale. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete references about this are extremely lacking and it's not very clear what a "primary NFL television station" is. Maybe the article could be refocused solely on stations which are a team's official pre-season and other programming partner per Mrschimpf, but I feel like whoever wants to undertake that endeavor should do so by creating a new article. As I don't think the current one could be adapted to a new direction well enough to justify keeping it and just changing what it's about. More so because there's a good chance that whatever comes out of the new direction likely wouldn't be notable or workable either. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Darwin's Yearbook

Darwin's Yearbook (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I made this article two years ago with little understanding of WP:GNG and MOS:TV. Now, I can see that it is not notable. It was not reviewed by critics and is essentially a clip show. I suggest deletion or redirecting to List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Endgame360

Endgame360 (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non notable organization that fails to meet WP:NORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up press releases, directories and self published primary sources all of which are not considered reliable. Needless to say WP:ORGDEPTH is not met, not even remotely. Celestina007 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Pierce, Slope County, North Dakota

Pierce, Slope County, North Dakota (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 · NYT · WP Library)

A crossroads with a farmstead on one corner, and a short ways down the one road, the church pictured, which is in fact quite isolated. One gathers it may have been the site of a post office, but not seeing a town. Mangoe (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Meadow Oaks, Florida

Meadow Oaks, Florida (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:GEOLAND, as its only legal recognition appears to be as a census tract, which is the exception to GEOLAND #1.

A search for sources reveals that there are a few passing mentions that may refer to the location, typically in the context of deed transfers, there appears to be no in-depth coverage, meaning that it also fails WP:GNG.

Given that over 2000 people live there, it seems likely that there is coverage, but I have not been able to identify it - it may be that the coverage of the location uses the name of the broader geographical area. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looks like there's a Meadow Oaks Golf Club in the area given for this community on Google Maps, which gives its address as being in Hudson, Florida. Niche.com calls it a suburb of Tampa. Florida Politics mentions it as a community in inland Pasco County. Maybe this is a suburb based on some golf club? wizzito | say hello! 02:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - Google Maps shows a big "Meadow Oaks Golf Course Community" sign at the entrance, the kind you would see at a subdivision. The CDP boundary on Niche shows that it encompasses several other subdivisions that are also listed on nearby sign: Shadow Lakes, Sugar Creek and Shadow Lake Estates. CDPs are often kept, but this one just seems to be a big census tract that was drawn on the map to facilitate counting people rather than an actual distinct community. –dlthewave 03:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Census-designated places are different from census tracts; they're communities that the U.S. Census Bureau decides are worth tracking the population of even though they're not incorporated. The census documentation for a census-designated place provides coverage of a place's demographics and geography, which can be used to develop the article. As for Meadow Oaks specifically, Tampa newspapers seem to have documented its development; it was built in the 1980s as a community centered around a new golf course. There's coverage here and here about the community's planning, here and here about ongoing construction in the early 2000s, and several articles about the golf course [1] [2] [3] [4]. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 04:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Meadow Lakes CDP was established as part of the 2010 census as noted in this report (page 19 of the pdf explains the changes from the 2000 census, Meadow Oaks specifically on page 25 with Pasco County). From what I gathered from Pasco County Planning, Meadow Oaks is pretty much the extent of the existing development and most likely built-out. The 2020 census noted an increase in 400 people and 96 residential units which supports this thought.[5]The Grid (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep CDPs are certainly unincorporated communities and as an encyclopedia Gpedia precedent documents (all of) them as one feature/function of a gazetteer. Gpedia should remain consistent with the US government on this coverage. Djflem (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    The issue is understanding the context of how it's being utilized regardless of it being defined as a census-designated place by the Census Bureau. It's important to note a CDP is essentially a statistical entity with no legal basis. What is interesting with the 2020 Census, the lower government entities can provide updates to the CDP boundaries to the Census Bureau. [6]The Grid (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
From Gpedia:"criteria established for the 2010 Census require that a CDP name "be one that is recognized and used in daily communication by the residents of the community" (not "a name developed solely for planning or other purposes") and recommend that a CDP's boundaries be mapped based on the geographic extent associated with inhabitants' regular use of the named place." Documenting inhabited places (and previously inhabited places in many cases) has consistent standard practice.Djflem (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets GNG and GEOLAND. CDP's are notable 99% of the time, as it can be argued that it becomes "legally recognized." ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Heather Rene Smith

Heather Rene Smith (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Biography for a non-notable playmate model. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Lima: Breaking the Silence

Lima: Breaking the Silence (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Captain Flag

Captain Flag (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I prodded this a while ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Gpedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Gpedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". User:Toughpigs deprodded ith and expanded, with the edit summary "added more information from independent reliable sources". Unfortunately, the article is still limited to just a plot summary and publication history and contains zero indication why the subject meets WP:GNG. The linked sources I checked don't seem to go beyond said plot summary and list of works he appeared in, and I am afraid that's too little to meet GNG (as well as WP:SIGCOV). Side note to people new to the topic area: a lot of "comic book encyclopedias" are illustrated plot summaries, not written by scholars but by fans, and are in-universe, and/or much closer to illustrated books for young readers/fans or graphic novels than encyclopedias. So the argument "notable because he is mentioned in another encyclopedia" is not going to be very helpful here, I am afraid. The Encyclopedia of Golden Age Superheroes is not an academic work but a fan Kickstarter project... and while I couldn't access the print version, I think it just reproduces the contents found on the author's website: [7]/[8], and I think this is representative of the coverage of this super niche character in general (no analysis anywhere, just plot summary and least of appearances, sorry if I sound like a broken record). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

See for yourself. The relevant parts are from the end of page 132 to the beginning of 134, so it's only two pages at most. It's just some storylines. Avilich (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Notable superhero as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete No indication, in the form of sources or a reception section, that this character has had any significant impact outside of his own universe, as mandated by WP:IINFO#1 and WP:WAF. The source provided above doesn't give anything relevant, and, like the nominator, I failed to find anything that could qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Ulas Hayes

Ulas Hayes (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I was asked to review this article on behalf of CRM by 28bytes; after a thorough review of available online sources (including newspapers and books during the time period of Hayes’ life) I have been unable to turn up anything beyond quotes from Hayes and a few passing mentions in regional newspapers. Therefore, this article subject does not appear notable per our standards, and unfortunately appears unable to be retained on this site. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ray Oliveira

Ray Oliveira (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that significantly discuss the subject. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results, some of them about other people with the same name. ... discospinster talk 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

2021 Youth Hunger Strike in Arizona and DC for Democracy

2021 Youth Hunger Strike in Arizona and DC for Democracy (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Sorry to relitigate this, but this was a two-participant AfD where the only Keep vote was from the article's creator. This article doesn't show persistent coverage or significant impact, without which it's just another protest (albeit one that made the news). It's a one-off story—it's a really, really interesting and inspiring one! But without reliable, secondary sources explicitly showing real-world impact or lasting coverage, this doesn't meet inclusion criteria. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The first strike wasn't just covered all over the news, including on Washington Post, but it had created the impact of keeping the most significant voting bill since 1965 alive. The Senate will start to debate the bill on Tuesday 1/18. The youth has started their second hunger strike to call attention to the bill. The number of strikers has grown from 20 to 40. Whether the bill will eventually pass or not, these strikes had made a significant impact.

Please check out the coverage of these events on the reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.239.179 (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

FDA Special Protocol Assessment

FDA Special Protocol Assessment (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 · NYT · WP Library)

WP:PRIMARY, seems to be a non-notable division. Originally proposed by User:TenPoundHammer. PROD was objected to at last moment. RockstoneSend me a message! 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Ben Het

Battle of Ben Het (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Unnecessary fork from Ben Het Camp, which provides some expanded detail of the 3 March 1969 attack, but not enough to warrant its own page. There were multiple "battles" at Ben Het: the 3 March 1969 attack, the May-June 1969 siege, the April-May 1972 siege and the 12-13 October 1972 conquest of the base, all of which are detailed on the Ben Het Camp page. Any relevant detail should be merged into that page. Mztourist (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. The infobox of the Ben Het Camp article featured a WP:RED to the previously nonexistent Battle of Ben Het article under Battles/wars, suggesting an article for the battle was desired. The battle is also detailed on the PT-76 article, which would lead one to believe it should have it's own article so as not to be exclusively spread across multiple articles. The notion that an article for the battle shouldn't exist due to an article for the camp existing that mentions the battle is a bit baffling, given there are numerous articles on battles for forts, castles and bases that exist in conjunction with the articles for the forts, castles and bases they took place within. For example, Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966) is allowed to exist alongside Tan Son Nhut Air Base, with the 1966 attack not being excluded to detail in the latter article.
In regards to there being multiple "battles" for Ben Het, generally when searching for the 'Battle of Ben Het' or reading mention of the 'Battle of Ben Het,' the tank battle of 3 March 1969 is the engagement you'll find. The 3 March 1969 attack is also the only engagement truly titled a "battle" that you mentioned, and if the siege and conquest were to warrant their own articles then they could be titled the 'Siege of Ben Het' and/or the 'Fall of Ben Het,' as many other articles do to differentiate between battles and sieges taking place in the same area.
To merge the article with the Ben Het Camp article would be contradictory to the precedence taken on a vast majority of other articles regarding battles for forts, castles and bases, and thus I suggest to keep it. UncleBourbon (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • A redlink just means that someone put square brackets around a term, thinking a page exists, it doesn't "suggest an article for the battle was desired". Your comparison to Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966) is incorrect, Tan Son Nhut Air Base was already a massive page, adding a large amount of specific detail relating to the 1966 attack would have just bloated the Tan Son Nhut Air Base page. There is no issue with having details of the engagement on both the PT-76 page and on Ben Het Camp, the issue is that you have created a fork with only a few more specifics than what was already on Ben Het camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If someone thought a page existed, and if the battle is significant enough to exist as a subsection of an article for a tank model that fought in it, then it is WP:N enough to warrant it's own article. For another more accurate comparison, you have Duc Lap Camp and the Battle of Duc Lap, as the Duc Lap Camp article is even smaller than the Ben Het Camp article, and again the Battle of Duc Lap article is allowed to exist alongside it. I could go on with other examples if you would like, since the problem you take with this article's existence truly goes against the precedent. "Only a few more specifics" is entirely your opinion; the Battle of Ben Het article mentions the forces stationed at Ben Het at the time of the battle, the activity observed prior to the battle, the names of participants and commanders within the battle, the order in which targets were sighted and positions they were taken out, the pursuit by the AC-47 'Spooky,' as well as various other details left out of the Ben Het Camp article.UncleBourbon (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The difference is the order of creation. I created Duc Lap Camp several years after another User created Battle of Duc Lap, because Battle of Duc Lap didn't have detail of the camp itself including its history before and after that battle. A better comparison would be Camp Carroll created in July 2006 and then the creation last November of Surrender of Camp Carroll which was soon merged back into Camp Carroll and First Battle of Quang Tri. Ben Het Camp already states the forces stationed there, the names of the participants and commanders is trivia unless any of them received a significant medal, the order of engagement is stated on Ben Het Camp and the use of an AC-47 can just be added to Ben Het Camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I fail to see the significance in the order of creation if we're discussing whether the articles can exist simultaneously. The point stands that if the Battle of Duc Lap can exist separately from Duc Lap Camp to provide greater detail on the battle, then the same is applicable for the Battle of Ben Het. You also haven't put the Battle of Duc Lap article up for deletion since it's details could all be moved to your Duc Lap Camp article, which is essentially what you're doing here. Information and significance are what matter, not date of creation. The fact it is the only true tank battle involving the United States in the Vietnam War, that there are two different articles already referencing it as the 'Battle of Ben Het,' and that it is well documented and of significance, makes it noteworthy enough to warrant it's own article for greater detail. Again, it is only your opinion that a paragraph on the Ben Het Camp article has sufficient detail, and that details such as participants and commanders are 'trivia.' The infobox alone for the Battle of Ben Het article has more details regarding the battle than the paragraph of the camp article, which is fine as it is an article for the camp, and not an article for the battle. It frankly makes no sense to turn a perfectly suitable full article of a battle into a drawn out section of your article on the camp it took place in just because you want the information there.UncleBourbon (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I completely disagree with you. Battle of Ben Het contains only additional trivia beyond what is contained on the Ben Het Camp page. There's clearly no point in us continuing this discussion as we won't reach agreement, so we will see how this AFD plays out. Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - Although relatively minor, notable as the only tank v tank engagement of the Vietnam war. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The only tank v tank engagement involving the US. The North and South Vietnamese had plenty of such engagements. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, let me rephrase that - the only tank engagement involving US tanks in the Vietnam war. However it is still notable for that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NOPAGE, I think this should be merged as proposed by the nominator. Both articles are quite short, so no information will be lost, but this engagement will presented in the context of other related events. (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Housing in the United States by state

Housing in the United States by state (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Could in theory be a good article, but in its current form it is a list of links to categories for 38 states, plus two sentences introduction and three sentences about Wisconsin. Rusalkii (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Weak keep though it surely needs improvement. Helps the set of pages w/ the shared nav template hold together. Category pages are not a good substitute. – SJ + 22:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete That was well-intended, but completely useless, at least in present state. The wikilings to categories should not be used. Basically, someone wanted to do something with this page, but then dropped it in a ridiculous state more than a year ago. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Connirae Andreas (2nd nomination)

Elijah Schaffer

Elijah Schaffer (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non notable conservative and Journalist. Fails WP:GNG DFXYME (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is he not relevant? I in Germany know so do many others.Guess how I found this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8AC0:2B8:9180:E0FC:31E8:524C (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. I have been able to locate signifcant, reliable, independent coverage secondary to the subject here, here, here and here. Subject is notable due to significant coverage and hence this article ought not be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep as per Such-change47. Kiwichris (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Rhode Island Old Catholicism

Rhode Island Old Catholicism (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 · NYT · WP Library)

None of the sources given talk about the subject of the article. The subject clearly fails WP:NCHURCH and is possibly WP:Self-promotion. It is also now an unvoluntary WP:FORK as its original subject was deleted from WP recently.
From what I remember, it seems the article has received some copy-paste of some parts of the now deleted (see this AfD) article Church of the Holy Paraclete (see this page move), but there is no crediting. If one looks at the previous versions, it is obvious it is the same subject as Church of the Holy Paraclete (which I remember was at one point renamed "Church of the Holy Spirit" according to the now deleted article).
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: to further support my claim of WP:FORK, I now see that the name at the Wikidata item is "Chapel of the Holy Spirit" (see wikidata:Q28230654). Veverve (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Brian Cooley

Brian Cooley (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Person has not come closer to passing WP:JOURNALIST since the page was first nominated for deletion in 2006. Despite being a high-level editor at CNET, sources about (not by) this person are scarce. If there is no consensus to delete, possibly redirect to CNET or Buzz Out Loud. KidAdSPEAK 18:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorted by State

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

<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FUnited_States_of_America">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/United_States_of_America&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>