Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

General

Thug Life (2001 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM as I cannot find any reviews or sources in general. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Douen II

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

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- the notability test for films hinges on evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about the film, such as critical analysis and/or noteworthy film awards.
But this just states that the film exists as "proof of concept" without indicating that it passes any of the notability criteria for films, and is referenced solely to a single short blurb indicating that the filmmaker staged a one-off screening of her own short films in her own hometown, with absolutely no evidence that the film has been picked up for any wider commercial distribution at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it accrues a stronger notability claim than just existing and has stronger sourcing for it, but one self-funded screening at one theatre in the filmmaker's own hometown is not enough to get a film over the notability bar all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per nom. Google failed to turn up any coverage that isn't self-published or a cursory mention, and there's precious little even of self-published information. -- LWG ^talk 16:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. states and territories by median wage and mean wage

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

Page is nearly empty. There is a better article for this: List of U.S. states and territories by income. Timeshifter (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like it had a table before. diff The table was removed due to a lack of verification. – The Grid (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Since the tables all used US Bureau of Labor Statistics data, their removal appears to have been in error. I will go ahead and restore them so that we can accurately review this article. Rublamb (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep per the WP:HEYMANN, as the article now has content that makes sense and is sourced. Rublamb (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definitely needs maintenance to bring it up to 2025. --Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actress Universe Awards

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

Promotion for non notable film awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Some sources used don't actually verify claims. Notability is not inherited from people/films they give awards to. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Created by the same group as run Long Key Awards, also up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Key Awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Safier

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

Contested disinfected BLAR; a before search shows only non-RSs and 'meet Courtney Stodden's husband'-style articles. Laun chba ller 16:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I invited the community to fix up the article at WP:CLEANUP a year ago, but nothing constructive could be done. Except for the wedding stories, none of the sources are about the subject matter. In fact, before the nominator removed most or the content, it was almost all about what collaborators had achieved elsewhere. BOTTO_(T•C) 16:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Outside of getting married, there are no stories about this person. Flushing the diamond ring down the toilet seems to be about all the coverage there is outside the marriage items. Just not enough for notability here... Mentioned in several articles used for sourcing, but nothing extensive about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides this being a completely producer involved in a situation comedy situation, we run into the recurring problem with autobiographical material here: it almost always involves original content that we have never done. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Nissan

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

Letting aside for a moment the promotional tone and the evident COI of the author, there is no WP:SIGCOV of the subject to be found except various press releases and marketing interviews. Broc (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Israel, and United States of America. Broc (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regular professional at work. Not encyclopedic. gidonb (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if not paid, much of the material added and re-added by the creator appears to be original research. If there was significant coverage, about important accomplishments, then we could still write a decent article, but it's lacking. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rogat Loeb

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

Article only contains 1 source and makes lots of uncited claims. Not finding coverage to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, California, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated to the wikipedia editor who originally asked some questions on the site, it was created by a fan. I then added some updates, for instance It said I was writing regularly for Huffington Post. They published maybe 100 articles, but I'm not currently writing so I changed it to past tense. Part of the challenges is that I left writing for 12 years to run two nonprofits I founded where I wasn't able to write political pieces without making them politically vulnerable. So there are a ton of articles about me if you search "Paul Rogat Loeb" in Google or another search engine. But not all of them have the updated information because most are before 2012. So I could go through various statements in the wikisource and add links, but it would be time consuming. And there aren't public numbers on say how many copies I've sold, though there are probably articles among those for instance covering my lectures, that mention how many were sold at that time the articles were written.

So that's why I linked to the website.

Can you suggest how best to proceed without spending endless hours, like searching every publication and creating a separate link? I really value Wikipedia and would like to have that listing remain.

Thanks Paul Rogat Loeb PaulLoeb (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

America Party

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

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper to report everything that happens with Musk and Trump. Wait until he actually takes steps to create anything. Anyone can say they want to create a new party. And besides, he's already expressed "regret" over his criticisms of Trump. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete no SIGCOV and no actual entity that exists yet. We are not here to document every tweet of these people. --hroest 20:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ephemeral trivia. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps see if this info fits well in the article about Musk, although if there are no further developments, then it is probably trivial. Ike9898 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another pipe dream from someone with a lot of things that remain exactly that. Nathannah • 📮 22:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANTHM

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

Fails Wp:GNG, Wp:MUSICIAN, and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Poetry, Music, Ethiopia, Germany, Russia, United States of America, New York, and Texas. Zuck28 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lip Service (2000 film)

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

Non-notable film. From WP:NFILM (my emphasis): Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides.... Alibris Filmaffinity and Plex sources are one paragraph synopses. Wisconsin State Journal is three sentences about making the film, not WP:SIGCOV. Fort Worth Star-Telegram is one paragraph in a newspaper listing, a capsule review at best. Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever 2006 is a comprehensive film guide. I couldn't access the BFI source via Proquest, but it is from the BFI's Film Index International, which is a comprehensive database of films. None of these constitute critical full-length reviews of the film, or go towards establishing notability through any of the other provisions of WP:NFILM, and my WP:BEFORE didn't turn up any better sources. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Hard keep’: This page may not seem as notable at this moment, although there many avenues through which the page could be made more notable. Deleting or erasing this article would mean a serious disaster from which my career would never really recover, not mentioning severe embarrassment and hard insults toward me which are undeserved. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 14:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find a Variety review by one of their known staff writers, as well as an article announcing that the film was to be made. I did see this short mention in a volume of TV Guide, but it looks to be a mention of a TV interview so that would probably be seen as a primary source?

Now, as far as the nomination goes, don't take it too hard. Just about everyone on Wikipedia has had something reverted, deleted, or nominated for deletion at one point or another - sometimes even after they've been around for a while. It's not meant to be an insult or attack.

To go over the sourcing a bit more, what is needed here are sources that are reliable, independent, and in-depth. So for example, VideoHound could probably be used to back up basic details but can't be used to establish notability because they're too short and in some cases, are just plot summary with no actual commentary to justify the bones rating. Capsule reviews have much of the same issue, as they are often very short and are more summary than review.

I'll go over the sourcing in a bit more depth on the AfD talk page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Reader, thank you for understanding. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It can get overwhelming on here, I know. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go Time (programming block)

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

Fails WP:GNG, PROD was removed with "incoming links" notice, which never materialized. I found nothing in BEFORE that would establish notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hearst Media Production Group#Programming blocks Best-of block of all the network blocks they have which is just otherwise a regular show to the average viewer, and added links are just expirable NOTTVGUIDE listings (I am so tired of this, can you tell?). Nathannah • 📮 00:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Door Knock Dinners

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

Fails WP:GNG, i was unable to find any significant sources about this show except profiles. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United States of America. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gordon Elliott (journalist): I foundthis reasonably significant Rolling Stone coverage, but still not enough for notability. I'm ready to change my mind, if more sources are found. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Food Network original programming Not stuck on this vote! for sure because this was one of Food Network's first big ratings successes and the idea this has few sources doesn't sit well with me. I'm definitely sure there's more out there than just 'tonight on TV' loglines for this show. Nathannah • 📮 19:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-Nehisi Coates and His Case for Reparations

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

Essay-like content fork analyzing a particular position advocated by a person who already has a WP:BLP to discuss his opinions in. There's no need for a standalone article about this as a separate topic from Ta-Nehisi Coates, especially given that a significant portion of this article is given over to simply resummarizing his BLP as if we couldn't just link to that instead of reduplicating it. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very clearly unencyclopedic AI nonsense. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary fork. We already have The Case for Reparations and Ta-Nehisi Coates to take care of this content. Pichpich (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please don't post ChatGPT output as an article when we have two perfectly fine articles already about the subject and their book. Nathannah • 📮 00:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, besides being a fork of not one but two articles. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JCW Lunacy

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

Not notable, glorified indie show, better served as a redirect or an article deletion. Lemonademan22 (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is ridiculous. You can't use yourself as a source and claim "insider knowledge". This article is riddeled with original research, almost entirely primary sources, and unencyclopedic verbage. Lemonademan22 (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but in terms of Wikipedia articles, most editors often find themselves walking a figurative tightrope. Besides, original research is something that in my opinion is a way to avoid plagiarism. Also, I know it was very rushed but the number of people in the pro wrestling media who have shafted the promotion is problematic. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is banned on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research. Stockhausenfan (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you all wanted me to remove it, just say so. Unfortunately, I was the only one who was editing because NOBODY else even bothered to do so. Despite the fact that JCW has been on the rise lately. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely zero evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or restore redirect. Lemonademan22's assessment is spot on. In addition, the editor above has already admitted to WP:OR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Wrestling, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; OR and poor sourcing. Miniapolis 22:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Juggalo Championship Wrestling per WP:CHEAP. Speaking of cheap, the OR concerns seem to be a nothingburger that's only good for some cheap heat among the drama lovers. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Oregon Commissioner of Labor election

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

WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. This election is scheduled to take place in November 2026. At present, no reliable and independent sources are available regarding the event and possible candidates. The article may be recreated once sufficient verifiable information becomes available. If not deleted, the article could be redirected to 2026 Oregon elections for the time being. QEnigma (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, United States of America, and Oregon. QEnigma (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon with no declared candidate. I oppose redirecting to encourage article creation when time comes Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/WP:TOOSOON, zero WP:SIGCOV. GoldRomean (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading through the resources listed here, I understand the justification for deleting this article. As the article's author, I support its removal. Thank you! Yompi20 (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 San Diego Cessna 414 crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. XYZ1233212 (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, United States of America, and California. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Diego International Airport#Accidents and incidents, where this is already, and appropriately, covered. Otherwise WP:TOOSOON at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. - WP:NOTNEWS user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 04:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect. Redirect as per The Bushranger. Zycagan (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ~SG 5536B 23:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: This is I think the third article of a recent aviation accident that has been swiftly nominated for deletion. I think a better alternative to this pattern would be for the creators of said articles to wait a bit of time for more sources to come out and then create an article if there is enough evidence of the crash being notable. For now though, a redirect to the relevant airport page will probably suffice. 11WB (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:EVENTCRIT#4. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy

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

Declined prod. Provided sources are not independent like philosophy publications or the university connected with it. Nothing in google books, 1 hit in google scholar, limited google news hits. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Organizations, United States of America, and Illinois. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to be WP:SIGCOV, all of the mentions in news articles seem to be trivial/passing mentions Psychastes (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually get a number of hits in Google Books for this organization describing its role in the Continental reception and Continental/Analytic debates in the US. Jahaza (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in an interlibrary loan request for The Reception of Husserlian Phenomenology in North America (2019), ed. Michela Beatrice Ferri ISBN 9783319991832, which has a chapter "The Society of Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy" (pp. 267-282) by Anthony Steinbock. Jahaza (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a journal article doi:10.5325/jspecphil.26.2.0102. Jahaza (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep: Appears to be plenty of sources showing up on Google Scholar - some examples where the coverage is definitely in depth: doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99185-6_16, doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226821580-011, The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy. There are also some papers in this issue of the Journal of Speculative Philosophy but I'm not sure if that is actually independent coverage. Shapeyness (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Rugby Player of the Year

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

Not a notable topic on it's own, very minimal content. All content can be merged to Major League Rugby under a new section titled Awards (or similar) Louis (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Rugby union, and United States of America. Louis (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a section on this already exists on Major League Rugby Louis (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAHA Commission

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

It's unclear how this commission is independently notable of the main subject, that being the Make America Healthy Again campaign. This article barely gives any information about the commission, other than its establishment and a report published by it. The establishment of the commission isn't even mentioned on the main MAHA article, so it can be argued that this article existing as a separate (short stub-length) entity is detracting information from readers who want to learn about the subject. None of the cited sources provide significant coverage of the commission itself, aside from wider coverage of the MAHA campaign.

As the notability of an organisation is not inherited from the main subject, I think this article should be deleted and its relevant contents merged into the main article on the MAHA campaign. Grnrchst (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with MAHA report in either direction. Reywas92^Talk 15:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Make America Healthy Again per nom, page is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. MAHA report should probably be merged as well. मल्ल (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that the report should probably be merged into the main article too. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Make America Healthy Again, not really enough notability on its own. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Tennessee DHC-6 Twin Otter crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. No deaths resulted from this accident. XYZ1233212 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, United States of America, and Tennessee. XYZ1233212 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep or return to userspace pending others' views~~ Redirect per below reply to this page: ~~I would not normally vote speedy keep.~~ However per [a comment] left by another user yesterday on a similar recent crash that had been nominated for deletion, I feel this falls into the same category of WP:RAPID. This crash took place only yesterday, time must be given to gather sources and for investigation reports (which take months or even years) to be released. This article will expand naturally as more information comes out. 11WB (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, we should not rush to create articles just because said event appeared on the news. For articles like this, it would be better to wait maybe a few days to see where this story is going, look for sources past the first or second day beyond the immediate preliminary coverage, and then decide whether or not an article can be created. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Waiting to create/nominating to delete already created articles on these types of accidents involves a greater period of time to assess what took place and what sources appear. 11WB (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen others' points of view I think a redirect to a relevant page such as 2025 in aviation would be appropriate. This way some information can be given on the accident. 11WB (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON applies here, this is an example of rushing to create an article based only on news, because at the end of the day, it’s an incident that it’s common and doesn’t get enough notability to classify for an article. Protoeus (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete or perhaps draftify This is in something of a gray area between scheduled passenger service and general aviation, so I don't know how it might be handled investigatively, but chances are it's going to end up in the "recommendation: don't crash the plane" bucket of accidents at best. I'm willing to have it held onto pending some sort of resolution but precedent is that it's WP:TOOSOON to say this is going to have been a notable accident. Mangoe (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No fatalities and a run-of-the-mill accident, yawn. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2025 in aviation. This event seems to pass WP:AIRCRASH due to hull loss, but the accident seems trivial enough that there's no serious need for a full article. guninvalid (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see many people have voted to delete, I think my initial vote was hasty. I agree with this, so I think I will cross out my speedy delete and opt for a redirect instead having considered others' points of view. 11WB (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tullahoma Regional Airport#Accidents and incidents is the better redirect target. This accident absolutely doesn't meet the criteria to be included in 2025 in aviation. nf utvol (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this! That link was an interim one, I was going to find a better one before the week ends. I will edit my link to the one you provided! 11WB (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tullahoma Regional Airport#Accidents and incidents. This section already has a write up on the incident, no need to keep the separate page for a non-notable air incident. nf utvol (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited my comment to match this. Whilst I never like to see an article deleted before possible improvement, it looks like this will be the best outcome for now. 11WB (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Newsworthy but non-notable general(ish) aviation accident, fails WP:EVENTCRIT#4. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tullahoma Regional Airport#Accidents and incidents as an alternative to deletion per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Articles on events like this can always be recreated in the future should something change, but for now, the coverage doesn’t establish notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the event is far too recent currently to pass any of the secondary sourcing criteria effectively. Uncertain if this disaster will be notable enough in 6-12 months time. The NTSB should release something in due course. 11WB (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This merits a 1-2 sentence summary in a "list of" article. Danish Ranger (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability. For example, I learned about this while updating the 2025 crashes template after the Air India crash today. Borgenland (talk) Borgenland (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tullahoma Regional Airport#Accidents and incidents due to no fatalities, and replace with 1-2 sentence summary in a "list of" article per Danish Ranger. --Minoa (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed a couple comments like this today. Perhaps it would be possible to redirect this article to a page, such as this which contains the 1-2 sentence summary (or more if really necessary), instead of a flat deletion? I would like to think WP:ATD#Redirection would be suitable for this particular accident, pending the eventual NTSB report. The crash isn't as big some of the others we've seen recently, however a quick Google search does show reports from other countries, for example the [Daily Mail] and [Hindustan Times] (albeit brief). 11WB (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A 1-2 sentence summary in a "list of" article is effectively a merge vote. Would that be accurate to your viewpoint, @Minoa? guninvalid (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may be mistaken on this, but my understanding is that either: the article is deleted entirely without a redirect to a related page with the info, or the original article is replaced with a redirect link to a relevant article that covers the subject, however brief. (I apologise if that was worded awfully!) 11WB (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected my vote. --Minoa (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tullahoma Regional Airport#Accidents and incidents, where this insufficiently-notable-for-a-standalone-article accident is already appropriately covered. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alpha Sigma Phi chapters

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST, because it hasn't been discussed as a group. It's a collection of links to external sites, hence WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I fail to see how the chapters of a National Fraternity don't constitute a group, there are *no* external Links outside the References (which is where they should be) and Alpha Sigma Phi doesn't have chartering dates at a single web page (like most fraternities and sororities do) and as such, a larger number of references are needed, which doesn't affect whether the page should exist anyway.Naraht (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NLIST says: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources I don't think the various chapters have been discussed as a group. The references are just links to individual universities that have a chapter. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 20:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This nomination is in error. This article has at least two secondary sources that cover the chapters of Alpha Sigma Phi as a group. One is a Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, the main authority on all Greek letter organizations for more than 100 years. Alpha Sigma Phi was included in every edition of Baird's, including the edition(s) cited in this article. The second source is the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities, a scholarly project of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As is the typical positioning with sources that cover all entries in a table, these sources are provided in the lede above the table. In addition, the links within the table/list go to other Wikipedia articles, such as the main article about Alpha Sigma Phi and the various colleges and cities that host chapters, not external websites. Also, there is a precedent of moving long lists of fraternity, sorority, and honor society chapters to a secondary list article, rather than maintaining the list in the main organizational article. List of Alpha Sigma Phi chapters is a good example of a list that is simply too long to functionally work in the main article about the fraternity. Both WP:FRAT and WP:UNI have a preference for this type of list over including content in the main university article or the main Greek letter organization article. In short, this article not only meets the requirements for notability and a list article, but is also the preference of the main WikiProjects that oversee this content. Rublamb (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I also concur that this is a ridiculous nomination. The AfD nomination came out of nowhere, on specious claims of a lack of discussion and references. The references are simple to fix, and one need not delete!, delete!, delete! in such cases to resolve the problem. Our Project group fixes, polices and improves the articles in our area of interest and expertise (some 3,500) methodically and via consensus. As a significant, nationally known fraternity, with chapters on many campuses that are recognized by their student life administration, many of which have existed for more than 50 years with multiple available references, this group and its individual chapters are notable. This designation is consistent with other articles, prior editing practice, consensus, and Wikipedia editing policies. The nominator is not a Project participant, but merely is taking an arbitrary shot at the article without understanding.

Other Project editors are currently working on reference improvements, and have clarified why this article was correctly spun off as a subordinate article to the main Alpha Sigma Phi article. A very clear rationale. Jax MN (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination. It is going to be kept per WP:SNOW anyway, no need to keep it open and clutter AfD. It was a mistake to nominate it and I am going to be more careful with my AfD nominations in the future. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rublamb (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Public Radio

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

Contested prod without improvement. See page's talkpage for rationale. However, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Move to Draftspace - This is a fairly well-written page, but the sourcing is not strong enough or well-utilized enough. If works wants to continue on it, I could argue for moving it over to being a draft, although the fact that PROD was disputed without improvement makes this likely a failing idea. PickleG13 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would have draftified it, but it wasn't eligible for draftification, except through the AfD process. I would have no problem with sending it to draft, as long as the editor agrees to put it through the AfC review process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Technology, Computing, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schmid

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

Fails WP:PROF, nothing in google scholar for *this* eric schmid, none of the listed papers have any significant number of citations Psychastes (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Switzerland, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I am skeptical of WP:NCREATIVE, and the current article does not make a case for it. Commenting that several of the references in the article do not appear to mention the subject here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm still looking into sources in the article and a BEFORE, but it seems that what is here are a lot of name-check mentions, listings, connected non-independent sources, or brief snippet of content that are basically mentions rather than sustained in-depth significant coverage that we would normally see for a notable artist. No notable exhibitions, nor works in permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries, nor the usual art historical sources nor art critical/theoretical coverage. Holding off on !Voting for now until I do a deeper search, but it looks like he is not a notable artist or curator. Also want to mention that curators do not inherit the notability of the artists they select for shows they curate. Netherzone (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Someone has to cast the first !vote) -- one reason for general guidelines like WP:NPROF's statement that graduate students are very rarely notable is to help wade through mountains of side-mentions, mentions-of-groups-participated-in, etc. and all the other near citations that this article is full of and let us ask, "is there a significant reliable source that says that this person is significantly important in any of his fields?" Without it, it's WP:TOOSOON to have an article. (keep up the good work Eric...) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree it is WP:TOOSOON for any criteria in WP:NPROF and likely also for WP:NARTIST since I dont see any indication that he is part of a permanent collection or even had his own solo exhibition yet. For example the Speak Local exhibition was not a solo exhibition and it doesnt look like any of the others were either. Similarly I dont see any in depth profiles that would amount to notability per WP:GNG. --hroest 14:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree on the comments above, especially the Too Soon comments. Not yet. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's WP:TOOSOON for this multidisciplinary person, they don't meet WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:NARTIST at this time. Maybe in a few years, but not now.

E Reece

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Lacks enough SIGCOV sources in independent sources. I only found these reviews [1] and [2]. Searched ProQuest and Google news. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Kansas. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

020413 DOJ White Paper

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

copied to wikisource - s:Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U. S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force, no reason to keep —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 18:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 18:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Already validated in May 2023 on Wikisource. — Maile (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC) See link here. Wikisource: Index:020413 DOJ White Paper.pdf[reply]
Delete. Wikisource is over there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - each part of Wikimedia has its own unique job. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Brodeur

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

Fails WP:NBASIC. Unable to find coverage from reliable sources which is both independent and significant. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Internet, Arizona, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Close Combat Badge

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

Nomination: Originally considered merging this page into Combat Action Badge (CAB). However, the "History" section of the CAB article already covers the CCB and has... well, not great references but more than this. I do plan on expanding discussion of the CCB in the CAB article (assuming I can find the sources) but there is no reason for this article to exist. It has sat unsourced for 20 years. MWFwiki (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Combat Action Badge#History, where this is - as the nominator observes - mentioned, and could have been done boldly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I didn't do so (well, there's two reasons) is because I believe most people are looking for the "Close Combat Clasp." Anecdotally, I believe very few people know what the CCB is. Secondarily and less importantly, I personally find assuming whether or not something will be controversial to be impossible to say either way. Anyways, I certainly don't disagree with redirecting MWFwiki (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TheBushranger. The CAB is the commonly recognized title. Intothat darkness 14:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we're clear — not that it would really impact your opinion — the CCB is not the CAB nor an alternate name for it. It is an obscure badge that was never approved. MWFwiki (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know. But since it wasn't approved, it could be mentioned in the CAB article as something of a precursor. It doesn't need its own article. Intothat darkness 02:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand; I was the deletion nominator. I'm saying that I personally prefer straight deletion over redirect; No one is searching for a badge that never existed and that they probably aren't even aware of. Secondarily, I would argue that they're likely searching for Close Combat Clasp, which was obviously a real award. The Close Combat Badge page averaged 2 views per day (1 of which should be discounted, I believe, as a ping view, though I could be mistaken) over the last year with the Close Combat Clasp averaging 60+. Googling "Close Combat Badge" reveals most people are looking for the clasp. I'm not contending that this page should redirect to the clasp... just that it shouldn't necessarily redirect to the CAB. MWFwiki (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. The risk of confusion with Close Combat Clasp is certainly possible, so should be considered, but as noted there are very few views in any case. DeemDeem52 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 14147

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

I am utterly baffled as to why this Trumpcruft needs its own article. It has barely anything to it. It doesn't have any significant coverage in reliable sources, even from the time of its signing and publication, and it certainly does not have any enduring notability. We already have a very lengthy list of executive orders. We do not need a wee stub for every single one, no matter how insignificant (and this one is so clearly insignificant). Grnrchst (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump Only because it's the first one signed. Nathannah • 📮 02:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump as an ATD. This is clearly non-notable Trumpcruft with no notable sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's memecoin dinner

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

Another excellent example of Trumpcruft we have here. An article about a dinner.... Half of this article isn't even about the dinner, and instead provides context about Trump's memecoin or pithy reactions from the US opposition and comedians. Almost all of the sources are from around the day of the event, with little to nothing since then. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was clearly not a significant event with enduring notability. The content worth keeping (if there is any) could easily be merged into the main article about $Trump. Grnrchst (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Cryptocurrency, Politics, Business, Economics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Christ, yes: not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. I don't see why this is notable. — Czello ^(music) 21:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy of an entire article and the topic can be mentioned at $Trump as suggested. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to $Trump per reasons above. Half the article is just giving general background on the memecoin and is not actually about the dinner; the event itself was not very notable. The information about the dinner should be in a section in the memecoin's article and not its own article per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. 2601:402:680:1270:C174:D122:219:19D7 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to $Trump per 2601; this is more background on the coin than about what was not an official state event. Nathannah • 📮 02:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to $Trump: Per the nominator, The content worth keeping (if there is any) could easily be merged into the main article about $Trump. Per WP:ATD-M, we should merge rather than delete when we can. Outside the lede and the 'Trump cryptocurrencies' sub-section, I think that there is sufficient content that could be moved to $Trump. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - without context, it's just a meal; with context, It's number 35. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to $Trump per Super Goku V. KnowDeath (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to $Trump seems best. Moondragon21 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's letter to Ali Khamenei

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

This has to be one of the best examples of Trumpcruft on Wikipedia. This is article is about a single letter, sent a few months ago. I held off nominating this article for deletion when it was first created, but it's been enough time now that I think it's clear it does not have enduring notability by itself; it has not received any extensive coverage since it was sent. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was not a significant event. Any information worth keeping can easily be merged into the article on the 2025 United States–Iran negotiations (a subject that does have a more clearly enduring notability). Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Literature, Politics, Iran, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. No reason this letter needs its own article. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested. No need for a separate article. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only if we have WP:RS, but a merge is more preferable to avoid WP:CFORK happening. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep According to WP:NOMERGE, articles that are merged should not be excessively lengthy. Conversely, if an article has the potential for expansion, it should not be deleted. The article 2025 United States–Iran negotiations is lengthy and has the potential for further development. Also, the article about Trump's letter to Ayatollah Khamenei is quite well-known. It is a letter between two important and well-known people. Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Many years have passed since this article was published.GolsaGolsa (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Probably yes, but don't WP:OTHERSTUFF please. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This letter has no notability independent of the greater scope article. A sentence or two about the letter in 2025 United States–Iran negotiations would suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. It was the starting point for the negotiations. If it is merged, and a redirect is created, all original information in this article is saved (through History). If it is deleted, everything is gone. PS Just to be clear, if it is not merged, then Keep! Lova Falk (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This can be covered in 3-4 sentences on the main page. No WP:PAGELENGTH concerns due to the minimal amount of net new content. Longhornsg (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 78.81.123.235 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities Working Group

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

Once of hundreds of working groups under the United States National Security Council over decades. Worth a line in the parent article, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Would suggest merging to the main article, but the main article does not mention the working groups at all. Nayyn (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Council Deputies Committee

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

Redirect to United_States_National_Security_Council#Deputies_Committee, where it's already covered. WP:REDUNDANT Longhornsg (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merav Ceren

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL. The United States National Security Council employs almost 400 staffers, including numerous directors at Ceren's level. Many NSC staffers, including her former boss Eric Trager, a senior director, who has far more significant policy impact, don't even have an article. Coverage of Ceren is primarily due to a short-lived media controversy, not for enduring or substantive contributions to public policy. Routine job appointments or involvement in transient news cycles do not establish lasting encyclopedic notability, especially for a director who was in the job for 2 months. If anything, a case of WP:BLP1E for the controversy around her appointment. Longhornsg (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Israel, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Good point about Trager, perhaps you could help develop that page. I think you under estimate Merav's contribution to public policy.Leutha (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trager now has an article. He's notable under WP:NAUTHOR. Still no policy-based argument for Ceren. Longhornsg (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very briefly held a mid-level position and there was a debate around that. Not right to build an article from there. gidonb (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guil Lunde

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

Per LastJabberwocky's prod: "Lacks SIGCOV in independent sources." Reywas92^Talk 16:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing to be found for this person. The Dubbing Wikia is about the best that comes up in Gsearch... One source used in the article that isn't linked to a book online, so I can't check. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalani Hilliker

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, appears to be famous for being famous, but a WP:ROTM actor, dancer. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2025 (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 11:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as it lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent references to the subject and some of the references is self-published source and unreliable. Fade258 (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2025 (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 no consensus‎. Or trainwreck, take your pick. But consensus is not going to emerge while this was so fresh even disregarding SPAs. Star Mississippi 15:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. While their buisness relationship has been publicized a lot, this is a common thread with Trump-related people, and this probably fails WP:ROUTINE as well. We don’t have Donald Trump–Mike Pence feud after their January 6th fallout, so I don’t see why this deserves an exception. This could easily fit better in individual sections such as Politics of Elon Musk. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This is not comparable to the Pence feud. There are implications to this which are becoming apparent as this discussion is occurring; Musk will decommission the SpaceX Dragon, which will affect the operations of the International Space Station. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: ElijahPepe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SpaceX Dragon is an example of how we don't know the real implications. Musk appears to have backed off on that topic already, meaning that was a threat that lasted hours. These are impulsive public figures. Dflovett (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further note that the article creator has now !voted to redirect this article, acknowledging that it does not meet our notability guidelines. Per this comment, it appears they were also previously sanctioned by the community for rapidly creating problematic articles about current events, a concern that I and many other editors have raised in the past. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you've already been told, the opinions of the original creator do not hold greater weight. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 23:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t have Donald Trump–Mike Pence feud (why?), but a Category:Hip-hop feuds and several related feud articles like the Taylor Swift–Kanye West feud and Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud. Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable conflict between the richest man in the world and the leader of the most powerful country 2603:9000:BC00:149E:6C68:8489:407A:C7CF (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, even before I typed "Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud" into the Wikipedia search bar (can't believe I guessed the exact title!), I somehow already knew that it would have been created by ElijahPepe. As always, this is WP:TOOSOON — wait to see where the conflict goes, then apply the WP:10Y test and consider whether WP:NOPAGE applies. For now, delete. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how the creator of an article is relevant. WP:NPA applies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make a personal attack; falsely accusing another editor of making a personal attack could be itself considered a personal attack. Calling out another editor for disruptive behavior, even if they may be acting in good faith, is not incivil. Although I usually refrain from calling out editors' past misbehavior, you have a history of prematurely creating problematic articles when notability has not been established; despite innumerable AfDs, you appear to not have learned from these past mistakes. This is troublesome, and other !voters must be aware of this context. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this context is important. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, just take a look at their talk page and you'll understand what I'm talking about ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He didn’t say that you made a personal attack, nor even insinuate it. elijahpepe merely pointed out that the identity of the article’s creator is irrelevant to the AfD discussion, which I think is fair. I say keep; WP:TOOSOON is almost always subjective and therefore not a useful heuristic here (maybe ever). No reasonable person would call WP:TOOSOON if a major political figure had just died, because there’s a reasonable (but subjective) assumption that the event will become noteworthy. We document current events as though we are our future selves looking backwards. If this turns out to be a nothingburger, then scrap it. Getabucket (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They wrote, "WP:NPA applies." NPA stands for "no personal attacks", in reference to our policy that prohibits petty insults and disparaging remarks, which I did not engage in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I missed that, totally my mistake. Getabucket (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all" should be clear enough. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That merely suggests that the safest way to avoid making personal attacks is to avoid referencing editors' behavior altogether, not that any reference to an editor's behavior is likely a personal attack. I agree with that statement and do generally avoid referencing editors' behavior, but in this AfD, I made an exception because I felt it was relevant context and made sure to frame it in a neutral, factual manner. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logical fallacies: The argument uses an ad hominem fallacy by dismissing the article due to its editor (ElijahPepe) rather than its content. It misapplies WP:TOOSOON by claiming the topic is too recent without evidence of insufficient sourcing or lasting significance. Finally, it assumes WP:NOPAGE/10Y apply without proving the feud lacks verifiable notability, relying on bias over policy. Rosa Olmos (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While AfD nominator is probably formally right, you just need to read the room. It's probably one of the most important events in the 2025. It ~~dominated~~ paralysed all the world news. In just a week, the article about this event will be huge. Flamekinzealot (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid keep reason. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is way more notable. The media is treating it as such. The Trump-Pence relationship is part of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. This is something completely different. The senior advisor to the president is basically alleging the president is a pedophile, with a huge reaction! Personisinsterest (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SUSTAINED: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It might be too soon to delete this since this will surely become more notable in the coming days. Looking up Elon Musk shows me a bunch of reporting from multiple RSs and I'm also sure that this will drag on for a while (e.g. Trump sues Elon Musk for defamation because of his Epstein tweet or something) Laura240406 (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems premature and too much of a newsy article Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes all 4 aspects of Wikipedia:NOTNEWS, and Passes Wikipedia:ROUTINE, as this event has significant coverage in Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Zzendaya (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The activities in the Article are definitely noteworthy, but it remains to be seen how it'll all end up playing out. If this all dies down in a few days it can be merged into another Elon Musk-related page. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 21:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The difference in scope between the Trump-Pence feud and this is vast. Musk and his circle are as deeply entrenched in the executive branch as Trump and his cabinet, whether we like it or not. Should the article have been created so hastily? I don't think so. Should it be removed entirely? I wouldn't. Stick a rapidly developing news template at the top and keep the article updated with current information as the story develops. anchovy ^TALK⁄_CONT 21:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way WP:TOOSOON. Tomorrow it could disappear or turn into a duel. Patience. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON: "For an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources." Though facts are still emerging, reliable secondary sources are reporting on the subject. anchovy ^TALK⁄_CONT 21:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is a WP:BLP and wild accusations are thrown about which may or may not be true. Related pertinent facts have yet to emerge. WP:NODEADLINE O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. anchovy ^TALK⁄_CONT 22:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anchovyx: Sources aren't secondary just based on where they're published. A source can be both primary and secondary. For example, a news article that is mostly just reporting on a current event, with a sentence of analysis/interpretation, is still primarily a primary source. The secondary coverage (that sentence) is not "significant coverage". You cannot call the entire article secondary just because it has one sentence/paragraph of secondary (analysis/interpretation) in it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to a section within Political activities of Elon Musk. That article is too short to require a spin-off and this event is unlikely to have lasting notability on its own. satkara❈talk 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This will surely be kept because everything involving Trump is presumed notable. But geez folks. Let's at least let the ink dry on the sources before we need an article to exactly match the news cycle. GMG ^talk 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this, unfortunately, is a very possible outcome. I think the only way to fix this problem is to have some sort of restriction like WP:ECR on AfDs regarding current events. Too many inexperienced, drive-by editors too often rush to !vote to "save" these types of problematic articles because they are unaware that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, not a source of breaking news, and creating articles before notability is established is putting the cart before the horse. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo and InfiniteNexus: do you think perhaps something should be added to WP:TRUMPCRUFT about specifically the interconnect between RECENT and NOTNEWS and things related to Trump? The closest thing now is the "FAQ" of "Look at all of the sources covering this topic, it is too notable!". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great essay. Wouldn't be a bad idea. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An essay with WP:TDS. Hard pass. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm predisposed to a narrow read of WP:NOTNEWS, but even so this minor feud documenting the controversy of the day has only a very small likelihood of meeting WP:SUSTAINED. I'd propose a merge/redirect to One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but others may suggest a better target. (Satkara's suggestion of Political activities of Elon Musk could also work.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd also support an upmerge to a section in a new article with a wider topic. Something like Political alliance between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's probably too early to see if this fails WP:NOTNEWS as the implications of this for the 2026 elections and 2028 elections if this is significant and long lasting will be profound. Musk has tremendous financial capacity and this is a broader schism between the techno-libertarian right (Musk) and the populist right (Trump)

For now I am leading towards Week Keep as this article can always be deleted if this is not a long lasting and sustained conflict. Nkulasingham (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zzendaya. Deleting now is just going to trigger a WP:REFUND a couple days later; this is going to drag out for a while. –Fredddie ™ 22:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, going into this I was pretty sure that I would be on the "Delete" side but after going through the coverage I'm leaning the other way... I hadn't heard anything about this but it does appear to have gotten a surprising amount of significant coverage. That being said I don't think covering the same material at One Big Beautiful Bill Act and/or Political activities of Elon Musk etc would be the end of the world (especially if the "feud" just fizzles out) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though in my view any resolution shouldn't be done yet. This feels like its firmly stepping into the type of stuff WP:RAPID recommends against. Etatrisy (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BREAKING until we have some idea about WP:LASTING. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per basically every other !vote before mine. The "keep" !votes are saying it meets NOTNEWS... when it doesn't. We don't (and can't) predict whether it's going to be lasting at all, and also the coverage about it is routine primary source journalism. By definition there aren't secondary sources at this point for a feud that has only come into the public eye in the last 24 hours. If/when there are secondary sources - such as large investigative journalism, rather than just reporting the news - WP:REFUND is that way (points). It is not a valid excuse that a REFUND may be merited in the future. As a distant second I would be okay with this being draftified in a userspace or in the Draft: space so it (and its history) can be maintained, to help placate the people claiming REFUND is too hard for them (I don't see any other reason "we may need to REFUND it" is a valid argument). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to fall into any of the four categories of content which NOTNEWS advises against, none of that is routine coverage, and "Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Your policy analysis is just weak. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrity gossip and diaries. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. The feud may result in impacts to specific programs/services, and those can be covered in their respective articles. Further, point 2 specifies enduring notability of the event. There is no evidence this will be enduring in its notability, and it's not appropriate to assume it will be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither gossip or diary style coverage. We can't assume either way on enduring notability, we don't have a crystal ball. If in a few years there is no more coverage than what we have now you are welcome to come back and delete it on lack of enduring coverage grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to assume either way. If there isn't evidence it's notable now, then it should be deleted now. If significant secondary coverage isn't available now, it should be deleted now. If such coverage comes out later, WP:REFUND is that way (points). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been repeatedly provided with sources that other people believe are secondary and significant, you disagree... You're just beating a dead horse at this point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say "I think (random link) is secondary" without explaining it. I've made clear (in my initial !vote, for that matter) that the sources and explanations so far do not actually prove the sources are significant secondary coverage. You're free to provide more/different sources/explanation to change my mind. But if you can't, this sort of "I still disagree with you" comment is not helpful to anyone - be it a person reviewing this discussion, or the eventual closer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say "I think (random link) is not significant secondary coverage without explaining it.

You've made clear that you're just going to go for WP:ICANTHEARYOU Selbsportrait (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on the one making the claim. You're the one claiming there is significant secondary coverage. So, quote it here. Quote what you think is significant secondary coverage - and I'll either change my view or I'll explain to you why it's either not significant or not secondary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you accept that each participant needs to support the claims they make.

That's progress. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one making the claim. It's not possible to prove a negative. I can't quote something that shows there is no analysis/interpretation. You have the burden to prove there is significant analysis/interpretation, because you're the one making the claim that it exists. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't prove a negative (which is false, e.g. Gödel's theorem), then how will you ever be able to support your claim that it's not significant?

Denial ain't that powerful. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I wrote this above as a reply but I'll repeat it here for visibility. Too many editors appear to not realize that Wikipedia is a "lagging indicator of notability", and rushing to create articles before notability is established is putting the cart before the horse; it should the other way around. WP:DELAY explains why we should not rush to create articles based on breaking news: we do not predict whether a topic "might" be notable in the future; we evaluate whether it is currently notable. If a topic that previously not notable later becomes notable, it can and will be reinstated then; however, until then, creating a standalone article is jumping the gun. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Riposte97 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTA much? Thegoofhere (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also look at WP:RAPID Laura240406 (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, is there a policy about rushing to create articles about breaking news events? Some1 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking for WP:DELAY, Some1 Thegoofhere (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed and described above by User:Zzendaya. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Irrespective of problems this article has with WP:TOOSOON right now, I do not expect them to still be problems by the time this discussion closes; not at the rate things are happening. My biggest problem with the article is large parts of it should be rewritten to better match Wikipedia writing standards but that's not cause for deletion. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Giga Keep - This is gonna get spicy quick Dh75 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Egads, what a woefully ill-informed dumpster fire of an article creation. Political disagreements are a routine part of politics, even between people who were once closer in agreement on issues in the past. This is plain WP:NOTNEWS with a healthy heap of WP:COATRACK, as the article just becomes a platform on which to criticize both subjects. We have enough articles where a minor mention of their alliance-turned-sour can be given a brief mention. It is not a stand-alone topic. Zaathras (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Not endorsing keeping or deleting, but while I wouldn't have created this article, I don't think nominating it for deletion the same day the news breaks is helpful, and it will be easier to assess whether notability will be sustained in a week or two. charlotte ^👸♥ 23:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is probably the biggest interpersonal fallout in recent political history. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an important ongoing event. Furthermore, as per what FunkMonk said above. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – Per WP:TOOSOON, WP:RAPID and WP:DELAY, coverage is still in the 24‑hour news‑burst phase. Suggest relisting for one‑to‑two weeks so we can see if significant secondary analysis emerges- otherwise a merge to political activities of Elon Musk would suffice. Dahawk04 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE is about "planned coverage of scheduled events".
That's not it.
WP:NOTNEWS is about original or unreliable research, besides including WP:ROUTINE.
Again, that's not it.
WP:TOOSOON is about "verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources".
There is plenty already.
WP:COATRACK is about "unrelated things to make a point".
That's unrelated to notability, and related to what to include in an article, and how. There are enough deletionists around to keep that in check. At best it'd be an argument to burn everything from a page and start anew.
I'm not sure how people can judge the importance of that topic. Could be a tempest in a teapot. Could be big. Nobody has a crystal ball.
Voters might consult WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and bring arguments instead of thumbs. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Coverage of current events by news is not secondary coverage. It is by definition primary. Investigative journalism, in depth analysis, and similar articles are secondary coverage. But there are none of those yet. Per GNG, secondary coverage is required - not just routine news coverage of current events, which, again, is primary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether its primary or secondary depends on context... And in this context we primarily have coverage of tweets which would be the primary source with the news coverage being secondary. What that is supposed to prevent is making an article based on the tweets, not on articles about the tweets. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Coverage of tweets that just says "this person said this and here's a timeline of what happened" is not secondary. Secondary requires significant analysis/interpretation. A timeline or merely saying "this happened and here's a timeline of related events" is not secondary coverage. It's entirely possible for a source to report on information from elsewhere yet still be primary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an accurate description of the coverage... We have interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context. There also appears to be a lot of analysis of how we got here and the implications going forward. We also have a number of notable individuals offering their opinion on the matter, and coverage of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not secondary coverage. Saying "this is the historical context of 'how we got here'" is not analysis or interpretation. Offering opinions on the matter does not mean there is analysis or interpretation going on. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've selectively replied to my comment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not. You said That is not an accurate description of the coverage... We have interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context. I explained why that "interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context" is not secondary coverage. Explaining the definition of something is not secondary - likewise, explaining what the author thinks a tweet means is not secondary. The burden is on you to prove/show that there is "significant secondary" coverage. I look forward to you providing quotes (or another method) of showing what portion of sources you consider secondary in nature. I will happily revisit my position if your evidence is sufficient, alternatively, I will happily explain to you why your view of it being secondary/significant is wrong. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have and continue to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for you to justify and provide proof for your position. You have yet to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I and a number of other editors have, you have soundly ignored most of it... Going for selective responses and red herrings instead of anything resembling editing by a respected and able colleague. You don't even appear to have read the articles linked, you've only skimmed the URLs (and then falsely claimed that the URLs were titles). At the end of the day it doesn't appear that you can be satisfied, you appear to be WP:IDNHT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could have told me to read WP:GNG first:

1. Presumed? That one is seldom on deletionists' side.

2. Significant coverage? Check:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-06-05/elon-musk-trump-feud-full-timeline-of-the-public-meltdown

3. Reliable sources? Check:

https://www.cnn.com/business/timeline-elon-musk-trump-x-dg

4. Secondary sources? From your own source:

"Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material."

In case you have difficulties finding commentaries:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wd2215q08o

https://www.vox.com/politics/415599/elon-musk-trump-feud-bill-contracts-nasa

5. Independent? That is usually implied by 4.

Also note:

"Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."

To discuss usually implies one does not beg the question at hand, like you just did. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, coverage of tweets is not secondary. Secondary requires significant in depth analysis/interpretation. The current news is just "this happened, this is the history". That is not analysis/interpretation, much less in depth. A timeline is not analysis/interpretation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The timelines I offered establish significant coverage and reliable sources. And again, you are begging the question as to what is significant in depth analysis.

It shouldn't be that hard to find "analysis/interpretation":

https://www.wired.com/story/musk-trump-feud-venture-capitalists-pick-sides/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-blames-musks-criticism-decision-cut-ev-tax-credits-2025-06-05/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/musk-vs-trump-sniping-analysis-1.7553387

You may dispute that it's "significant" or "in depth", but then it's easy to do when one just has to argue by assertion.

What would convince you - ten monographs written by political scientists based on a statistical model with a 5-sigma threshold? Selbsportrait (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant and reliable are only two of the requirements. An article topic can have significant coverage in 100 reliable sources - but if none of that coverage is secondary, it's not notable. A paragraph of analysis in an otherwise primary source does not make it significant coverage in a secondary source. All must be met simultaneously - significant primary coverage does not count just because one small paragraph in it is secondary analysis. It must be significant secondary coverage. The burden is on you tyo identify why those sources show significant secondary coverage. Merely saying "analysis" in the title/headline doesn't matter when all it is is a timeline with maybe 3 sentences total of "analysis". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're throwing out red herrings, none of the three articles you were just presented with have analysis in the title/headline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
www.cbc.ca/news/world/musk-vs-trump-sniping-analysis

You clearly aren't actually reading what you're replying to. This thread is between me and Selbsportrait. Please don't try to derail it by commenting here when you clearly haven't even read the whole thread. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the URL, the title on the piece is "Musk vs. Trump: A power couple tumbles into a messy divorce" and it is marked as analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that it's only marked as analysis. Luckily, we don't just take sources at their word. You're free to quote the "analysis" that's present there. You have yet to do so, even with 3+ requests from me to do so at this point. The only valid assumption is that you are repeatedly not doing so because you can't - because it's not actually analysis that would qualify it as a secondary source and/or because any analysis present is in passing/so short as to not qualify as significant coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit no such thing... Another red herring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"have analysis in the title/headline"

Talk about herrings. An analysis is an analysis, whether or not there is "analysis" on its title/headline. But whatever: "World Analysis" is the kicker of one of them. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You're free to quote the "analysis" that's present there."

You're free to show that you read it too.

Start at "Hints of trouble in political paradise", and the next section. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not analysis. That's simple news reporting - i.e. primary. A couple sentences of "analysis" interspersed within a timeline/news report does not "significant secondary coverage" make. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that analysis not the same thing as providing a timeline.

And you still haven't provided any evidence that you read the piece. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"in 100 reliable sources"

Citation needed. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG: "Sources" should be secondary sources. No number of primary sources qualify a topic as notable. It could be 1000 primary sources. Doesn't make it notable. The requirement is that there be significant secondary source coverage. Not that there's lots of primary coverage of the topic with barely a sentence or paragraph of secondary coverage (analysis and/or interpretation). A timeline of events is not analysis or interpretation. There is yet to be shown any secondary coverage here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said "in 100 reliable sources".

Where did you get that?

Arguing by bold is no better than arguing by assertion, or worse by denial. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my original response. The number is an example. 1000 primary sources with one sentence each of secondary (analysis/interpretation) coverage in them does not make "significant coverage in secondary sources" for notability. A source can be primarily primary even if it contains a small amount of analysis/interpretation that would be secondary. Even if there's 1000 such sources, that is still not the significant secondary coverage necessary for notability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a source is "primarily primary" or not is immaterial to the fact that it can be used for its secondary material. Which is the whole point of the discussion in the page you patronized me to read.

A source that contains secondary material is considered secondary when the secondary material is used as source.

1000 bits of analysis exceed what a page can contain, so please beware your synthetic examples.

And you still haven't told me what would convince you. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean its notable. You cannot combine passing coverage in sources to meet notability. Each individual source used for notability must be significant secondary coverage. If it's only a sentence or short paragraph of secondary coverage, that is by definition not significant coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the concept of secondary source is relative, contextual, and something that needs to be discussed as per your own citation, it is certainly not (or, if you prefer, not) a matter of definition.

Repeating the same naked denials over and over again without showing any understanding of the material you asked me to read is unconvincing, to say the least. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided any reasoning why the sources you cited were secondary. I've explained to you that one or two sentences, or a short paragraph, of secondary coverage does not "significant secondary coverage" make. It doesn't matter if it has 100 sentences of primary coverage - the secondary coverage is all that counts/matters. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't explained anything. You simply denied, denied, denied.

And now you contradict yourself: first you suggested that a source was not secondary unless it contained a majority of secondary content. Now, the primary content doesn't matter.

Make up your mind. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not mutually exclusive arguments. You're the one making the claim that there is such - thus you're the one with the burden to prove it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are:

(1) A source, to be considered secondary, needs to contain a majority analytical content.

(2) A source, to be considered secondary, needs to contain analytical content.

(1) implies (2) but (2) does not imply (1).

Your obduracy is getting obnoxious. Let's drown it under something more constructive. Try this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/06/05/elon-musk-x-trump-attacks-epstein/

Notice the "Analysis by Will Oremus". Why would it be a primary source?Selbsportrait (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not based on whether it's called analysis or not. It's based on whether it actually is analysis. Merely gathering social media posts and historical information is not analysis. There are a couple sentences that are analysis in that article. But a couple sentences is not "significant" coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Merely gathering social media posts and historical information is not analysis."

So you haven't read the piece, or you don't have a clear reading of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts".

Either way, I don't need to prove what I just said, right?

Meanwhile, enjoy this other gathering:

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/amid-trump-musk-blowup-canceling-spacex-contracts-could-cripple-dod-launch-program/ Selbsportrait (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"But a couple sentences is not "significant" coverage" ummm it generally is... A couple of sentences "is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per WP:RAPID. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could very well become one of the largest feuds in American political history, let's at least wait and see what happens before we delete this article. NesserWiki (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bigger than Burr–Hamilton duel. It's gonna be yuuuuuuuge, believe me folks. (sarcasm of course) CNC33 (. . .talk) 00:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE into Political activities of Elon Musk as its own section CNC33 (. . .talk) 00:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no rush to delete articles. Let it play out and see what lasts Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's very little "there" there in the first place for the article. Do we need a Wikipedia page for every twitter beef? Is this even notable yet? Trump has feuded with Elon before (even on Twitter too) and brought up government subsidies then too, and they made up after that. There is no reason to believe this will last longer than a week. It is worth maybe two sentences on Political activities of Elon Musk. Catboy69 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Elon Musk called Trump a pedophile this time and everyone actually cares now. I’m sorry to be going against all those Wikipedia guidelines or whatever, but at some point people have to realize this is an important event that people care about. Notability is notability. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't here to be a place for "event[s] that people care about". We are an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the very definition of an encyclopedia is "a compendium of things that people care about" or at any rate think relevant enough to make part of the body of knowledge/record for future relevance. Irresistance (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... Our notability guideline is essentially a proxy for measuring how much relevant people care about something and deciding what is due for inclusion as a stand alone topic based on that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another option could be to rename this article to Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk (or to Relationship of Elon Musk and Donald Trump, depending on who you want to list first) to focus on their overall relationship (which includes the feud) rather than just their feud. Some1 (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
might actually be a good idea. better then keeping or deleting. i'm not sure if this article exists though, but under a different name JamesEMonroe (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support this DecafPotato (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, and there would be enough to siphon from Views of Elon Musk#Donald Trump to provide a background. I was surprised that this article only focuses on the 2025 feud, and not the previous as well. Scope aside, there is more to this subject than meets the topic at present. Please ping me if a broader topic is created, thanks. CNC (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait or Weak Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. If this continues to escalate tomorrow and over the next few days, this article should be kept; if it dies out quietly, than it can be deleted or merged. All in all, it seems to be too early to call what will happen. Remember WP:NTRUMP. 2601:402:680:1270:1449:C1:1B29:3004 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is absolutely notable enough to be kept. EarthDude (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep:Redirect it is currently notable, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we still don't know if it will have lasting effects or not or if the notability will last. it could just blow over and not have much of any effects where it could go into another article or not even be notable enough. redirect per what the author said JamesEMonroe (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID and also because the coverage is already mostly sufficient for it to be notable and WP:NOTNEWS. I would be very surprised if this doesn't turn out to be obviously worthy of its own article in a few months. Loki (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Weak Keep: Although the topics discussed within the article may certifiably be considered immediately notable for many, notability is not determined from the immediateness of its occurrence (WP:TOOSOON / WP:DELAY). Many of the KEEPS appear to mention the possibility for it to become notable in the next couple days or weeks. But, notability cannot immediately be determined either by the possibility of higher significance in a possible future based on speculation (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL). But yes, this could indeed become a topic of higher importance within the next couple days. If the article is deleted and then it DOES become notable within the next couple days (causing a WP:REFUND), then this whole discussion would have been for nothing (WP:RAPID)... but I think that a KEEP should only be a reasonable choice IF and ONLY IF such notability is to occur within that short time frame. But if notability is not reached within that time frame, then it should be deleted and reconsidered IF and WHEN the topic becomes notable enough to where it would reasonably need a dedicated page instead as of a subtopic on a already existing page. ThatOneUnorigional (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — This feud does not appear to be headed towards a prolonged conflict. I haven't found an appropriate redirect target yet; One Big Beautiful Bill Act may work. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second. Did I read that right? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article creator doesn't have to support their own article in an AfD request. The only reason that I created this was because there was a possibility of an impact here. That possibility is likely to dissipate tomorrow. Thus, no reason for this to exist. The page may still be useful as a redirect target, given that you searched for this exact title and there are likely others who did as well. It is still possible that there is something tangible to this, but from my reading of the situation (both internally and from public sources), Musk conflated the views of White House advisors with Trump's view. The length of time is not the issue here, for the record, but rather the consequences. Without a meaningful response beyond threats and market reactions. That said, I'm also open to Some1's idea, which I privately considered for several days before abandoning it. Writing an article on the two men's relationship would be a very difficult undertaking. The base is here for a section of such an article, but the author would also have to do a significant differentiation that may not be possible with a lack of sourcing. At present, I do not believe that such an article—which I simply would have called Elon Musk and Donald Trump—could exist. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that this topic doesn't meet our criteria for notability, then you should not have created the article — you should have created it as a redirect. Creating an article before notability can be determined is called jumping the gun. Had this article not been prematurely created, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion (which won't be closed until several days later) at all. For the record, I agree: this "feud" looks to be nothing more than a few-hours-long online spat (happens all the time) that encompassed a bunch of angry tweets and sensational headlines (yellow journalism). InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If you agree that this topic doesn't meet our criteria for notability"

Timeline matters: one could have decided to create that page because it was noteworthy, and then found out that it should not. The strength of that belief also matters: one could believe that building an encyclopedia matters more than one's personal beliefs and that it's up to the consensus to decide.

Both the inclusionist and the deletionist have a role to play. The former have the facts, the latter the logic. It's very important that inclusionists don't get too categorical with the logic they apply, for we don't live in a world closed under deduction, and we need to fix first. Selbsportrait (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. It is not possible for a topic to be notable and then cease to be notable. If a topic is observed to "stop being notable", that means it was never notable in the first place. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not conflate "is believed to be notable by one editor" with "is notable". One editor can believe that an article is notable, or not; consensus can deem otherwise.

The implication you emphasized earlier is that an editor who submits an article for publication *should* (clarification pending on that type of obligation) believe that it's notable. My point is to say that belief needs not be categorical: an editor can change their mind, or don't put much credence in their beliefs.

Topics and pages are two different things. That a topic *is* notable (as in, forever and ever) does not imply we can't decide to repurpose a page for other reasons. Notability only obligates us to preserve valuable information. We could delete all the pages of the encyclopedia except one if one day everything worth nothing could fit on one page. Notability would thus be preserved.

(I know that's not plausible: it's just a thought experiment to make a point.)

That page is about a page, not an editor. Once a page has been created, it's out of the original editor's hands. Remonstrating should be reserved to personal talk pages, and only if an editor has formal authority over them. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not encourage editors to unilaterally create articles on non-notable subjects because "they can always change their minds". It's true that they can change their mind, and it's true consensus can override their initial decision to create the article via AfD. However, this process is disruptive, time-consuming, effort-wasting, and could have been avoided if the original creator had exercised prudence and consulted on a talk page to gauge consensus on whether a subject could warrant its own page (i.e. a split proposal, or start a draft), rather than act unilaterally and then have buyer's remorse. As you can see with various !votes that boil down to "it shouldn't have been created, but it now exists, so oh well, let's save it, I guess" (which is basically the sunk-cost fallacy), editors are often hesitant to delete an article once it has been created, even though it is sometimes unfortunate but still necessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not encourage turning talk pages into trials either, yet you revealed that you were doing so all along one minute after I posted my previous comment.

And now you're going for armchair psychology about editors who disagree with you.

The question if any gun has been jumped has yet to be settled. So perhaps you should hold your horses yourself. Selbsportrait (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not encourage turning talk pages into trials either, yet you revealed that you were doing so all along one minute after I posted my previous comment. I don't believe I said that? What statement are you referring to? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what you say, but what you do with words that matters most. I'm referring to the comment you made one minute after this one. Since I made my comment at 17:34, it should be a comment a bit after that.

And just so we're clear, your implicit argument is of the form:

(P1) A* has been caught drunk typing a few times already.

(P2) A* was probably drunk typing this time too.

(P3) We should discount the output of those who type drunk.

(C) We should discount the value of what A* did because he was probably drunk typing at the time.

The alternative is to consider what A* did on its own merits.

There are contexts where this kind of ad hominem argument is valid. This page is not one of them.

I'm just using "drunk typing" for effect here. Replace that with any predicate you please. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is distracting too far from the main topic, so I'll probably disengage after this reply. I did not say, or even imply any of that: I did not say that we should delete this article because it was created by a problematic user (it's because it doesn't meet our notability guidelines), or that we should discount what they have to say (in fact, they agree with deletion/redirection), or that this AfD is a "trial" that should result in disciplinary action (that would be the wrong venue, and I do not think someone should be disciplined for one mistake, only given a stern warning), or that the user in question is acting in bad faith (they are not). I am not sure why you interpreted my words this way, but perhaps I did not articulate myself very well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I did not say, or even imply any of that"

Yes, you did. Right here:

other editors should be made aware of this context. The fact that you have been sanctioned in the past is demonstrative of the fact that I am not the only editor to share these legitimate concerns.

Let's spell it out:

"editors should be made aware" => this is relevant to the actual discussion

"this context" => the page under discussion is probably the result of drunk typing

"sanctioned in the past" => being caught drunk typing

"demonstrative" => an inference is being made

"legitimate concerns" => the argument is valid

Either you retract that "editors should be made aware", or you own what you're doing right now.

To disengage, one must engage first, and not ignore the points being made. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't want to drag this on further, but you've made some serious allegations here. You originally wrote that I was turning talk pages into trials, suggesting that I was scrutinizing their entire edit history and calling for disciplinary action to be taken. I found this to be a gross exaggeration, so I asked for clarification; in response, you did not explain why you felt my comments were "trial"-like but invoked your drunk-typing analogy, asserting that I had suggested that we should discount the output of those who type drunk and discount the value of what A* did because he was probably drunk typing at the time, i.e. we should delete this article because of the article creator's history, and anything they say should be ignored. Again, I did not say this: I wrote editors should be made aware because this is relevant context to consider, not because it is the smoking-gun justification for deletion; otherwise, I would have phrased it as, "Delete, because the article creator often creates articles on non-notable current events and has been 'caught' doing so before." I also did not say anything about their "output" or "value" being irrelevant, which I obviously disagree with. You're making it sound like I presented a long list of irrelevant evidence of past misbehavior, hurled ugly insults and baseless accusations, and threatened to have them sanctioned, which is not the case and does not appear to be assuming good faith. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "often creates" bit allows us to rephrase the argument:

(P1) A* often creates articles on non-notable current events.

(P2) A* probably did so this time too.

(P3) We should discount the output of those who often create articles on non-notable current events.

(C) We should discount the value of the page under discussion, i.e. it (probably) fails notability.

Without something like P3, P1 and P2 adds nothing to the current discussion. One reading of it is that this ad hominem argument supports the claim that the page is not notable. The alternative is that this argument does not "inform" how to judge the current page.

"Does not appear to be assuming good faith" is often used as an ad hominem too. It probably is one. Should it allow us to discount the value of the position it accompanies, i.e. that this page is non-notable? Let's hope not.

From times immemorial, Knights and Gnomes chased down Dragons away from thy wiki. While this sport can bring vigorous merriment, they are often followed by complaints about the sad state of undeveloped entries afterwards. Perhaps Knights should let our Dragon population grow for a little while, and organize jousting tournaments between themselves instead. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"That possibility is likely to dissipate tomorrow."

I would take the other side of that bet, but I'm not sure why deciding what to do with that page should rest on the result of that bet.

A Musk-Trump page could be useful. A mention on the Big Beautiful Bill page is warranted either way, but it's really not the same thing. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ElijahPepe, you could rename the feud article to Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk to expand the scope, or create a Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk article and redirect this feud article there. I do believe that the relationship between these two men is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Some1 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A change in scope requires consensus, not to be done unilaterally. The closer of this AfD will determine whether there is consensus to change the scope of the article, or leave it as it is, or delete/redirect/draftify it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this article gets kept, then yeah, a change in scope and title would require consensus on the talk page. If this article gets deleted/redirected/draftified, that doesn't prevent another editor from creating a Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk / Trump-Musk relationship article, which has a different (and broader) scope than this feud article. Some1 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The event is gaining immense media coverage, and it's still too soon whether to really consider this a short or prolonged conflict. Until we see what happens we should keep the article as is. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per WP:RAPID. This article probably shouldn't have been created so soon, but the feud looks to be notable per WP:EVENTCRIT. It's had a substantial economic impact already and significant coverage from diverse sources. However, given the characters involved this could either blow over in a day or be a protracted conflict. So, it's too soon to say if coverage is WP:SUSTAINED. EvansHallBear (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, as people said above. It's too soon to say. Trump is well known for getting into controversies with all kinds of people. Not all warrant an article, even if they are prominent people. In my opinion, we have to wait and see the consequences of this. Given a couple weeks, if nothing comes out of this, it should be deleted. Sure, there are plenty of news articles about this, but not everything that has news written about it warrants a Wikipedia article.
Not sure why this article was created in the first place. This AfD could've been avoided if the creator had waited a bit longer to see how things went. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 06:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was created too early, but the event is likely to easily meet the WP:GNG given the media coverage so far. Melmann 07:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This right here will be a peace of history. I don't think that Trump or Musk will refrain from further attacks on one another, even if its just on X. We have a US Prez and World's richest man going against each other. THIS IS SIGNIFICANT Divyanshu8999 (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. As pointed out above, there is no article for Elon Musk—Donald Trump relationship. This article could cover the full history and dynamic and be better suited to evolve over time. Dflovett (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to do that, we could use content from Views of Elon Musk#Donald Trump. ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great idea. Their relationship warrants an article, not just this particular event. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 06:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Too. soon to tell. Could fizzle, could explode. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The feud is even analyzed in international media, including naming (long term) consequences and so meeting all aspects of WP:NEVENT. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify We have wp:notnews for a reason, and this may well blow over and (given how childish the pair of them are acting) they may be best buddies again this time next week. So we should wait to see if this has any lasting consequences. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON, WP:10YT. Let's see where this goes.LM2000 (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Probably WP:TOOSOON but to me the obvious notability of this event leads me to lean keep. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 12:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of general encyclopedic interest and notability. It's a political drama more suited to celebrity gossip shows than Wikipedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. I thought the page creator was TBAN'd from making new pages through anything other than the AfC process? ^EF⁵ 14:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this up as I was not aware of this, but I must say I'm not surprised given my past dealings with this user. It appears based on this ANI discussion that they were topic-banned by the community for six months ... which expired last month. Almost immediately, their pattern of disruption has continued. It appears they did not learn from their all-too-brief period of sanction. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I have created are here. Of the last nineteen since the topic ban, only this one has been sent to AfD. I did not create it as a one-sentence page, which was largely the issue, and I have been expanding it. This crusade against me is not appropriate in this AfD. There are other venues for this if you believe that I am acting maliciously. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe you are acting in bad faith and did not accuse you as such; however, disruption made in good faith remains disruptive. I hope this AfD will serve as a reminder to refrain from jumping the gun and mass-creating articles about current events before notability is established — again, we do not predict whether a topic might be notable in the future. As I have stated above, this is not a personal "crusade" against you, but other editors should be made aware of this context. The fact that you have been sanctioned in the past is demonstrative of the fact that I am not the only editor to share these legitimate concerns. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mass creation does not appear to be at issue here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Their talk page says otherwise... InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking because, although it was not my intention, some editors have raised concerns that this could be interpreted as a personal attack. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh its obviously a personal attack... What I'm saying is that its also wrong, this article under discussion here was not part of a mass creation and given that you've already seen their article creation history you know what. So you know for a fact that there is no issue with mass creation in this context but you brought it up anyway purely as a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article was probably created too soon; however, I personally have no doubts about the notability and long-term significance of the event, which is why I'm voting for keep. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Another article created too soon about something we will after forgot soon enough. Not everything that Trump does deserve an article, Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and I don't think there is any real benefit of having an article about this here, in an encyclopedia. Cosmiaou (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC+2)
Keep This was all over the news yesterday and definitely took up most of the top news. Additionally this could flare up again if the BBB fails. BigRed606 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This was all over the news" is not a valid argument to make. See WP:SUSTAINED: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. WP:TRUMPCRUFT is a great essay that talks about this as well. It's too early to make the call on whether this article meets our notability guidelines. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay and carries zero weight. The bit that actually matters says "may not" instead of "does not" I don't think you can say that isn't a valid argument. If its too early to make that call then its too early to delete (or even have this discussion), that argument only goes one way and its not in favor of deletion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People often say this when an essay is invoked (that they disagree with), but just because an essay is non-binding does not mean it's automatically wrong and should be immediately tossed aside as irrelevant. Essays often contain good advice, especially those that have been continually shaped by consensus. The fact that SUSTAINED says "may not" and not "does not" does not change the meaning: it is still true that press coverage does not guarantee notability, but SUSTAINED suggests that it may not be the case if proven otherwise. The editor who made this !vote did not explain why they believe this to be the case other than "it was in the news", which is a weak (if not invalid) justification. Regarding your last point, if it's too early to tell if an article meets notability guidelines, then by default, it is not notable. If it's too early to tell whether your chicken is done cooking, we don't assume it's cooked. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Regarding your last point, if it's too early to tell if an article meets notability guidelines, then by default, it is not notable" if that was true then NOTNEWS wouldn't say "Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Everything we have so far indictates that its notable and will remain so... Hard to imagine future biographies of either man aren't going to talk about this in-depth. The argument that it won't receive sustained coverage is nonsensical, even if it fizzles there will be sustained coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Delete Gossip and trivia. WP isn't the 'National Enquirer'. Having reviewed much of the commentary here, the suggestion/proposal to rename the article more broadly (a la Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk) would be the more productive choice. A good deal of overflow content from the respective individual articles can be merged there with redirects. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is obvious WP:TRUMPCRUFT WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON also apply. The spectacle of two wealthy and powerful men bickering on social media might be appropriate for a discord but it's not encyclopedic. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It is way too soon to know if this social-media tiff between these two powerful men will have any lasting significance or be forgotten in a week when one of them tweets on some other subject. Placing this in draft space for the next 6 months will avoid wasting the hard work that has already been done by the creator in assembling sources and documenting the early hours of the dispute so that, if it does have lasting significance, the article can be returned to mainspace or portions of it incorporated in other relevant articles. However, if it does not have lasting significance, it will allow an admin to delete it at a point in time when its encyclopedic value or lack thereof is actually able to be determined. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also not object to the scope of the article being broadened to cover their entire relationship, per several !voters above. I also do not think anyone needs to wait for the AFD to close to begin that work. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering CNN has a timeline now I’d say it’s pretty notable.--69.74.180.42 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would also support broadening the article per the above. 69.74.180.42 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm in the wait camp, the mere existance of a timeline doesn't factor in. We know RS are covering this. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 05:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the announced decommission of the Dragon capsules has now been canceled, apparently. Maybe in a few days it's all forgoten (or perhaps gets growing). Wait a while, the article can be keep temporarily until the fog of war goes away. Iberia-Tao (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the proposed redirs, Political activities of Elon Musk, is long already, so we'd have a subpage anyway. And this particular topic will have its continuation, with its own repercussions. — Kochas 23:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The Trump-Musk fallout could have major political and economic consequences in the coming months and may even affect the 2026 United States elections. I'd say it is too early at this point to determine whether the article violates WP:NOTNEWS, but I'd definitely recommend it for deletion if there doesn't turn out to be any major consequences. MilaKuliž (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – If the story is sustained for more than a few days, then keep. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait~~ → Weak Keep - way too quick of a nom. Deleting an article on one of the largest news items of 2025 that almost certainly will pass WP:LASTING within a week causing the inevitable recreation is so silly. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 02:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear to me what Wait means here - the usual !votes are "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect". Does Wait mean "keep for now" or "delete and bring back if sustained"? One possibility is "Draftify", which would move the article out of main space for the moment, but that will make it hard for others to work on it. Personally, I'll go with Keep and link this to various articles about Musk and Trump, as appropriate. It also will need a redirect from "Donald Trump-Elon Musk feud". (I think "feud" is too strong but I'm failing to think of anything better. Lamona (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait means 'keep for now', per WP:RAPID it was too quick to create an AfD, I was basically signalling that this AfD should result in a keep, but a few weeks later I could be swayed. I've always lent towards keep in this AfD, but I'm officially changing it to a weak keep as I've also grown increasingly unconvinced by the arguments in favour of deletion as the story has progressed and the article been expanded to detail the 2022 feud as well. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd encourage @InfiniteNexus to WP:DROPTHESTICK, especially regarding whatever issue you may or may not have with this article's creator, which now seems to be sprinkled all around this AfD discussion. The creator's history has no bearing on the merits of whether or not this article is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. RachelTensions (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this discussion, I have only discussed the article creator's past behavior twice: first, to note that they have a history of rapidly creating current-event articles that are often sent to AfD due to notability concerns; and second, in reply to another editor's comment on the user's previous topic ban. I did not make any additional references to their history other than in replies to those two statements; all other comments pertained to the notability of the topic. My intention was to alert !voters of the context of this AfD and to caution the editor against engaging in said behavior in the future, as it could and have been seen as disruptive. I did not anticipate the replies to those two comments to balloon out of control and create the impression that I am waging a personal war against the user, which was not my intention. I do apologize if my comments, which were intended as sincere advice, were interpreted as such, but I do maintain that the editor's background is relevant context, and I was mindful to remain civil but direct. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is now the third time, your last sentence is all you needed to move on here. Regurgitating and justifying your arguments again, in summarized format, is not exactly dropping the stick. It's more like reformatting the stick into a pole and entrenching it. CNC (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped the stick in my last comment and moved on; why did you have to pick it back up? It's unfortunate that my words are being cherry-picked as a "gotcha" moment. Whether or not you agree with me on the relevance of the context, this has been blown way out of proportion. This will be my final reply; moving on to more important matters. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't, but you have now. Thanks. CNC (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Plenty of detailed secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly violating WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:TOOSOON. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only actually sustainable argument against this is that it violates WP:TOOSOON, Which is a very weak argument. Also, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. And WP:notnews is very, Very, wrong on multiple reasons. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 04:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This could be moved to something like 'Elon Musk and Donald Trump' and it could information about their relationship before this. KnowDeath (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could move the article to "Relationship between Elon Musk and Donald Trump", much the same way as Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this. KnowDeath (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a week or so per WP:RAPID. As others have said we don't know if this will keep getting significant coverage past the current news cycles, so I don't believe we should delete it outright at this moment. Sophocrat (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rename?). The sources support a page on this, but I do not know if another name would make sense, or if in the event of multiple such "feuds", maybe a date qualifier in the title such as "2025 Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud" or maybe even something even more specific and refined. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait as too soon for standalone article, even if notable enough not to delete. As referenced in the discussion, there is the previous feud that isn't even mentioned, though will excerpt that after this comment for consistency. Overall I think a Musk–Trump relationship based article, as other editors have already suggested, would be the best approach to broaden scope for a more notable topic; therefore including this content within as merely one part of a broader topic with long-term SIGCOV. Am otherwise opposed to merging to a Musk or Trump child article, as this is about both individuals, thus content doesn't belong to a child article of only one party to the dispute. CNC (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with being opposed to merging this feud stuff into the Musk or Trump article. I want to mention too that this feud article has received 30,309 page views in two days, so clearly readers are interested in this topic. Some1 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Giga keep. this may reflect a potential split of the Tech Right and Populist/MAGA Right. Important stuff man Shadow Dreadlord (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator, not a breaking news platform. If it becomes an historic break between the tech right and MAGA then after we would have an article about it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What part of CRYSTAL is at issue here? This isn't any of the five categories or otherwise mentioned... Going line by line none of it seems to apply here, so do us a favor and pull every quote from there you think applies here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot predict a social media spat will become historically significant in the future. I think points 3 and 5 are relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Literally none of points 3 or 5 are relevant here. Not a single sentence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To expand... Point 3 is about "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history"" but this article doesn't do that, a synth complaint has been raised about a single section but no such claim has been made about the article writ large nor does it appear that one could be (and the extant synth claim is about information from the past, not about the future)... Point 5 is about "product announcements and rumors" (and not rumors in general, rumors about a product) and this article isn't about a product at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Culturally relevant and a feud between capital and the government ForFawkesSake (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This is not a question of whether the feud impacts other 'keepworthy' events or phenomena, but whether this feud in and of itself is sufficiently "event-like" to justify its own article. I believe that it is. Irresistance (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Also - compare this to the article about "Covfefe" and ask yourself if THAT is seriously worth including more than the circus going down right now as part of this feud ;) Irresistance (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Covfefe? The hashtag #covfefe had been used on the Internet 1.4 million times within 24 hours of Trump's tweet. Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - but would that not be more valid as an expression or symptom of the presidency and/or character of Trump (as president) - and not so much worthy as being an event in and of itself...? Trump's behavior (however you feel about it) was the thing that made the impact - Covfefe was merely one instance of it. This feud does have some similarities but I still believe is sufficiently impactful as its own "event" to warrant an article. The Covfefe tweet did not have such an impact. Irresistance (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm on your side. We even have COVFEFE Act and Category:Hip-hop feuds, like the Taylor Swift–Kanye West feud. Hence why I wrote Strong Keep under your initial comment. Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Taylor Swift–Kanye West feud started 16 years ago and its article was just created last month. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud? Rosa Olmos (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good example of a feud between two equally notable individuals, even though it lasted much longer than this topic. The AfD in 2024 was a snowball which is quite revealing tbh. PS please strike your bold for the benefit of the closer to avoid voting twice. CNC (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I allow you to edit it, if you or somebody else deem it voting twice. Or are you to referring to User:Irresistance indeed casting 2 votes? Rosa Olmos (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK done, bold removed. Thanks. CNC (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I changed one into a comment, excuse the apparent double vote - unintended Irresistance (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. AfD isn't based on votes anyway, my fault that I adopted that view, my formatting was also unintended: Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.. It's just hard to edit the comment, once it's posted. Rosa Olmos (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Fully passes Wikipedia:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:ROUTINE --Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It should be merged into another article or redirected to an anchor section. – 216.49.130.15 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would contradict Wikipedia:LENGTH. Hence exactly such particular-topic "summary" articles. — Kochas 19:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn’t the article be trimmed? – 216.49.130.15 (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIZERULE at 1,500 words there is no size-based justification for that. CNC (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This feels like a very temporary event; it won't affect anything in a permanent way, not nationally & not internationally. The fact that most of this has been a back-and-forth type of talk on Twitter/Truth Social proves that it won't have a lasting effect, in my opinion. Diamondcladskies (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments based upon feelings without policy grounding aren’t helpful. Consider amending to reference relevant policy. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 17:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a prerequisite for tendering a vote? I see a dozen or more each of 'keep's and 'delete's above that are nothing but feelings about how deeply important a social media spat is, and that it's one of the most important events in the 2025/American political history, and stacks of predictions that it will have massive, long term consequences (such as affecting the 2026 election. Should all votes that don't cite policy be discarded from the final tally? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are not a democracy. They are not votes. Arguments without policy grounding will be discarded by the patrolling admin, yes. I was simply informing them of this fact. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 22:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was a valid vote. So nothing to worry about. PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no reason to delete this, including the Not News arguments above. This article is one of those things that WP readers will benefit from, by having the community of WP editors collect facts and present them in an organized way. KConWiki (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significance of the participants notwithstanding, this has been extensively covered by RS. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Both The New York Times and The Washington Post have just published articles detailing the rift between Musk and Trump, which spanned several months and only culminated in this brief 24-hour online spat. We should not give WP:UNDUE weight to this incident while ignoring the larger context of their long-simmering tensions, so this should either be merged back into Political activities of Elon Musk or refactored into a larger article covering his role in the second Trump administration. It should not solely cover his relationship with Trump, as some have suggested, because we would be pulling too many unrelated details such as their earlier spat over Musk's acquisition of Twitter. Response to the Department of Government Efficiency (which was previously titled "Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government") could be merged into that hypothetical article well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the feud has a longer history, we should not give undue weight to the current events and the article should be expanded to cover that. I have no idea how the existence of more history lead you to the conclusion that this article should be deleted. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it appears like you're grasping for reasons to keep this AfD alive. The assertion that this conflict spans months you just provided invalidates the vast majority of deletion support on the grounds of NOTNEWS and TOOSOON. Clearly the right decision if it is true that there is many months of history to this feud is to abandon the AfD and expand the curren feud article to detail the extensive history instead of shoving it into other tangently related articles. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 22:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be non-neutral and inaccurate to describe the leadup to their online spat as a "feud", leaning into sensationalist yellow journalism territory. We are not a tabloid, and no sources have characterized their entire relationship as a "feud". Articles dedicated to criticism or controversies are generally discouraged. I don't appreciate or agree with your characterization of my comment as grasping for reasons to keep this AfD alive; and yes, it is still TOOSOON to declare that this incident should exist as a separate article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your argument now appears to be in favour of a rename. Even then I may disagree, we have plenty of articles on feuds as it stands, and the fact that no source have characterized their entire relationship as a feud isn't compelling as this article isn't about their entire relationship, it is about the ongoing feud.

My comment on grasping is not made in isolation. It relates to the conduct I've observed throughout this AfD, starting with the undue criticism of ElijahPepe and followed by the vast number of arguments you've attempted. However my opinions on your motivations do not matter if you can make compelling arguments. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 23:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My position has been consistent throughout the discussion: I do not think an article dedicated to the social media dispute that occurred on Thursday should exist until notability is established. I am less concerned with how this outcome is achieved, whether through redirecting to One Big Beautiful Bill, merging with Political activities of Elon Musk, refactored and renamed into a broader article, or outright deleted. The majority of my comments have been dedicated to demonstrating why this topic does not meet our notability guidelines. If the closer finds consensus against keeping, they will have to perform a WP:BARTENDER close. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topic scope is not only about the recent feud between Musk and Trump that "that occurred on Thursday", but also the previous spat in 2022 that was also described as a feud at the time, per content. CNC (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CommunityNotesContributor: When did that happen, and why? The article is now pulling two unrelated incidents together to draw a forced connection, akin to WP:SYNTH. The previous "feud" (if it is even neutral to call it that without sources to support its use) is even less notable than last week's, so the latter would be the primary topic and the article should solely cover that. The article title doesn't necessarily imply there weren't other "feuds" in the past. We can mention it briefly in the "Background" section, but it probably does not warrant an entire paragraph per WP:UNDUE. I do not see consensus on the talk page for this change in scope; was this done unilaterally? InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this discussion to the article's talk page, as it is not related to deletion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"is even less notable than last week's"

Still begging that question, I see. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is unconstructive to make snarky comments under every one of my replies, especially one that was not even directed to you. You're welcome to weigh in if you have something to add, but otherwise, this is not helpful and, frankly, incivil. This AfD has not been closed (probably should), editors continue to cast !votes, and consensus has yet to be detrmined as to whether this topic is notable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of constructiveness, your 350-word and five-point request has already been answered.

That took less than three minutes.

Before that, I have compiled and published a small set of commentaries, so that editors who want to help can have a head start, and to provide a solid moat against earlier naked assertions of non-notability.

This took more than three minutes.

What metapedians get out of metapedianizing may always elude me.

In the great online battle between smarm and snark, I picked my side.

Sorry about that. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's bordering on bludgeoning, to be honest. RachelTensions (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Its still a developing story so we should keep it for now, but we can see how it stands later on. TheBritinator (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and probably rename to "Relationship between Trump and Elon" per @KnowDeath above. WinKyaw (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is clearly significant, and it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon Not a kitsune (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relevant content can be covered elsewhere. Encyclopedic notability of this particular turn of events has not been demonstrated. This article is largely excerpts and summaries of other articles and play-by-plays about tweets and unfollows.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't wikipedia articles supposed to be almost entirely excerpts and summaries of other articles/sources? WP:V and all that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant other Wikipedia articles, mainly Views of Elon Musk. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, that makes more sense. Not sure I entirely agree but I get it now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please have mercy I only recently got that article back below 9,000 words 😭 CNC (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KConWiki. Zero Contradictions (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just a temporary feud between two people. The only thing that has happened up to now is them exchanging insults on social media. In my country, one of the richest people also has a feud with the government through social media and the press. That does not need a new article and neither does this.Bigar (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. A social media fight that lasted one day does not have enough encyclopedic value for its own article. The information would fit better within one of the many other broader scope articles involving the 2 subjects. Ratgomery (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bit more than a day, but given your last sentence, would you support merging instead? --Super Goku V (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I doubt this is going to be a simple feud that peters out quickly, especially with Elon owning X and Tesla, I have my bets there is going to be much more drama to go on. Also there's the whole "Trump is on the Epstein Files" and who knows how that will shake out. G5bestcfb (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it a celebrity gossip magazine. Almost all the sources in this article are immediate reactions from 5 June to the twitter spat, followed by significantly less from 6 June, then only a couple sources from 7 June and none from 8 or 9 June (with a few sources from years ago synthetically attached to this subject). If this subject does not have significant coverage enduring enough to make it even a few days past the immediate gossip circles, then it's hard to accept that this is meets the criteria for a notable event. If this turns into anything, then we can revisit it, but right now, it's just gossip with no wider consequences. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not determined by the sources in the article but by all extant sources on the topic, you will easily be able to find signficant coverage from the 8th and 9th. I suggest a google news search limited to the past 24 hours, that will turn up pieces like these: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wary of replying to so many comments, but I keep seeing this argument being used. However, the existence of sources alone isn't the sole determinant of notability, and it doesn't automatically warrant a standalone article. Some topics may meet sourcing requirements but are nonetheless better off as a section on an existing article, per WP:NOPAGE. See WP:N: [GNG] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. We also need to consider the WP:LASTING significance of a topic through measures such as the WP:10Y test: is the topic likely to remain notable in the long run, or will it simply be a blip in time that we're devoting undue emphasis on? WP:EVENTCRIT sets a higher bar than some other topics on Wikipedia. Pardon of Hunter Biden; Death of Matthew Perry; Controversies surrounding Ezra Miller. These topics all received brief bursts of widespread news coverage, but they do not and should not have standalone articles because they are ultimately fleeting events with little historical significance. If this event ends up having significant ramifications later on, then we can consider restoring it in the future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a red herring, I did not argue that the existence of sources alone is the sole determinant of notability, or that it automatically warrants a standalone article. Also note that WP:10YT instructs "Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism." so if you're trying to use it to argue for deletion you simply do not understand what it is saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
neutrafor me Although this matter has almost gone viral on TikTok in China, I think it can be kept or deleted directly (it still has some record value) 后藤喵 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an important event that will affect future events. in future articles when this has lost familiarity but still affects future events, this can be easily wikilinked instead of having to explain the whole thing a million times. as other people have said, in the unlikely scenario where this does not achieve impact, then it can always be deleted Plastixfy (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Political activities of Elon Musk or Delete. It was a 3 day thing that doesn't seem to have any impact. Especially since he deleted all his tweets. Looks like WP:TRUMPCRUFT. PackMecEng (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is EXTREMELY notable news going on right now. This is the fallout of a formerly tight relationship. If this does not happen, then I believe it should be merged into Political activities of Elon Musk/ It is a fairly well-written article that could use some extra information. Whykiepedia (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was extremely played up. 2003:D1:C737:C0AF:B4BF:EB8B:B177:5E77 (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. The feud was definitely played up by the media, but there is notability. I think the ultimate solution would be to merge this like I commented above. Whykiepedia (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. 129.104.244.113 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into One Big Beautiful Bill Act#Musk–Trump feud. Seems this feud, and related coverage, has mostly died off. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. I think it’s too soon to definitively determine lasting notability and it does little harm to keep it up. On the contrary, I think it is very helpful to have it up right now because the feud is currently the focus of a lot of attention and people (like myself) look for bird’s eye views like this article in order to understand what’s going on.^📻NuclearSpuds_🎙️ 07:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTRUMP — Czello ^(music) 15:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook WP:NOTNEWS failure, per many many many others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a couple more days to see if the current fizzle-out remains. If it does, I'm inclined to merge into Political activities of Elon Musk or One Big Beautiful Bill Act as editors see fit, as there would be no sustained coverage. If coverage continues, keep. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified the other half of the argument. -insert valid name here- (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the threshold of significant coverage in reliable sources. (Unsurprising, given the clash between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man.) If someone wanted to broaden it into Trump-Musk alliance, or relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, then perhaps that would be sensible, but that's not an AfD matter. Neutrality^talk 00:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments"-WP:JV Thegoofhere (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Relations of Elon Musk and Trump to increase the scope. We do not rush to remove articles about recent events. Thegoofhere (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant political event. Moondragon21 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Politics of Elon Musk: Per the nominator, This could easily fit better in individual sections such as Politics of Elon Musk. Per WP:ATD-M, we should merge rather than delete when we can. Looking at the 'Second Trump administration' and 'Musk on the Big Beautiful Bill' sub-sections along with the '2025 feud' section, I think that there is sufficient content that could be merged into one or more articles. I am not opposed to additional merging or even redirecting, but am opposed to deletion.
For some additional comments, I don't see NOTNEWS as convincing when this wasn't a routine event based on the definition at ROUTINE. Per routine: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for a whole article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences, etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary events that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories). Wasn't an announcement, wasn't a scheduled event, wasn't run of the mill. For the rest, this isn't a Who's Who violation as both are notable nor does this appear to be either a NOTDIARY issue or an original reporting issue. I believe most of those citing NOTNEWS should clarify the violation more as just pointing at a policy isn't helpful and leaves no good explanation. Also, I will note here that news coverage has continued into this week: USA Today, New York Times, CNN, Al Jazeera, PBS. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize - I think it's a better idea to rewrite the article to make it less newsy, more encyclopedic. --HarlambiDaabrev (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As unfortunate as it is it's still a notable event so Keep. NYC Guru (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This wasn't lasting and it's already over with. Not notable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2025 (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.

Kris Knochelmann

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Kentucky. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Knochelmann meets the notability guidelines for politicians due to extensive coverage of his tenure in office from local media, such as this article with biographical information. Other articles about his priorities and policies in office include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I know that this is not a criterion for notability, but as an aside I'll note that Kenton County is the third-most populous county in Kentucky after Jefferson and Fayette; there is substantial public interest in covering the county's leader. Mad Mismagius (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Marksmen Quartet

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them and their music -- but this is completely unreferenced, the only attempts at "referencing" that have ever previously been in the article at all are primary sources (like their own website, YouTube and Spotify) which aren't support for notability, and the article claims absolutely nothing about them that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

del no independent coverage. --Altenmann >talk 20:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one was close, I found this and that but I don't think these are enough for GNG and there is nothing to show a pass for NMUSIC. Moritoriko (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Roofing Contractors Association

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

Declined prod that was redirected to Reid Ribble. Ribble was only president for 2 years and his article contains no information on what this association is/did. Article created by a single purpose account.

A search in google news only comes up with roofing related sources which are not independent for meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asian American Movement and Black Power

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

Term paper redundant with Asian American movement and Black power movement. Gjs238 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing revisions with assistance

Hi all, I'm the librarian supporting the students editing this page, and have consulted with them to make additional edits. Additional feedback will of course be appreciated! AnitaConchita (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note that this is an article copy of Draft:AAPA and Black Power (previously draftified after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AAPA and Black Power). It looks like a few students were working on it this past semester and then copy-pasted it here, so if the article is kept, that draft should be redirected here and the attribution fixed. My read of the article is that it's mostly stitching together sections that would be better covered as subtopics in the corresponding articles (in particular, the amount of detail about Yuri Kochiyama kind of turns her into a metonym for an entire social movement). My recommendation would be to delete this copy and merge relevant info from the draft into Yuri Kochiyama, Asian American Political Alliance, and maybe George Floyd protests or Killing of Akai Gurley. @AnitaConchita If you're continuing work with the students still, I'd encourage exploring how this info can be incorporated there. hinnk (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lyakhov

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

Subject does not meet inclusion criteria per the sources in the article. The sources do not meet WP:RS as the subject is the author of some of the articles. CPDJay (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. CPDJay (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fire-King

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

This article has existed for over 20 years and does not have any citations that are not primary sources (that is, from Anchor Hocking, the company that makes Fire-King branded glass products). The lack of citations has been noted before. The claims made on this page may be true. But citations have not surfaced. For those that wish to keep, perhaps citations can be dug up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louiemantia (talk • contribs) 08:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, Japan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clear from the list in Further Reading that there are 6 books about Fire-king glassware, so it clearly meets WP:GNG with plenty of specific named, independent, reliable, significiant secondary sources. The fact that they have not been used as inline citations is not a reason to delete the article, per WP:NEXIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Rebecca Green, and here is even a link to a digitized version of one of the books (you need a free account to read it all) so you can check. And for bonus, here is a Japanese book about how to buy it from flea markets in America. Moritoriko (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.22 PDK

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

The two sources appear to be written by the same author which would make them one source for notability. I am open to a redirect or a merge but I couldn't figure out where it would fit best. As for a before search, I have found numerous forum posts talking about it but that is it. Moritoriko (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and United States of America. Moritoriko (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Houston

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Lots of search results for "Jessica Houston", but none appear to be this person. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Skating, and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing found for this figure skater; the other AfD appears to be about a singer, which could be this person I suppose... Either way, there isn't enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That singer was apparently a contestant on Germany's version of Idol, which I guess could be the same person, since Jessica Houston is not a native German name... Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jones Road Fire

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

WP: ROUTINE wildfire event with very little lasting impact. XYZ1233212 (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United States of America, and New Jersey. XYZ1233212 (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imo worth noting due to the amount of evacuations and proximity to urban areas. California has had countless articles for wildfires with little to no impact, this one has more impact than most of those do. WatchOutBroo (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the fire was one of the largest in the state's history. [12], [13],[14], [15], [16]. The claim that it was just a routine, insignificant event is a gross falsification of reality. Crwd-ppu (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:News article, not a notable event analyzed in secondary sources. Not concerned about its size. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Seems like a noteworthy fire for New Jersey per WatchOutBroo. There seems to be a little more than just routine coverage, but not a significant amount. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahim Alwan

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

WP:BLP1E, the event being Buffalo Six. Article subject has no independent notability outside the Buffalo Six case, where all pertinent information can be covered. WP:SIGCOV is only in the context of the Buffalo Six case.

Also nominating the pages of the other Buffalo Six associates for the same reason:

Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, United States of America, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect all there (aka add the sources). No comment on thereoeticsl notability but none of these talk about anything else at the moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and GNG. _Dgw|Talk 01:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well going by BLP1E we would redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more feedback here, especially given that it is a bundled nomination. Merge? Redirect? Or deletion? Or....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connie (freestyle singer)

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NMUSIC. I looked for any signficant discussion of this singer in reliable, third party sources but could not find anything, only social media, YouTube, etc. ... discospinster _talk 19:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Florida. ... discospinster _talk 19:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Potentially notable in my view, but a very tricky subject to search for sources, particularly with an album Connie by Connie. However the subject did have a single in the Billboard charts Funky Little Beat #44 & [17]. Allmusic has WP:RSMUSIC staff writer coverage [18] and [19]. There are also some further critical coverage/mentions in the worldradiohistory archive such as [20], [21] & [22]. ResonantDis_tortion 11:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject did have a hit in the Billboard charts, "Funky Little Beat" as mentioned. The song itself is notable. And as mentioned, Allmusic has RS coverage of Connie. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 00:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if there are more sources. Wynwick55gl (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject likely meets notability guidelines. Notability is determined to by the quality and quantity of sources available, and not the state of sourcing in the article. WP:NEXIST Ike Lek (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vineeta Rastogi

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

Declined prod. For an American person, a complete lack of coverage, only 1 hit in google news, fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, United States of America, and Maryland. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Neither she nor her organization, the Vineeta Foundation , is notable. Fails WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a memorial service. Many of my peers and contemporaries died of AIDS and don't have Wikipedia "pages". Bearian (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom - don't see much coverage - fails WP:BASIC Asteramellus (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a 3 column obituary in the Washington Post (republished in papers in Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa and Florida), and an article 15 years after her death in Hyphen (magazine) (currently an External Link, but should be a reference), that is easily enough for WP:BIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Added the Hyphen as a reference. Also, note that the author of her WaPo obituary was Colman McCarthy. — ERcheck (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple reliable sources identified by RebeccaGreen. ~Kvng (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen and multiple significant coverage cited in the article. See this [23], [24]. CresiaBilli (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. The article in the Washington Post is the only one with WP:SIGCOV, but it is an opinion piece. The subject seems non-notable, unfortunately.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' the best element of SIGCOV is the WaPo op-ed, which was not independent (written by a former teacher and a friend), and I think, unfortunately, the main point these sources make was that it was WP:TOOSOON for her to achieve notability. Her early death is quite sad, but I don't think there's enough to build an article here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable in practically any way. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed as N/C. Per TP requests, relisting.
Please add new comments below this noetice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @RebeccaGreen; also her legacy foundation has coverage as sponsor of an Obama inaugural ball. — ERcheck (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her legacy foundation article was deleted. LibStar (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colcom Foundation

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

Article has a history of promotion through environmental & civic projects. Significant portions of this article are just slightly re-worded from the Cordelia Scaife May page. Aside from the greenwashing and other projects that were listed prior to my removing of them, there is hardly enough for an article here. It was founded by May, funds anti-immigration causes, and received a large sum of money when May died. The only other piece of information here is that the foundation funded groups designated by hate groups by the SPLC, which could obviously be implied from their anti-immigration stance. This article is unnecessary & inherits at least a portion of it's notability from May, who was also the org's chairperson from its founding until her death in 2005. 30Four (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. 30Four (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:CORP and seems to be a significant behind-the-scenes player in U.S. politics. The article could be expanded using sources such as [25][26][27][28]. Nosferattus (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I observe considerable significant coverage to demonstrate the notability of an organization as mentioned in WP:NORG. CresiaBilli (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of multiple throw away !votes recently from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cordelia Scaife May. Reference #1 is a tax form; References #7-9 are foundation's website promoting its philanthropy; References #3, 16 do not mention the subject; References #13, 15 are blogs; References #4, 6, 10-12, 14, 17 are city newspapers on sponsorships and greenwashing. These types of references are aforementioned above. A search for non-local articles that significantly cover the foundation turned up The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Philanthropy News Digest and Inside Philanthropy (The latter is a paragraph in a broader story about CIS and the former two are WP:SPIP.

References #2 and 5 are extensive profiles of the foundation's founder and what happened when she croaked, which is also the majority of her Wikipedia where a merge+expansion is warranted. Notability in not inherited per nominator. Astapor12 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #6 is the Southern Poverty Law Center, not a city newspaper. Reference #13 is not a blog. Reference #10 is definitely about more than just sponsorships and greenwashing. That source is a 1,400 word story about the organization covering its history and impact (and only 2 paragraphs are about Cordelia May). Finally, I don't see how the profile in The Chronicle of Philanthropy is self-promotion. The Chronicle of Philanthropy is a print magazine with actual writers. I don't think a paid promotional piece would mention that May "funded a group that promotes chemical sterilization of women around the world." Nosferattus (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly good coverage in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and other media. --Salamandra-12 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added some new material and sources to the article, mostly about Colcom's grant funding and related impact and controversies. Nosferattus (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Family Foundation

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

In most sources, the Bravo Family Foundation is a passing mention rather than the focus of the article (typically Orlando Bravo). This does not meet WP:SIGCOV. 30Four (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Puerto Rico, and United States of America. 30Four (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I would not be strongly opposed to merging the content into Orlando Bravo, it's important to note that much of the more significant coverage that the organization has received can be found in Spanish-language and Puerto Rico-focused news sites, which may have been overlooked. See the dozens of articles in El Nuevo Día here: https://www.elnuevodia.com/buscador/bravo%20family%20foundation/*/*/*/*/*/ - many of these are passing mentions, but several would certainly be considered WP:SIGCOV. There is a similar wealth of coverage in News Is My Business (see here) and Primera Hora (such as this one). It's natural for articles covering the organization to focus on the founder, since the organization bears his name and the two are inextricably linked. But that shouldn't take away from the organization's distinct notability when the coverage is there. (Note: I have a conflict of interest with the organization, as I work for Thoma Bravo.) JBarTB (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roots of Reform Judaism

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

Tagged for notability for more than 10 years and fails WP:NORG. Non-notable constituency within the Union for Reform Judaism, which is a suitable redirect target as an WP:ATD. Per a before, unable to find independent, significant coverage of the group that would establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

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