Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Texas: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,502,745 edits
Line 6: Line 6:
==Texas==
==Texas==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MonkeySports}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throne Wishlist}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throne Wishlist}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moxie Software}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moxie Software}}

Revision as of 20:28, 22 May 2024

Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Texas|~~~~}} 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 Texas. 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 US.

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


Texas

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MonkeySports

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Throne Wishlist

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

Only coverage is press releases/funding announcements. No secondary coverage. Probable COI. BrigadierG (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie Software

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States

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

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

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability
  • Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.
2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if hypothetically NLIST was not met (which I believe it is), WP:LISTPURP suggests that there would still be other grounds to keep.
As prodder and nom, you have not shown any evidence of having demonstrated WP:BEFORE due diligence. The plethora of Google results for searches like "stamp clubs in America" suggests that this was not done. It isn’t really the most GF behavior to simply, since the burden of proof generally lies with the “keep” side once process has begun, make a prod or AfD nomination without actually determining if there’s a prima facie case for a notability or verifiability challenge.
Sorry for the sharpness, but sometimes it’s necessary.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to clarify a thing here. WP:LISTPURP is a manual of style, and explain what purposes of lists are; it now a way to determine notability, which can only be done through WP:NLIST. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I'm just not seeing this. The NY society's building is historic, but when you look at sources about these places, even the few with articles really don't seem notable. And anyway, what are the sources for this list? I'm looking at the listing from Linn's Stamp News, and it's far more complete and is up-to-date; it's also clear that most of the listings would never garner an article. I don't see the point of duplicating a not-very-useful subset of thei info (just the names), and once we go past that, we're in WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE - while stamp collecting is not the huge hobby it was a couple of decades ago, there is a huge literature on such clubs. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. "There is a huge literature on such clubs"....it would help, of course, if examples were provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this is a list article relating to a notable hobby (stamp collecting) and with notable members (stamp clubs)—although arguably the latter is not a requirement for a list topic; you could have a list article even if none of its members are individually notable. It is not necessary to find a reliable source that says, "the following is a list of stamp clubs in the United States", but any source that does something along those lines may be cited, even if it is A) a directory—Wikipedia is not a directory; that doesn't mean that directories cannot be used as sources—or B) it only lists some of the clubs mentioned in this list. It is unnecessary to cite a source to say that a club whose name identifies what it is is a stamp club. At most, individual items that are identifiable as stamp clubs by their name just need a source to show that they exist (or did at one point), and for that purpose a directory is fine. Even this is unnecessary for items that link to articles about notable clubs, which are documented in the linked articles. Satisfying these requirements should be exceptionally easy... P Aculeius (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now cited as many of the entries as I could find at least a directory or event listing for in general philatelic literature. And to repeat, WP:DIRECTORY does not apply here; it is well-established that items that are not individually notable may be combined into list articles. Stamp collecting is clearly a notable topic, and as mentioned above there is indeed considerable literature on the subject, including stamp collecting societies, their history, membership, and publications. I have cited a number of examples to verify the stamp clubs listed; there was of course much more activity and many more publications in the early twentieth century, when social clubs and their publications were a staple of American life.
Most of this body of literature is not freely-accessible online, but enough is available in previews and snippet views on Google Books to verify the existence of most of the stamp clubs mentioned, along with their location and some other details—and for the purposes of this article, which is merely a list of philatelic societies in the United States, that is sufficient to warrant their inclusion. Many more could be added if the literature on the subject were easier to access, or someone spent more than a couple of days poring over such periodicals at the library. P Aculeius (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVDO-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJIB-LP

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sankar Natesan

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG and also, being a registrar doesn't inherently make one notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was delete. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 15:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JSX Flight 284

JSX Flight 284 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor incident, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, no likelihood of WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another article only notable among aviation buffs. Borgenland (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Crawford

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

This page was first deleted in 2019 and despite being a WP:REFBOMB this new incarnation shows no additional evidence of notability under GNG or NBIO. Coverage is in school publications; WP:TRADES publications like local business journals and magazines (and without feature-length coverage that would permit the use of trade pubs to establish notability); self-published sources; or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in longer lists of people. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is highly promotional. I began checking the citations and only got through the first section, but a number fail validation or are not reliable sources (e.g. something he himself wrote). As it is, I cannot (yet?) find anything that would make him noteworthy. It will take work to cut the article down to the actual reliable sources, and then to ones that are significantly about him. My gut feeling is that there will not be significant sources, but it will take some time to figure that out. Lamona (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assessment is incorrect. The 3 places you marked the page with [verification failed] were not accurate. 2 of the sources used this article, which you need to find his photo and click on it, and then a long bio will appear which verifies the info. Next you had an issue with source 11 freemannews.tulane.edu/, it partially verified the content, but the source 12, right after verifies everything. As far as being promotional, please feel free to revise it. Most of the article was written by me, but at least one other person has added to it. I am pretty certain that I didn't write anything promotional myself. Lionsonny (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage exists. Here are the good sources:
Forthworth Inc - This article has significant coverage on him.
Travel Talk - Long article on him and his family
Hawkins Crawford - Article about his wedding and has a bio about him and his wife.
Forthworth Business - A good long paragraph of bio on him
tulane.edu - Article about his Tedx Talk. It is short, but the fact that he did a Ted talk should help with notability.
Book: In the Warlords' Shadow - This book contains a few paragraphs of info on him.
Voyage Dallas: This is an interview, but there is 3 paragraphs of intro about him that is not an interview, hence it should count towards notability.
texas.gov - A long paragraph of bio on him
Peace Corps Connect - Click on his image and you will see a long bio on him.

Based on all the above, significant coverage exists and he meets notability guidelines. Lionsonny (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionsonny None of these sources is valid for establishing notability:
  • Fort Worth Inc is a WP:TRADES magazine, and only lengthy, in-depth features (not short news items like this one) from trade publications can be used to establish notability.
  • The "Travel Talk" article appears to be from a magazine called "University Park Life," which appears to be a real estate promotional product. (See example: https://issuu.com/daveperry-millerrealestate/docs/hea_carla_uplife_for_issuu). Furthermore, the PDF is hosted on the subject's own website! There is no way this can meet the standard of reliable and independent.
  • The wedding announcement can be used to verify facts but not to establish notability, since wedding announcements are generally supplied or based on data supplied by the couple and thus not independent.
  • Fort Worth Business - same trade publication issue noted above.
  • Tulane - source is not independent as it is his alma mater, plus it is a brief mention, not WP:SIGCOV
  • The book I cannot view, but if it's only a few paragraphs in a full book, that's unlikely to be considered significant coverage.
  • Voyage Dallas is an WP:INTERVIEW and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and ineligible to count toward notability.
  • Texas.gov is a WP:PRESSRELEASE and thus a primary source.
  • The Peace Corps site is a short official bio, not a long one, but either way not an independent or secondary source.
As I said when nominating, this is a WP:REFBOMB trying to create an illusion of notability through sheer volume of sources, but as I show here, none of them passes the bar of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with Delete - due to lack of independent sources. The book has two nice paragraphs about him, but that is not enough to establish notability. The remainder are mainly local fluff pieces. The TedX talk does not establish notability - there have been hundreds/thousands of them and "TedX" is now a franchise. I find short bios that cannot be determined to be independent and a bunch of name checks. Although there are sources that state facts that are in the article, either they are not independent or are not sufficiently reliable. This person has done some interesting things so if a few reliable sources write significant and independent works about him, he could have a presence here. Lamona (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. based on presented citations above by Lionsonny, this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In particular, Forthworth Inc, Forthworth Business, Book: In the Warlords' Shadow, Peace Corps Connect and Voyage Dallas have good amount of coverage on him. Hkkingg (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The references presented by Lionsonny for GNG purposes have been disputed by two editors, and endorsed by another. Relisting for further analysis of these sources by other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, same comment as Daniel.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like every tiny random irrelevant source has been mentioned in this AfD conveniently, so I can resoundingly vote delete based on the lack of good quality coverage that goes deeper than short profiles/announcements. BrigadierG (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dclemens1971. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to establish notability, and most sources that don't fall under WP:TRIVIALMENTION are either less-reliable or primary sources. B3251(talk) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the source analysis by Dclemens1971. This is an enormous amount of trivia accumulated to synthesize an apparently cited biography of a relatively unknown living person. Right out of one's own scrapbook, perhaps. I generally feel some sympathy for the subject; sometimes it's a bad idea to have article about oneself. But in the case of this subject, I have no particular sympathy, because five years apart, two separate new contributors decided to create largely the same page about the same subject, using many of the same sources. And both of the pages came up for deletion. What a shock it was to discover the last such page creator, TheCarFanatic was blocked for likely covert advertising! This might bear some further examination. BusterD (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: For those who think it's completely risk-free to try create a Wikipedia article about a living someone (perhaps as a business card), these two deletion procedures will be available for anyone to find later when someone inevitably DOES attempt to search for this namespace. Readers of the future may make their own judgements when they see it deleted twice, and no reputation-cleaning firm (including national security agencies) can get the AfDs deleted, so the stain is set, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, is it observable that this article was moved to mainspace a few days after its creator's account became autoconfirmed and that since this page creation the account has made only a handful of unrelated edits? But the low quality of the sourcing toward notability standards is what's driving the discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temoc

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

Was turned into a redirect due to having no independent sources before I brought it back. I think this does deserve some discussion because there are a lot of mascot pages that are sourced similarly to Temoc. Okmrman (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If this was changed to a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment perhaps the article could be broadened to be about "student life" in general? A lot of the article is about topics only tangentially related to the athletic mascot. Texas–Dallas Comets is the only plausible merge (or redirect) target I see, none of this material needs to be in the main university article. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more opinions. We have a possible Redirect target to be Texas–Dallas Comets but not much consensus for it. I almost feel like this could be closed procedurally as the nominator was indfinitely blocked for their single-minded deletion campaign in AFDLand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. due, in part to low participation in this discussion. However, a possible redirect can be discussed on the article talk page. But, after this AFD, it shouldn't be one editor's decision to do so but arise out of the consensus of a talk page discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Preston Kulkarni

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

Redirect to either the 2018 campaign or the 2020 campaign is warranted or delete. The article summarizes Sri Preston Kulkarni as the Democratic nominee for in 2018 and 2020 for Congress in Texas. Candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.

There is some routine coverage that one can expect in any semi-competitive congressional election. I do not believe that it meets the barrier for "significant coverage." The closest thing the article does to try and differentiate his candidacy from others is say he did outreach to Asian-American voters. Aside from its use of puffery, it's also NOT UNORTHODOX. Most viable campaigns reach out to persuadable voters and have literature/canvassers speak languages written/spoken in the district. Numerous campaigns have affinity subgroups (think Ethnic Americans for Dole/Kemp).

His father is Venkatesh Kulkarni, but notability is not inherited. There is nothing in the article stating his time in the United States Foreign Service was so unique as to warrant an entry and listing every country seems to be a way to mask the lack of notability Mpen320 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with some rewriting to focus on what constitutes notability. But I do think notability is there: I think the focus here should be on Kulkarni's unusual, early use of (now-popular) relational organizing tactics, in particular with Asian-American groups. The Intercept article already linked in the piece (legit national outlet, not state based coverage) touches on this but there are plenty of other articles out there, findable via cursory google search, that make this clear:

Two years ago, a Democrat named Sri Kulkarni attempted to oust an incumbent Republican from a congressional district outside Houston. His campaign turned to relational organizing, finding thousands of new voters in tight-knit immigrant communities that weren’t plugged into politics. Kulkarni lost by just 5 points, but his relational strategy caught fire, both nationally and in Texas. His organizing director, Emily Isaac, took the lessons she learned on Kulkarni’s race to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign as his relational organizing director. Mother Jones, "The Unspoken Reason the Alaska Senate Race Is So Close"

Kulkarni’s campaign style is very focused on something he calls “relational organizing” — volunteers put effort into getting family, friends, co-workers, or other people they know in the community to get out and vote. “I think that by 2020, this is how all canvassing is going to be done,” he said. Vox, "A Texas Democrat’s radical experiment in turning out Asian-American voters could become a model for the party"

Kulkarni said that other campaigns call him for insight into his relational-organizing model: “They’ll ask us, ‘Is this proprietary?’ Of course not. I want people to copy what we’re doing in Texas Twenty-two all over America.” New Yorker, "Are Asian Americans the Last Undecided Voters?"÷

Kulkarni’s campaign built the largest relational organizing program in the nation during that election cycle, with volunteers phone-banking in 13 different languages. By connecting with so many tight-knit communities within the district, the campaign became something of a community in and of itself. Daily Kos, "A tied house race in Texas"

So - I grant that emphasis may need to change but here you've got really substantial coverage in national outlets, some of which is solely focused on Kulkarni and his pathbreaking use of relational organizing. Even the New Yorker article which isn't all about him gives him 6+ paragraphs. Feels notable to me. Sorry for the sloppy linking here btw, I'm just in a bit of a rush. Vivisel (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply. The New Yorker article is about Asian-American voting generally. It mentions him once. It is not significant coverage of him or his campaign. The Daily Kos article is from a contributor, not Daily Kos staff. It's basically self-published. Relational organizing is not new. From a Mother Jones article (that yes mentions the subject in similar, trivial passing): The first thing relational organizing evangelists say is that their approach is nothing new. Word-of-mouth and community-based activism were the backbone of the civil rights, women’s rights, farmworkers’, and labor movements. The only person cited on the "newness" of this is is Kulkarni or his past/present employees who have an incentive to boost their methods as being more revolutionary than it is. The reliance on them for direct quotes muddies the waters as to how independent of the subject such claims for notability are. This is routine coverage of semi-competitive congressional race in the age of political nerds. This is far more appropriate for a redirect to the campaign. This campaign technique by itself does not warrant an article on the candidate especially given the technique is not particularly new or innovative. Finally, an article about yourself (or someone you like) isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe take a closer look at the New Yorker article? I say that because you say he is "mentioned" but I see seven paragraphs of content which clearly required multiple interviews to accumulate. And he is "mentioned" 25 times in that article by name.
    And: any thoughts on the Vox article, which is obviously not a passing mention?
    I note also that the MoJo article you cite to suggest that relational organizing is not new is actually an article about the ways in which it *is* distinctive. (Subhed: "The pandemic wrecked traditional campaigning. Relational organizing stands to reinvent it.") Indeed, right after the quote you reproduced comes the "But" followed by a many paragraph discussion of how those traditional methods of community organizing had been threatened or minimized over time.
    Also, your last sentence is passive-aggressive, needless, and unhelpful to the discussion itself. Vivisel (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVHC-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And doesn't seem to be accurate since its ownership with Bridge Media Networks since it's still an affiliate of Paranormal TV and not NewsNet according to RabbitEars. OWaunTon (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KVHC-LD is now closed and this one can run.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 keep‎. This AFD is proof that sometimes editors show up after a relist or two. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Sherman (climber)

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

A very long standing, since 2005, and short article supported only by the title character's own books. Nothing independent and nothing reliable. Undoubtedly well known in their specialist circle but no evidence of notability as understood by Wikipedia . Searches find his books and , many photos including beer drinking on a rock face and very many web pages with the Wikipedia text. Difficult to say which came firts and to determione whether this is simply 100% copy vio, but with a start date in 2005, it is likely that this is being mirrored (without acknowldgement) in many other places. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Only just saw this now. I have sympathy for the nom as any WP:BASIC gives patchy sourcing, but Sherman is considered one of the founders of modern bouldering and the inventor of the now dominant V-grade scale (the "V" is believed to be his nickname 0f "Vermin"). Hope this is helpful. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2011, Geographic did a piece on him and saying John “Verm” Sherman is a legend among us. He pioneered bouldering and invented the V-scale for grading bouldering problems. He also championed the development of bouldering at Hueco Tanks, Texas. Quite a legacy.
  • In 2022, the York Times did a piece on bouldering being an Olympic sport, with Sherman, saying He went on to spend the next 50 years creating new boulder routes — called “problems” in the sport — and helped popularize bouldering through books, articles and outrageous stunts.
  • In 2022, when Outside did a piece on 12 Great Moments in Bouldering History, they opened it by explaining the effect of Sherman's V-scale on bouldering, and their sister publication, Climbing, has several articles that have sections that discuss his contributions here.
  • He has written several notable bouldering books that get coverage in the main climbing media (per WP:NCLIMBER), such as the American Alpine Journal, Climbing, and Gripped Magazine (Canada) who ranked him in their 10 Most Influential North American Climbing Titles.
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.


Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Texas&oldid=1225176532"