Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Maryland

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Voorts (talk | contribs) at 03:27, 23 May 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadarou Sare.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Maryland. 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|Maryland|~~~~}} 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 Maryland. 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


Maryland

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadarou Sare

Hadarou Sare (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)

The article subject is a non-notable entrepreneur and PhD student. I could not find any reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject. None of the sources currently cited in the article establish notability: [1] and [2] are interviews in trade publications that read like puff pieces. [3] does not have any clear editorial standards, is based on an interview, and also reads like a puff piece. [4] is a bio and abstract for a talk he gave at a seminar. [5] is an interview with the organizers of the same seminar. [6] is the subject's company's website. [7] is an advertising website. [8] is a slideshow about a project that the subject worked on. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 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 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer M. Adams

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

WP:BLP of a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
Further, this was draftspaced last year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer M. Adams, before being arbitrarily moved back into mainspace earlier this month on the grounds that her nomination had finally been confirmed by the Senate -- but since the notability bar for ambassadors hinges on GNG-worthy coverage, and not on the simple fact of having been confirmed into the position per se, that should never have happened without the draft being significantly improved with stronger sourcing first.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalkLocal

AfDs for this article:
TalkLocal (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. Previously deleted at AfD but I could not verify whether G4 applied. There is some not-totally-worthless Washington Post coverage [9] [10], but (1) the company is Maryland-based and so WaPo coverage is not as significant as it otherwise would be and (2) we need multiple independent sources. The rest are either unreliable or non-independent. My source checks covered both "TalkLocal" and its former name "Seva Call". – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Maryland. – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The WaPo coverage falls under ORGTRIV (product/funding announcements) IMO. Doesn't seem to be much after excluding the press releases in the TWL databases either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alpha3031 The article with funding in the title is not just a funding announcement. It has 10 (albeit kinda short) paragraphs unrelated to funding. The 2.6M is probably just a way for "clickbait".
    Both of these sources do seem like borderline significant coverage, but as the nominator said, I'd prefer to see other media outlets' coverage. The only other sources I see are tech.co and Bisnow, which seem questionable to me. Thus, I'm currently thinking of a weakest keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do want to emphasise the WaPo sources are from its Capital Business column, which focuses on businesses local to Washington. I worry that if we were to take these as notability-providing coverage this would lead to a situation where run-of-the-mill businesses based in areas that happen to host high-quality newspapers will be disproportionately deemed notable. This seems to me exactly why we have WP:AUD. – Teratix ₵ 07:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron Liu, I'm not sure if this is some sort of misunderstanding but any "funding announcement" is pretty much all like that. Like, literally just take a random sample of PR Newswire or TechCrunch or something, they all take a few sentences about the company from the press release or quotes, otherwise nobody, even the people who are interested in that kind of thing, would read it because there wouldn't be enough context to know what the company is. That doesn't make it independent or significant coverage. Basically every funding announcement is like this. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is way more than a few sentences about the company. It has a lot more content than the average funding adcopy, and doesn't put the funding at the forefront either; in fact, it's not even news-format. If we removed the funding part from the article title, would you agree? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. My assessment is that it would still be ORGTRIV even if it didn't talk about funding at all, because it's still substantially identical to other examples of routine press releases and other announcements. I'd defer to an assessment from RSN though, if consensus there says otherwise. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it's substantially identical, and I doubt that RSN assesses notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The noticeboard can be a venue to discuss sources' independence in the context of determining notability, see WP:ORGIND. – Teratix ₵ 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really don't know what more there is to say. Let's suppose we ignored WP:AUD and WP:ORGTRIV altogether and just took the Post sources to be significant coverage. In that case we would still need another source, because NCORP requires multiple independent sources (coverage from the same outlet does not count more than once). No-one has provided these sources and there's no reason to expect they'll be out there – the business didn't get Post coverage because it's a notable business, it was covered because it's based near Washington. @Aaron Liu: even with the most generous assumptions about the Post sourcing, I still don't see how this business would be notable. – Teratix ₵ 06:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant guideline is wp:MULTSOURCES. Thanks, I now support delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for notability. HighKing++ 13:30, 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.

Maryland Proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Maryland&oldid=1225223761"