Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Virginia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Virginia. 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|Virginia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Virginia.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Virginia/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Virginia

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Run District

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

Unnotable ~~event~~school district. The only sources I've found were only county-level; it doesn't seem to be known elsewhere. Flux55 (my talk page) 22:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, and Virginia. Flux55 (my talk page) 22:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a school athletic division, not an event. RecycledPixels (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article made it seem like it was a conference for some reason. I'll strike that out... Flux55 (my talk page) 01:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a school district, either. It's a high school athletic district/conference/division, under the Virginia High School League sanctioning organization. I looked through the talk archives over at WP:SCHOOL and consensus seems to have been that these are notable. So, Keep. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Right now, there are zero sources on the page, which means I cant support a keep. If at least three reliable sources were added, then I could change my mind based on WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:51, 6 March 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 redirect‎ to GRTC Pulse#List of stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Lawn station

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

These are non-notable bus rapid transit stations - while there's plenty of coverage about the bus line, there's next to nothing about the individual stations. I suggest redirecting all to GRTC Pulse#List of stations. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Street station was recently closed as redirect; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arts District station is ongoing but consensus is clearly not to keep. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Virginia. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to participants in related discussions: @Boleyn, Shaws username, Reywas92, Djflem, Flatscan, Jumpytoo, StreetcarEnjoyer, Oaktree b, and Rupples: Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all Can be covered in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 03:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to GRTC Pulse#List of stations. Each station article is repeating pretty much the same detail, other than its location. Rupples (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to GRTC Pulse#List of stations, there's nothing notable about any of the stops beyong their GRTC link and there's not enough on them to merit their own pages. Shaws username . talk . 12:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all. Not individually notable. S5A-0043^Talk 14:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all: They’re just fancier bus stops at the end of the day, not individually notable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:16, 19 February 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!} 23:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Bunch

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

No evidence of notability, under WP:NJOURNALIST or any other notability criterion. RS cites and WP:BEFORE show only some RS writing by the subject, and not RS biographical coverage of the subject. This would be needed for a WP:BLP of the subject to be present in Wikipedia. Tagged for notability issues since 2019. A previous PROD in 2022 was removed on the argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the problems were not remedied in the years since. There appears to be no reasonable prospect of this article organically fixing itself - David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Film, and United States of America. David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hard when he has published so much, but did not find any substantive coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No available RS substantive coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 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. To be honest, I'm not sure how to carry out "Delete and Merge". I think you have that backwards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling, Virginia house explosion

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

Copying from a previous nomination template:

I am skeptical of the notability of this event under Wikipedia's guidelines for event notability. The inclusion criteria notes traits related both to the event itself and to the coverage of it:

An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. While it is too early to tell for certain, there is no reason to believe that this event serves as a catalyst for anything broader.

Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. The effect of this event is localized to one block of one neighborhood, plus those nearby who heard and felt the explosion.

An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The coverage is limited to a discussion of the events themselves.

Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. So far only one domestic news source has been cited, largely following the pattern of simply restating events according to investigators and eyewitnesses as they occurred.

Borgenland (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has yet to be demonstrated as a notable event, and Wikipedia is not a news service. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. Houses explode sometime, it happens. I haven't even heard of this town and I live in Virginia, so it's unlikely to have any sustained coverage or ramifications. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a simple WP:NOTNEWS case here, and I'm really tired of these obvious cases being based on generic wire reports; build articles from local sources first and go from there. Nate • (chatter) 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS greyzxq ^talk 15:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm actually the one who wrote out the nomination language that Borgenland used, and I agree that it applies here as well. I suspect that people don't realize how common home explosions are (not so common that the average person would experience one in their lifetime, but common enough that a few of them happen in the United States alone each year). When I set up a news alert for the house 2023 explosion in Arlington, VA, I got a lot of articles about home explosions in other states as well that had happened since then. It's dramatic, but that does not make it newsworthy. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 00:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to instead suggest Delete and Merge into Loudoun County Combined Fire and Rescue System#Notable Incidents. Within the context of the LC-CFRS, the incident actually is notable as possibly the single worst incident by casualty count for its members. A quick search actually does not turn up any other line of duty deaths for Loudoun County firefighters, and the large numbers of injuries in addition to the death does raise the degree of notability. That said, the notability of this event is relative to the LC-CFRS, and so it likely does not merit its own article. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 01:52, 22 February 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 redirect‎ to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Clancy (politician)

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

Completely and utterly non-notable congressional candidate. No news attention outside of routine campaign-related coverage. Get this guy out of here. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, Indiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could also be redirected to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10, but I feel like that might be getting a bit too pedantic, and he also ran in 2022. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah a redirect makes sense KchTheWikiKid (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>>> 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10 Djflem (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10, all the sources that apear in a search are just WP:ROTM for an election candidate and I can't find anything to meet WP:GNG either. Shaws username . talk . 13:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10: Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a redirect makes the most sense or if you still want to delete it just put it into draft space instead KchTheWikiKid (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete campaign spam for now. Fine with a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 10:24, 19 February 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!} 07:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmatollah Ghadimi Chermahini

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

Can't see what makes him notable. Tehonk (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Spaceflight, Iran, Sweden, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a very convincing nomination, but unable to find much on the subject. The Persian sources (and two others I found) don't appear to be very reliable or are just passing mentions. No strong evidence of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - notable for his ongoing multi-national career and for his work on the Shuttle mishap investigation. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. The article has nothing about the Shuttle mishap, so I do not understand that rationale. (If there is something then please edit the article.) Ldm1954 (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not convinced by the keep vote as well. I would like to see some sources meeting WP:SIRS. Tehonk (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Shuttle assertion is in the article infobox. I too would like to see the article better sourced. Chermahini was certainly affiliated with the Aeronautical Research Inst. of Sweden and Old Dominion University. Agree: the claims he was a NASA engineer and that his expertise on fatigue crack propagation led to involvement in the Shuttle mishap investigation are not reliably sourced. Consider me neutral. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources provided do not meet the notability guideline for this article. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 05:24, 5 March 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!} 22:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Arlington house explosion

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

Likely not notable under WP:NEWSEVENT. To quickly overview the criteria (as stated on the talk page of the article):

An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. While it is too early to tell for certain, there is no reason to believe that this event serves as a catalyst for anything broader.
Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. The effect of this event is localized to one block of one neighborhood, plus those nearby who heard and felt the explosion.
An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. Though many outlets covered this story, much of the coverage is limited to a discussion of the events themselves and subsequent law enforcement updates on the status of the investigation, or to the social media posts of the homeowner claiming various conspiracies. Some other stories focus specifically on the neighbors, but that is largely the extent of any coverage.
Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. Virtually all articles related to this story were published within three days of the event itself.
Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. Although many national and international outlets covered the event, these largely followed the pattern of simply restating events according to investigators and eyewitnesses as they occurred. Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 14:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I live in Arlington and haven't seen the explosion mentioned in the local media since a week after the event, so I'll be surprised if it's endured in coverage further afield. I'm unaware of any enduring newsworthiness of this event. Largoplazo (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator here adding to echo your sentiments; I am also very local to where this occurred. It was a big interest story for a couple of days but died down in discussion within a couple of weeks at most. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 18:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Conspiracy theorist's house exploded" is a bit of a stretch for notability. Replace it with "insurance agent's house exploded" and it's non-notable. I don't think just because the person was controversial makes this a notable event. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It there was perhaps more about the conspiracy theorist as a person, they might get an article. That's for another day I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With discussing it on the talk page, I agree this doesn't meet the threshold of significance beyond the news cycle. There's been no substantive coverage since, especially since the perp is deceased so you're not likely to even get legal proceeding coverage. There's not really any appropriate place for a merge or alternative. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Singular casualty toll and absence of follow up information. Borgenland (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it fits notability. It should have been on wikinews. --evrik ^(talk) 18:45, 21 February 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 redirect‎ to GRTC Pulse#List of stations. The potential DAB page does not exist. If and when that's created, this can be re-targeted. Star Mississippi 01:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arts District station

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

I couldn't find sources to confirm it meets WP:N or a suitable WP:ATD. This was deleted at the last AfD. Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I can't find any sources to give the station notability by itself. The only form of notability appears to be that it's a stop on the GRTC Pulse, but it doesn't add anything more that's useful that isn't already on GRTC Pulse (WP:NOPAGE) I'd also note that while WP:NTRAINSTATION is for trains, I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that it could apply to bus stations as well. Shaws username (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GRTC Pulse#List of stations Shaws username . talk . 04:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to GRTC_Pulse#List_of_stations. Bus stops – even with BRT infrastructure – don't generally need their own articles, especially not as a single sentence. Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Broaden discussion: As noted by the two previous commenters, all of the stops except Richmond Main Street Station are basically identical and should be considered together. I will note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Street station has also been created. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with @Pi.1415926535 that they should be bundled together, a WP:BEFORE on the others (apart from Richmond Main Street Station) doesn't show anything more than Arts District station or Allison Street station and they're similar enough to be considered together in my opinion, although I'm not sure if it's early enough to still to WP:BUNDLE them. Shaws username (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to GRTC_Pulse#List_of_stations.Djflem (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not redirect at the current title, the GRTC Pulse bus station seems not to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (shortcut to WP:Disambiguation#Primary topic, guideline). Moving and/or replacing with a disambiguation page may be appropriate, but I do not have enough relevant experience to recommend it.
- Searching for "Arts District station" returns four stations with name matches in the first 20 results:
  - 1. Little Tokyo/Arts District station, Los Angeles Metro Rail (Daily ridership: 189,200)
  - 2. Pearl/Arts District station, DART Light Rail (Daily ridership: 66,000)
  - 4. Arts District station, GRTC Pulse (Projected ridership: 3,300)
  - 8. Arts District/6th Street station (proposed), Los Angeles Metro Rail
- Pageviews: None of these station articles receive many views, but Arts District station receives the least, averaging zero per day.
- Arts district#List includes many arts districts that may have stations beyond the existing articles.
Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation per Flatscan. Jumpytoo Talk 08:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding the disambiguation proposal would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:41, 18 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting house

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

Fails the general and building-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, Kentucky, and Virginia. UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Seems like it could be a sentence in Polling station. Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into polling station It's a good stub, but it probably works better as an article section than its own separate article. Nate • (chatter) 18:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge, the two sources are primary and don't support most claims in the article, not worth transferring to another article as it stands. Fram (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this technically a list article, since it provides navigational links to notable voting houses? SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to patrollers/closer: see User talk:Rechtman#Nomination of Voting house for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Voting House for comments from User:Rechtman (main contributor to the article), who has not commented here, and others' responses to them. DMacks (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found at least one article on the concept: [1] along with primary sources showing the building of a voting house was a "municipal improvement." Also serves as a navigational aid to notable historic voting houses. Probably keepable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep per User:SportingFlyer, but without User:Rechtman's concept of Voting Rights Acts or other racial access, since there is no source. The title phrase is generic, and the RS ref SportingFlyer found is about a WPA project specific to Rowan County, Kentucky and with the goal of expanding voting access overall (and maybe for political aims). Other refs (some of which might be circular citation):

"Rowan County Voting House – Morehead KY". The Living New Deal.
"Knapp Avenue voting house to be sold". The Daily Independent. June 15, 2015.
"Brushy Voting House #6". Clio.

and those are the type I added to the list of examples based on WP articles with this topic-name.

Contrast that Rechtman's topic, which is instead (despite being described as a general situation) is in Virginia (per article refs, such as [2]). As User:UtherSRG notes on Rechtman's talkpage and despite VRA/racial-voting topics being important, WP by policy is a follower based on RS not a leader to RGW. I would propose adding a DAB token to the article title (Voting house (WPA project) or Voting house (Kentucky)?) to clarify the topic and prevent drift. DMacks (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upgading my !vote for mostly TNT'ing the generic stuff and instead having an article on the WPA meaning. I just found that the set of Rowan County voting houses built by WPA is itself NRHP-listed.

"Rowan County, Kentucky WPA Stone Voting Houses". National Park Service. Retrieved 2024-02-04.

Doesn't matter to me if we want to say "delete the current article without prejudice for writing a new article on a slightly different specific topic with the same name" vs "rewrite the current to focus on that specific topic". DMacks (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE with polling station to delete would be a mistake as there is good information here just not enough to justify a whole article. LegalSmeagolian (talk)

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Merge with the polling place article Fine,Delete unless a merge target is agreed upon.~~ The basic fact is this article is about a type of polling place, not about the buildings themselves. One has to go and read newspapers to get any info about this type of polling place. Doing so, reveals they were not all built by the WPA, so please don't add WPA to the title. Many of them were built in the 19th century and those actual buildings may be notable. Also, I could not link this polling concept to any black history relevant thing, and even the articles themselves don't mention it or have any sources about it. In fact the only thing I did see was that white people voted in them. So I think that maybe some original research is occurring around that, The timelines don't seem to add up either. Furthermore, These places were built in the rural areas of many states, due to a lack of voting infrastructure. So please Don't add Kentucky to the title. Basically, these are polling places and your not going to have an article about a type of polling place that isn't going to significantly overlap with the article on polling places. So just merge it.James.folsom (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @James.folsom: does the WPA concept of "voting house" seem notable enough for an article? There seem to be three (at least) meaning of the term (VRA, WPA, general building), of which 'WPA' is the one for which some RS have been found despite our article not currently being focused on that variant. So is no meaning viable for an article, or only the article we have not about a viable meaning? DMacks (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DMacks:Apologies, I'm having difficulty with what your asking. So I'm, going to share my thoughts about that article and maybe we will figure it out. I don't know what you mean by "the WPA concept of voting houses". What I know is that the WPA was basically a welfare program that provided money to hire unemployed people to work on public works projects like building voting houses. The WPA didn't have concepts of things, I don't think. They just built stuff that needed building. Administrative officials at the local level dictated the projects. The article that we are discussing isn't even about the voting houses, they are trivially mentioned. The actual subject of the article is about the political history behind their construction as a way to understand the evolution of the new deal built environment (whatever that means). So yes, reliable and primary source, but no on significant coverage of the voting houses. I also haven't seen any secondary sources that would be needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. Maybe you can clarify your question if that wasn't what you were asking.James.folsom (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly oppose a merge. The polling place article is about polling places in general and is UK-centric at this time. This article is about a building built specifically to be a polling place as part of municipal works in a regional part of the United States. The polling place article should provide a large-scale international view of the subject, the level of detail required to describe this novelty would be inappropriate, though we could include a link there in a sentence somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article is not based on those WPA voting houses. That article you posted is just one example of how and where these were built.James.folsom (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The current article is indeed about...I'm not quite sure what. Refs have now been posted here that are about something in particular (the "WPA" meaning). The article isn't specifically about that. My question was whether you think the WPA meaning, for which we now have refs, is sufficient for an article? Are you !voting against the current article itself, or is there not even a viable topic if we WP:TNT and write anew on that ref'ed meaning? DMacks (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that the voting houses should be mentioned somewhere in and article about places that people vote. But, if there is no redirect target then this article should be deleted because it isn't notable enough to have an article about it. I Think the WPA article has nothing to do with this because it is not significant coverage of voting houses. James.folsom (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment Could it be useful to merge this with the 3 articles about specific voting houses? It would then be an article that would discuss the remaining ones under page.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to polling station with slight merge. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also found the documents SportingFlyer and DMacks posted, and as SportingFlyer said the article serves as a navagational aid to the sources used for it, the majority of which seem to be old newspapers and so unlikely to be digitized. A search on the National Register of Historic Places ("voting house" as a search term in the table) also shows 10 different listed voting houses, [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] the statement of significance being that

"The # 4 Hogtown Voting House meets criterion A and is a significant physical representation of the New Deal. It was constructed by the WPA and used exclusively as a voting house during the period of significance. The # 4 Hogtown Voting House has retained a majority of the original materials and is recognizable in function as a voting house. The # 4 Hogtown Voting House is located in its original setting and location, andhas retained its integrity of association as a building constructed by one of the New dealera agencies."
(the other statemesnts just change the name of the place)

To me that suggests that the concept of being a voting house is part of the reason for listing and so would count as significant, or at least that being buit by the WPA and used as a voting house is. Shaws username . talk . 19:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been going through the papers from newspapers.com (through the wiki library) and there are a lot of hits, some of it is debates about if the city/county should have some, and who should build it [13] announcing it as the location for polls, (e.g. [14] [15] [16]) There's also one from 1939 Wake County, North Carolina proudly announcing theirs on the front page and wondering if they might have the only one in the country [17]. A lot of it is fairly WP:ROTM (elections here) but it does show the spread and ubiquity of them. If people would like I can link more, otherwise it would get a bit WP:REFBOMB. Shaws username . talk . 22:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are not discussing if a particular voting house is notable, we are discussing whether polling places called "voting houses" are notable or are just a polling place that can be mentioned in article about polling places.James.folsom (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I expanded and added some color based on assorted sources. I believe this is a notable vernacular American building type, but I'll leave it to the community to determine. jengod (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I've read through all of the comments here and while it's been a very interesting discussion, I don't see a consensus here yet. So, I'll try one final relist rather than closing as No consensus in case editors who commented early have a change of opinion. Just a note, this is not a discussion on the concept of "voting house", this conversation is specifically focused on this particular article and whether or not it should be deleted, merged, kept, redirected or renamed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is greatly improved over what it was, I like Jengod's approach on this. Let's let it live and mature now.James.folsom (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of major improvements, including sourcing.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Ipigott and james DarmaniLink (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per @Bearian Mr Vili talk 00:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what I can tell, the article seems notable enough, and it has multiple references supporting its inclusion. The article could, however, use some improvement. 20 upper (talk) 18:00, 28 February 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.

Virginia proposed deletions