Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Texas

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:

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|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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Texas/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Texas

Elijah Kahlenberg

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

BLP that reads like an organisation article. Lots of interview and profiles, passing mentions. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep, I am the one who created the article. I have no financial relationship with the subject 66.112.246.20 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new to wiki-editting, but happy to make any proper edits to avoid deletion. Just message me with some guided assistance and I will be happy to make changes. StepToMyLeft123 (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Atidna (following AfD discussion). The article does read a bit WP:PROMO on the organization and could be trimmed, and coverage on Kahlenberg is in the context of coverage about Atidna. There's enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG nonetheless. Longhornsg (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darpan Sanghvi

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Singapore, Maharashtra, Spain, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Peak

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

Non-notable 9/11 victim's memorial page. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Fails WP:BLP1E. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (as article creator) per WP:REDIRECT. While the article probably fails BLP1E, which I take full responsibility for, a redirect to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (O–Z) is better than nothing, where information on the subject still does exist. Sir MemeGod  12:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much a non-notable individual, routine office work. Wiki is not a memorial and this person isn't more or less notable than the hundreds of others that passed away that day. There is no coverage about this person to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I have no problem keeping this. As for the oft-quoted policy of Wikipedia not being a memorial ... we sure seem to bend the other direction at times: List of Texian survivors of the Battle of the Alamo and List of Alamo defenders, etc. etc. Most of the people on those lists are only notable for that one battle. Wikipedia is often a memorial of one subject matter or another. — Maile (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your argument. Is your argument that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here? We can point to lots of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it doesn't override policy. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*::It wasn't an argument - I'm OK keeping this as is, per Sir MemeGod above. No opinion of whether or not to redirect it. The rest of my comment was just a general passing comment that Wikipedia sometimes varies in how things are applied, etc. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused here. SirMemeGod wants to redirect the article and admits it fails BLP1E. There is no "Keep per Sir Memegod" because the argument is one that argues for redirecting. Could you clarify your position a bit? Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sir MemeGod @Acebulf@Muboshgu Do you guys mean WP:BIO1E? She died in 2001, so I've having a really hard time seeing how WP:BLP1E applies. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm assuming they meant BIO1E, at least that's what I meant. ~~Why do we need so many abbreviations?~~ Sir MemeGod  22:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, derp. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (O–Z), with a possible select merger. While very sad, I don’t see significant coverage outside of her birthplace newspaper. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Sook

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. A before found nothing. Coverage seems all about contract. scope_creep^Talk 17:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: This in Variety [1] helps, rest are confirmation of his contract. Not lots of coverage, but good enough. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (for now) to Nexstar Media Group Surprisingly bare-bones article for the founder/CEO one of the largest broadcast networks and media groups, but he's a more 'silent' CEO so coverage seems to be limited to press releases and events where he does want to be public facing. Nate • (chatter) 01:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of untapped sources for improvement of this page. [2] would be high on my list and is from 2005. I've tapped coverage of Sook in improving especially WDKY-TV, KOCB, and WYOU. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both [1] and [2] seems to be interview style article. Ref [1] is definently an interview. Ref [2] looks as though was he has said is just lifted verbatim. I'm not confident in any of them, so I won't be closing the Afd. scope_creep^Talk 08:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Tang Williams

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

Non-notable congressional candidate. Winning a U.S. House primary does not entitle someone to a Wikipedia page, and I don't see how she passes GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, China, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire#District 2. Candidates rarely, if ever, meet the notability conditions of WP:NPOL, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. If she wins in November, we can reassess. But for now, her bio should be merged into the article about the election. Bkissin (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator here, I would support a redirect to that page. This will be be her most high-profile run for office, clearly trumping her 2022 run for this district where she lost in the primary and her 2016 Colorado Senate bid where she took 3% of the vote. The 2024 page is the best redirect target. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, I forgot that she has lost multiple elections. I don't know where the best redirect target would be, but if you think it's best for 2024, I'll defer to you. Bkissin (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and Bkissin, eight of the 10 references are for her winning the Republican nomination for the district, and not really about her specifically. reppop^talk 21:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

There's quite a few sources about her immigration/escape from China, if that matters, such as:

Interview with John Stossel 6 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxMWs8RyLLI:

https://thepoliticswatcher.com/pages/articles/congress/2024/9/10/lily-tang-williams-republican-candidate-unique-perspective

https://bunewsservice.com/lily-tang-williams-living-the-american-dream/

https://www.heritage.org/asia/heritage-explains/lily-tang-williams-growing-communist-china

From UK (though the Daily Mail is marginal):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146007/lily-tang-williams-congressional-candidate-republican-biden-border.html

From Japan:

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/01/5f210f5b6a3e-focus-asian-americans-voice-reasons-they-back-republicans-in-new-hampshire.html

And actually being in a debate with a sitting Senator as a Libertarian, which pretty much has never happened ("In a first, Libertarian candidate in Colorado’s U.S. Senate race qualifies for major debate"):

https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/06/lily-tang-williams-libertarian-candidate-colorados-us-senate-debate/

https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/08/what-lily-tang-williams-said-colorado-libertarian-u-s-senate/

https://www.dailycamera.com/2016/10/15/lily-tang-williams-us-senate/

Colorado Public Radio:

https://www.cpr.org/show-segment/childhood-in-china-shapes-libertarian-senate-candidates-vision-for-colorado-country/

I'm not sure if Fox News is considered a credible source, but there's more about her & China:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/survivor-maos-political-purge-getting-ptsd-watching-scary-history-repeat-college-campuses

https://www.foxnews.com/media/chinese-immigrant-running-congress-fears-marxism-followed-us-witnessing-youth-indoctrination

https://nypost.com/2024/05/15/us-news/survivor-of-maos-political-purge-getting-ptsd-watching-history-repeat-on-college-campuses/

More about China and the gun control debate with David Hogg:

https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-gun-control-activist-david-hogg-torched-ccp-survivor-go-china-see-gun-control-works/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.125.13 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"thepoliticswatcher.com" is a random site that does not help to establish notability. Same for bunewsservice which is a college newspaper. The Heritage Foundation is not a news outlet and I shouldn't have to explain why that one doesn't count. Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source, while Fox News, Western Journal, and the New York Post are considered "generally unreliable." Getting invited to a debate is interesting but certainly not proof that she deserves a Wikipedia page. Sometimes third-party candidates get invited to a debate, it's not that rare. The Kyodo News and Reason sources are decent, but I stand by my judgment that she's not notable. Rising somewhat above the level of a random congressional candidate is not enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are college newspapers not considered valid supporting sources? Heritage Foundation may not be a news outlet but its not deprecated and a highly influential conservative think tank. "Generally" unreliable sources need to be analyzed in totality not in part, so if there are 3 "generally" unreliable sources, a rational determination needs to be made as to whether the small part of them that is reliable is strong enough to create notability. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an academic journal reference where she appears: "Academic Marxism in the Crosshairs: What is at Stake in the U.S.?" in Class, Race and Corporate Power, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2024). https://www.jstor.org/stable/48771892 216.147.125.142 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the exact same reasoning as SineBot above. Plenty of independent coverage Wickster12345 (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject looks notable and has enough news coverage as indicated above.Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean when you say she "looks notable" BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

means it is notable. Mysecretgarden (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm asking you *why* you think she's notable BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they meant for the same reasons as noted by SineBot, as they also said: “…has enough news coverage as indicated above”.

Do you, BottleOfChocolateMilk, have any response to what SineBot had to say, as they are the one whose argument seems to inspiring the majority of “Keep” votes Wickster12345 (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...yes? I directly replied to their message right after they posted it. Also, that message was not posted by SineBot, it was posted by an IP user. SineBot is the bot that automatically adds a signature to people who don't sign their comments. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes the most sense to me. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is probably the best option, as she has recieved significant media coverage over numerous years and as a more minor side note, she is a major contender for a swing seat in 2024. NathanBru (talk)

Being an unelected candidate for office does not automatically make someone notable; see WP:NPOL. Also, calling NH-02 a "swing district" is a stretch. Every major election forecaster has it rated as Likely or Safe D. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But like a previously stated, that was a minor detail. She has recieved significant media coverage and does represent a district that very well could swing her way in 2024. Also, I know we’re not supposed to compare certain cases to each other, but there have been numerous other instances of less notable people in 2024 with Wikipedia articles. NathanBru (talk)

Keep because she has recieved substantial media coverage from major news outlets for both her 2022 and 2024 runs and has appeared in a documentary (The Great Awakening). 1980RWR (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed above. She has received substantial media coverage for her 2022 and 2024 congressional campaigns and for her 2016 U.S. Senate campaign as a Libertarian, has appeared in documentaries, and has been interviewed by national media organizations like Fox News and Newsmax. There's also precedent for people equally and even less significant than Lily Tang Williams having a Wikipedia article. George Hansel is a former small town mayor who unsuccessfully ran for Congress once and now hosts a regional talk show (the station that hosts Hansel's show is so small that it doesn't even broadcast to me, and I live in New Hampshire only an hour away from Keene); Hansel is arguably no more significant than any other local politician, yet considering his article has existed for nearly 3 years without issue, there seems to be no question that he is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Lily Tang Williams is much more significant than Hansel and I would argue that she just as deserving of a Wikipedia article, if not more so, than him. Eureka640 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then ignore the Hansel argument. The fact still remains that she has been the subject of much media coverage over the past decade for her Libertarian activism and congressional candidacies, including interviews on major national news stations. Eureka640 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:GNG is met through the sheer number of sources (per above). Microplastic Consumer (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reminder that deletion discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE and are also dependent on the quality and reliability of sources, not just the sheer number of sources. Bkissin (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that she's been covered in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, WMUR-TV (ABC), The Denver Post, the Concord Monitor, the Union Leader, New Hampshire Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio, and an academic journal (noted above). All of those are considered "quality" and "reliable" per Wikipedia's criteria. 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that those are WP:ROUTINE election coverage. reppop^talk 23:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_and_is_not_routine_coverage

"Editors should be careful in defining what is referred to as "routine" coverage, especially when determining notability."

...

""routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability."

""routine coverage" may indeed be significant enough to surpass Wikipedia's general notability guideline."

Politics

"Once every four years, the United States holds an election for President. These elections are "routinely" covered by every news outlet and the event is a "pre-planned event" as a part of the United States Constitution. However, that does not mean that this coverage would be excluded from notability discussions because of the WP:ROUTINE guideline." 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

"Additionally, bear in mind that WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) and therefore only applies to establishing notability about events. The primary guideline discussing notability of people is Wikipedia:Notability (people)." 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYi, it was missed that she has been in Fox News on multiple occasions, another extremely notable source. NathanBru (talk)

Keep as WP:GNG is satisfied with the significant media coverage over the years of the subject's political/electoral history. - Amigao (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source evaluation table would be really helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be relisted. There was enough discussion. Nine keeps and three redirects. There are plenty of legit sources listed. None of the actual content itself has been disputed.

Even if there wasn't a clear enough consensus in your mind:

"When discussions of proposals to delete articles, media, or other pages end without consensus, the normal result is the content being kept"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus

"relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting_discussions

Making an evaluation table is just tedious work. If you think it would be helpful to have the table, you should create it yourself. 216.147.123.209 (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Asilvering Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the Toyota Center

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the Toyota Center (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Texas. Skynxnex (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)