Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Washington, D.C.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Washington, D.C.. 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|Washington, D.C.|~~~~}} 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 Washington, D.C.. 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/Washington, D.C./archive

Purge page cache

watch

Washington, D.C.

Ammad Quraishi

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

No indication of notability. Being on a school board is not a prominent political position, even if he was the youngest. Article had previously been speedy deleted, both under this title and Ammad Uddin Quraishi. ... discospinster _talk 05:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, Television, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just no. Fails WP:NPOL; WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination, being on a school board is not notable. Even so, much of the article describes what the whole board did, with no indication of whether he contributed to those activities.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rational. Mekomo (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move to Draft - Article reaches both general notability guidelines as established by Wikipedia standards as well as subject specific guidelines for a politician. A school board position in New Jersey is a state level office , thus reaching notability under subnational politician rules. Since an individual or role not accorded presumed notability may still reach notability thresholds through the general notability guidelines, it is important of note that the individual was the youngest muslim elected to public office in the United States (relevant see: Bushra Amiwala). It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous".

Sources cited are reliable, secondary sources of significant press coverage, which has primarily appeared in print or on regional air (TV/radio), and has since been archived. BernieBruh (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, being the youngest identity to hold an office in the US is pretty significant. LahrenFan21 (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Simons (politician) and Jaylen Smith (politician) and others were 18yo when elected mayors of their municipalities, so not really a first here. Djflem (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, mentioning Simons and Smith does give credibility to the WP:NPOL element as well as the WP:SIGCOV element. Simons coverage is local media, and Smith's mayoral election in a municipality 1/22nd the size of Quraishi's still holds notability. Smith of course benefits from national coverage, esp in relation to joining Clinton and Harris at events of course. LahrenFan21 (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LahrenFan21 having contributed nothing to Wikipedia outside of Ammad Quraishi and BernieBruh having contributed nothing to Wikipedia outside of adding Ammad Qurashi to things before authoring the Ammad Qurashi article we are discussing. Neat. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Local school board office holders and coverage of those positions is considered WP:ROUTINE historically at AFD; and dismissed under WP:NOTNEWS. We would need to see media coverage outside of the local area to prove notability for Quraishi, and that just isn't the case in this instance.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @4meter4 While I do agree that school board office holders are typically considered WP:ROUTINE, as it was notable for Amiwala when published in 2019, it is notable that Quraishi holds a national title in that role. I understand your point on the sourcing of more media coverage, and am working accessing archived national news sources to attach to this article. BernieBruh (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a COI here? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National title? There's no such thing as a national title for a local school board member. If you mean the claim that he is youngest muslim to be elected in the United States, I don't think that claim is something that is provable. For one, we don't typically go around collecting data on the religions (or ages) of school board members or any other minor elected office holder nationally, and two proving that claim would require analyzing the religions of every school board member and minor elected office holder who has ever held office historically in every city, township, and bureau with elected offices nationally. Somebody could been elected as an auditor in a small town who was younger and muslim thirty years ago, and it probably would have passed without fanfare. In other words, its a highly speculative claim, and the sourcing itself doesn't appear to support the claim under our policy at Wikipedia:EXTRAORDINARY.4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the poor choice of words. Appreciate you pointing that out. But yes, referring to the claim of being the youngest muslim to be elected in the United States. It's true that data on religions or ages aren't gone around to be collected, but the latter is public information via filing data and reports. The former can generally be deduced if not reported. I agree with you that someone could have been elected to another position who was younger (than 18) and longer ago, which would then need to be reflected. I disagree that it's a highly speculative claim, but can concede that the sourcing can be stronger on noting that superlative. There is an archived story in a national publication that I'm working to source that had made note of it. Regardless, I still think it makes sense to Keep the article live (not just because I worked on it), but to add a tag to get more source material or citations. BernieBruh (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an individual's already-thin claim to notability is not supported by any reliable sources then it is inappropriate to publish it. Putting the article in draft will give the opportunity to find archived sources, and I originally did that, but you re-published it anyway. ... discospinster _talk 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the guidance you left on my talk page about moving the page back when ready for publication, though now I see I should have opted for "submit for review" option instead, so my apologies on that front. My understanding that the notability claim was supported by a reliable source, being The Record (in circulation since 1895). But I'll still work on attaching additional sources. Thanks, BernieBruh (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Record article only states that he's running, not that he's the youngest Muslim to be on a school board. ... discospinster _talk 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can deduce people's religions based on what? Their names? Where they live? People of the muslim faith (like all major world religions) live all over the world and have many kinds of names. See if you can guess the religion of the person based on their name in this list: Ammar al-Basri, Peter Finch, Jermaine Jackson, Vinnie Paz, John Walker Lindh, Abdulahad AbdulNour, Hunayn ibn Ishaq, Keith Ellison, Leda Rafanelli, Gabriele Torsello, Rita Habib, Robert Dickson Crane, Shotaro Noda, Ryoji Aikawa, Masayoshi Ōhira, Tani Yutaka. Also where has there ever been a collection of the ages of all of the people who ever held an elected office in a searchable database? The answer: No where. To run for office in a town the official process varies from state to state. Depending on the state one lives in, one files to run for local office at sometimes the township level and in other places it might be administrated by the county or at the state level. While their might be a record of the names of past office holders at local level in a state document; typically the age of that person isn't recorded except on the filing document which is generally held in the archives of the township or the county. While there is the freedom of information act, figuring out even where to look to get the ages of past people in elected office would be very challenging; particularly for people elected prior to the internet era in a small town (of which there are more than 19,000 in the United States). That would require physically going down to the township building and digging through old election filing forms. Some of those might have been thrown out after a period of time, lost, or destroyed. Others locked away in a dusty file cabinet that no one has looked at in decades. The point is, in no way did someone actually compile all that data and definitively come to a conclusion on this claim. It's simple guesswork, which is meaningless.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, generally speaking/on average, yes we can deduce most people's religions based on their name or country of origin. (My family has a very stereotypically Jewish name, for example, and it doesn't make us any less Jewish.) There are many Wikipedia articles detailing names associated with religions or identities. Quraishi, some names in Arabic-language surnames, Jewish surnames to name a few. That doesn't negate your point about people of the muslim faith (like all major world religions) having many kinds of names, but cherry picking a few (including converts) to make the point is counterproductive. Regardless, a source cited in the article makes reference to the fact that Quraishi is Muslim. I'll be sure to cite it where appropriate. And sure there may not be a collection of all the ages of all of the people who ever held an elected office in a searchable database, but that isn't how we do research or source and present materials. Otherwise, there's no place for sites like Wikipedia on the internet. Contributors find sources and information and add or update articles as those sources are sought or are discovered, since there isn't a universal database containing all of the information. If that's the standard by which we're to source information, then we need to scrap this entire site. I do agree with you that it's not easy to source info and figuring out where to look to get some information is very challenging, but not impossible. Plus, even if someone didn't compile all that data and definitively come to the conclusion, a reasonable inference can be drawn, and titles can change hands over the years as someone else comes along, or uncovers a source that reveals new information. Best BernieBruh (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No COI on the Quraishi article, but a potential COI on the Amiwala one, on which I've refrained from edits and additions. BernieBruh (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington

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

Delete or redirect to Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) as WP:ATD. One of 100+ local JCRCs, and this one is non-notable without WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:NORG. Coverage where it exists, is WP:ROUTINE or WP:PROMO. Longhornsg (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom Andre🚐 08:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Michael Conner

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

Autobiography of a journalist, reads like a CV. The sources are all about articles he has written, but there are no articles about him. None of the WP:NJOURNALIST criteria apply and neither WP:ANYBIO. The writer's own works are not independent so no WP:GNG pass. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Washington, D.C.. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first thing its creator did on WP was this page. Per nom, CV-like, lacks WP:GNG SIGCOV. A journalist journalisting is not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The entire article reads like a resume, which goes against Wikipedia's guidelines, as it is not a platform for personal resumes. As such, it does not meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria (WP:GNG). Baqi:) (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. We are not your resume service, we are not a free web server, we are not a place for original research, we are not a place for content creation, and we are not primarily a social media service. In 2007, a lot of folks slipped through and later became notable. In 2024, everyone knows what we are not. Salt as a way to reduce future abuse of a charity. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional likley autobio of a non-notable journalist. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge

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

Boulder Bridge exists, as does Ross Drive Bridge; I see no reason why we should have a one-line stub simply because these are listed on the NRHP together; even if expanded out this would still be a content fork of the two sub-articles. Hog Farm _Talk 05:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Washington, D.C.. Hog Farm _Talk 05:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect fine. FINE. I'm still shaking my head at this. Pointless. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, pointless. Athel cb (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2007 article Boulder Bridge which encompasses both as a U.S. National Register of Historic Places listing. The author who created this one in 2015 probably didn't notice the NRHP article was already in place. — Maile (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is here in case someone is searching using the formal NRHP name. Normally it would be a redirect, but as the nominator points out, there are two separate articles for Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge, and it's not clear where a redirect should point. (I had split the articles in 2015 since the two bridges are unrelated other than both being built in Rock Creek Park in the same decade; they carry different roads over different creeks.) It may be better to treat it as a disambiguation page. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Would redirecting to National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington, D.C. be better? The fact that this is a listing combining two separate things is mentioned there in a note. Hog Farm _Talk 21:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's actually a pretty good idea. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a possible solution.

(1) - Keep the article named simply Boulder Bridge created by West Virginian 10-22-2007 It is technically correct in content and sourcing. And it's formatted correctly.

(2) - The article named Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge was created by Antony-22 10-22-2015. It is named correctly, but only contains one sentence and no sourcing.

(3) Need tech advice on how to do this, if it can be done.

Might be a good idea to first delete Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge.

Move Boulder Bridge to the title Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge, while keeping its editing history.

Since I've never performed such a article swap before, we need help from an admin who can perform this swap. — Maile (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the two bridges are fairly unrelated and it wouldn't be appropriate to cover them in a single article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in the upper NW Quadrant of Washington, D.C. and fix the links there. This should not be its own page, and after a brief search that is clearly the best page to redirect to. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in western Washington, D.C.. Ross Drive Bridge is west of Rock Creek, while Boulder Bridge straddles it. The NHRP listing is thus in both list articles, but the western one is the more appropriate redirect target. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. SportingFlyer T·C 04:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification for everyone on how these two came to be listed as one. Please see NRHP Nomination Form. It was listed that way by the National Register of Historic Places. — Maile (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have 3 different Redirect target articles being suggested here, can we agree on one that is the most appropriate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Resolved