Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Texas - Wikipedia

Article Images

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.

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

I can't find any serious WP:SIGCOV on this person. Several Google searches brought back very, very few meaningful sources. This seems to fail WP:GNG as a result. The article also kind of comes across as self-made, possibly violating WP:COIN. Anwegmann (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Canada, Florida, Massachusetts, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as eight-year CFL player and four-time All-Star. This wasn't evident in the article at the time of this nomination but I have since reverted the page back to the last clean version before the COI-editing took over. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, to what notability criteria are you referring when you claim that being a four-time CFL all-star is notable? (Being an eight-year CFL player isn't notable at all; participation standards sports-wide were deprecated nearly three years ago now.) Ravenswing 21:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD due to a lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources excluding WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related government and navigational databases. Carguychris (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Carguychris (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP BIO; depth ot the sources is not enough for proving the notability; general notability fails here; dependent or primary sources do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a stand-alone list. This page falls beyond that primary criterion. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are 1.3 million attorneys in the US. I don't see any justification for why Kristina Baehr meets Wikipedia standards for notability. ScienceFlyer (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC with WP:SIGCOV in Law.com, CNBC and KXAN Austin. See source table below.Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is that the CNBC and KXAN articles perpetuate misinformation and are not reliable medical sources. The concept of airborne toxic mold is long-discredited. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not relying on them for claims about mold and the article has been edited (by you) to include appropriate information that balances claims made by the subject. We're asking if they are generally reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. They are and they do. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Law.com, https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2023/08/18/3-8m-texas-verdict-lawyer-leaves-intellectual-property-practice-for-toxic-torts/?slreturn=2024100483307	See RSN discussions here, here	✔ Yes
CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/15/what-homeowners-need-to-know-about-toxic-mold-exposure.html		✔ Yes
KXAN, https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/how-toxic-mold-cost-one-austin-family-their-home-health/	Major local news station	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep: Article has sources and the person is notable. Dealing with articles about lawyers is always a little tricky. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971 and Dr vulpes. Sourcing is sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the source assessment of @Dclemens1971 as far as it goes, but I think this is a case of BLP1E - she got coverage in context of her toxic mold case and it wasn't continuing coverage. The Red Hill litigation could be independently notable but I don't see significant coverage that highlights her role. Note that I can't access the Texas Lawyer article.As Dr Vulpes says lawyer bios can be tricky, and I'm open to other views, but this one seems to fall some ways below the line and looks more like vanity than notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oblivy Several reliable sources (see CBS, KITV, Military.com, Reuters others) describe Baehr's role as lead counsel in the Red Hill litigation. These sources aren't SIGCOV of her, and so don't contribute to GNG, but given the standalone notability of the Red Hill water crisis I think they do take this beyond a case of WP:BLP1E. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you tracking down the sources, but my point stands. Red Hill has its own article. She doesn't inherit its notability.

CBS and military.com quote her but don't add anything about her except that she's the counsel. Reuters is even briefer.
KITV doesn't mention her

Oblivy (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I didn't say she inherits notability from Red Hill. I'm saying that the sources in the assessment above show a GNG pass, and that her involvement in Red Hill (additional sources, not in article, here: Stars and Stripes, Honolulu Civil Beat, Hawaii News Now, KITV, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, KHON) demonstrates that she is not only notable for the mold-related case. If we had just the Red Hill case to go on, I'd agree with you that it's not enough SIGCOV. But we have SIGCOV in reliable sources for the mold-related lawsuit, plus solid reliable-source coverage for another case, and that takes us beyond BLP1E. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This list is almost exclusively sourced to official Longhorns Baseball materials, principally its 2023 fact book There is no evidence that independent, secondary sources discuss Texas Longhorns baseball statistical leaders as a defined group; as a result, this subject fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Lists, and Texas. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: There's a 17-page chapter of this book (pages 27–43) dedicated to Texas Longhorns baseball with some statistical data, but it's a lot of coverage to wade through to see if there's anything that can help establish notability for this topic. Left guide (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This person fails WP:BANDMEMBER, article should be redirected to The Roots. For a longer rationale, see the reply I gave to the article creator after my initial redirection. Mach61 23:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Mach61 23:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A similar AfD happened recently for another member of The Roots and The Tonight Show Band, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamal Gray. There, another editor, User:Tau Corvi made a keep argument, which also applies here. "Per WP:MUSIC a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles is notable. Gray is a member of The Roots and The Tonight Show Band, both have WP articles." Hexatekin (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my argument was for a redirect, but in the end, the article was kept. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry for that yes I see now your argument was for a redirect for the Kamal Gray article, but in the end it was kept. Hexatekin (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hexatekin "The Roots" and "The Tonight Show Band" are currently one-and-the-same, this argument is clearly against the spirit of WP:BAND#C6. Mach61 18:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright well I added another source and I will attempt to add more sources in the next few days, as I do believe he has been written about a bunch over the past 15ish years since joining The Roots. Hexatekin (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hexatekin

The sources you added consist of:

A non-independent interview with Premier Guitar
An OkayPlayer that, like the Inquierer article previously mentioned has little to say of Kelley himself
Another No Treble album announcement that has little to say about Kelley

Mach61 14:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this fails WP:NPERSON and is not saved by either WP:NCREATIVE or by WP:MUSIC's pertinent paragraph. The sources tracked or already presented are worthless. Wikipedia is not a musicians directory nor a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

NCORP fail Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indiana. Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly clearly meets the sense of an important label as given in the WP:MUSIC guideline, and the article has citations indicating the label gets regular coverage in music press. Chubbles (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I’d love to agree with you, because they seem really interesting, but… NCORP not NMUSIC is the right standard to judge them on, and everything I can see in the article is either passing coverage, or basic business process (the sale to new owners) coverage… but nothing giving any sort of extended coverage of the company itself. It’s all “band x signs to Rottweiler Records” and then a ton about band x, but nothing about the company. So weirdly they would count for the band’s notability, but not the company’s. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

it lacks sufficient independent, secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, the article relies heavily on promotional language and primary sources, which compromises its neutrality and fails to provide verifiable third-party coverage. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This nom seems like a stretch and over reach to me. There are plenty of in-depth resources from independent 3rd party sources just by clicking the news or books tab on google. They are published several times a week. The nominator has several warning and a controversial editing history. Just seems like there are better things to spend time on. SmileyShogun (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: SmileyShogun (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. – The Grid (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My company uses NinjaOne for our RMM services, and I needed to do research on it to become more familiar, and this Wikipedia article has a plethora of good reference articles and resources. There is no need to delete the article, and would be a loss of information for others like me. Jonkorf (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Jonkorf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors about this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(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]

@Longhornsg: How is the organisation notable. It was created in 2002 and there is virtually no coverage on it, outside a few interviews with Kahlenberg. scope_creep^Talk 11:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep It was created in 2022 actually and has over 30 interviews from different sources including from Al Jazeera, CNN, NPR, ABC News, Axios, etc listed. Quick search shows there are even more not even mentioned on the page. This meets notable standards. I say keep and rename, although the article is lengthy. It is probably better to split into two articles, one about Kahlenberg and one about Atidna. TheHalalanator (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant 2022. I would have to send the Atidna article to Afd. Its not notable as an organisation and would fail WP:NCORP. I see this is your first edit on Wikipedia. How did you managed to find this Afd I wonder. scope_creep^Talk 09:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. After washing away the promotional or vanity stuff (e.g. "He aspires to become a professor of international law and contribute to peace efforts in the Middle East and, eventually, he also hopes to enter politics"), the text stands quite comfortably alone on the strong support of multiple sources of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a random check of a dozen or so sources and they seem to be mostly interviews in some form or another. There might be a stronger case for an article on the organisation (Atidna), but I'm undecided at this stage.-KH-1 (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There might indeed be a stronger presence of the Atidna organization than of our subject in the media. I confess I did not dedicate much time to Atidna. What I found about our subject, before I posted up my recommendation to Keep, was enough: We have enough sources supporting independent notability for a stand-alone article. Examples: The portrait of the "young Jewish peace activist" in the Times of Israel; a Daily Texan report on Kahlenberg's activism and on his scholarship; interviews in two major news media, one in Arab-speaking Al Jazeera, evidence of the person's media reach, and another in the Greek-speaking New World (Neos Kosmos); and so on. We're safe. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]