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

Article Images

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.

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

Session drummer where sourced pointing to notability have not been available since 2010. Karst (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Karst (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sources are all connected to the subject or are not significant coverage – fails GNG. The previous AFD mentioned some offline sources, but they are not accessible for verification and the descriptions of these do not seem substantive (e.g. among brief quotes from art dealers, not biographical coverage). He is now appearing on a reality show but this would not be a basis for notability (though this could be redirected there should an article for the season be created). Reywas92^Talk 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Arts, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he was already discussed in a deletion discussion a couple years ago and the result was keep. It looks like he recently participated in the Netflix reality dating show "Love is Blind" (Season 7). It looks like a pretty big show and I see a number of articles written recently about him and his business from the show (it looks like he had a pretty negative image on the show). Seems to me like it would be an odd time to delete this page since there are now more sources than ever on him. And probably more coming out since this all seems to be unfolding in real time. Maybe a better approach is to add sources about his Love is Blind stint. And maybe update his title to "Art Dealer & Reality Show Contestant" if possible. All of this seems to be unfolding in real time so my opinion is to wait a bit and see if any additional coverage comes out in the coming months. 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reality show participants are rarely notable. Routine coverage of episodes and the contestants do not establish notability, even though there is plenty of tabloid media about them. Not a single other Love is Blind participant has an article, even as all of them also have "more sources than ever". Love Is Blind season 7 is a good redirect target assuming the page is made. There should be substantive coverage unconnected to this appearance to justify keeping this. Reywas92^Talk 13:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Leo was generally accepted as notable before his reality show stint, I'm just saying if he was accepted as notable before, it might be prudent to wait a bit and see if any other articles come out about him considering the reality show stint. It would be one thing if this page were created after Love is Blind Season 7 came out, but it's been on Wikipedia for a few years prior. 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No indication of notability (or anything useful or informative) in article at all, and it seems as if little beyond routine coverage can be found[1][2]. A redirect to Saint Mary, Mother of God Catholic Church (Washington, D.C.), assuming that they belong together, may be a good alternative. Fram (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Washington, D.C.. Fram (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm baffled why this "article" was created with a single useless sentence and zero independent sources. Do it in draft if you need to, not as micro-stubs without sources. Reywas92^Talk 15:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable.— Moriwen (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apparently, this was begun as a work in progress. This is already listed as a Stub. Editor Another Believer has since added more sourced content that tells us why and when it was established. — Maile (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what "listed as a stub" means, that doesn't make a page notable. None of the sources added are significant coverage. All cemeteries were established at some point, a source providing that date and little else is not a basis for notability. Reywas92^Talk 04:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I should have been more clear. I was only trying to make the point that the article creator was aware that this article, as is right now, is only a stub and needs work. It might have worked better for the editor to first create the basic article in their own user sub page. But it is what it is, and let's hope the editor can add enough to keep this from being deleted. — Maile (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But which of the sources are establishing notability? A source like [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Glenwood%20Cemetery%20Nomination.pdf this] may note when it was established, but it is a purely passing mention in a source about another cemetery and does not give any indication of notability for this cemetery. Fram (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the Washington Post coverage added, which I think adds sufficient color in prose beyond just listing database records. --Habst (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full text is "ST. MARY'S CATHOLIC CEMETERY -- 2121 Lincoln Rd. NE. 202/635-7444. No cemetery office. Gates are open daily from sunrise to sunset. Originally this was a cemetery for St. Mary Mother of God Parish, established in 1845 at 725 Fifth St. NW. This was a working-class cemetery first for German butchers, bakers and others, later for Italians who were stonecutters and laborers. The oldest gravestone is dated Nov. 16, 1862." That's 3 sentences in a long article about the Washington cemeteries. Fram (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More research is needed for this article about a historic site, which should be kept and not deleted. The delete votes aren't even source assessments. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time you thought it was fit for the mainstream, and at the time of the delete votes, there were no sources. And I have replied about the sources in the above discussion anyway, as did Reywas. Please, instead of making false claims about the delete votes, write better sourced articles and articles about notable subjects instead. Fram (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is old does not mean it's "historic", and even if something is characterized as such, that does not make it inherently notable or needing a standalone article – this is not on even the local historic inventory. It could be covered through Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Washington#Cemeteries, or List_of_cemeteries_in_the_United_States#District_of_Columbia could also be split to its own list and include this and others without substantive coverage. If you're going to say "more research is needed", then do please it in draft or user space. Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be commenting further, now STOP HOUNDING ME AND LEAVE ME ALONE ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to you on an AfD is not hounding, please don't make personal attacks. Fram (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Noted as an "interesting cemeter[y]" by The Washington Post in a "by no means complete list". I don't see how readers would benefit by deletion. Station1 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A brief blurb about a commercial subject (and yes this is still a company, you can buy plots here for ~$1300-$3000) in a local lifestyle piece is nowhere near enough for notability. We need multiple IRS sources of SIGCOV and so far we have none. JoelleJay (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Washington Post mention just confirms that this is a notable D.C. cemetery. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]