Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Texas

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Devonian Wombat (talk | contribs) at 21:13, 15 October 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ushicon.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Texas

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. ✗plicit 23:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ushicon

Ushicon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This anime convention fails WP:GNG, the only secondary source available is this in Anime News Network, everything else I could find from a search was just a massive number of database listings and primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2025 (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! 00:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kirk (soccer)

Mike Kirk (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only references in the article are primary to clubs and leagues Kirk played for and I couldn't find anything better in my WP:BEFORE. Let'srun (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2025 (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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of IATSE locals

List of IATSE locals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list seems to be functioning as a web page directory, not as an encyclopedic list with a certain amount of notability. This duplicates the list on the union's web site, which seems like a more appropriate place for readers to go to find this information. -- Beland (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a list split out from the main IATSE article as the list of locals would be overly large for the article. And a list of locals is no different than any other list of subsidiary structures found all around Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear case of WP:NOTDIR and also doesn't satisfy WP:NLIST either. Ajf773 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is notable, and could be included with the main article but for its size. The main reason given for deletion is also invalid: NOTDIR does not describe this kind of list, but random information with no particular reason to appear together in an encyclopedia, giving five specific instances, none of which describe the contents here: this is not a 1) a simple list without context (context is provided); 2) a collection of loosely-associated topics (these all belong to a single topic); 3) a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (not a cross-categorization, since they all belong to a single category); 4) a list of genealogical entries (not genealogical); 4) an electronic program guide (not a program guide); or 5) a resource for conducting business (it's not comercially-related, and provides no information about products or pricing). P Aculeius (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you missed the beginning of WP:NOT:

    Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not exhaustive.

    Emphasis mine. This is very much in the spirit of what's addressed here, even if it not specifically listed as an example. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But NOTDIR is being cited, and NOTDIR doesn't have anything remotely applicable. You can't just claim that a policy applies because it sounds to you like it ought to apply. It almost sounds like you're citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE, another policy that's constantly cited without any obvious correlation between anything said under it and the thing they're upset about being included in Wikipedia. But there is nothing indiscriminate about a list of chapters of a notable organization. That's the opposite of indiscriminate. If NOTDIR meant "lists of sub-units of something notable", surely that would be the very first thing mentioned. The fact that nothing of the sort is mentioned at all under NOTDIR speaks volumes. P Aculeius (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTDIR says:

    Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.

    That sounds to me like it very much does apply. As mentioned, the examples following that preamble are not exhaustive, and cannot possibly cover every conceivable case. This is a mere directory listing of over 250 local chapters of a particular union. Maintaining such a list is outside Wikipedia's scope. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very very clear case of the sort of thing that WP:NOTDIR is meant to address. See also this essay for a bit of context on the phenomenon of how this sort of list comes about to be. It didn't belong in the main article, and it doesn't belong in a standalone list either. Kill it now. Kill it with fire. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I question whether those citing WP:NOTDIR have actually read the policy because it clearly does not match a list with a clear limited and defined scope such as this list. If they did read it, they didn’t understand it. I’m not really seeing a good argument that this doesn’t meet NLIST either based on the sourcing in the parent article. Seems like a valid WP:SPINOUT. This is just another badly made deletion argument that boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT by trying to cite policies that aren’t applicable.4meter4 (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOTDIR and a duplication of the IATSE website. Not notable as a standalone concept. Very clearly inappropriate. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brandon (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have definitely read the WP:NOTDIR policy and can confirm that this is clearly an example of the first category of notdir, it's a simple list of web-links to contact each local, analogous to a list of telephone numbers (okay, if you really really push it you can just about claim that the "craft(s)" column is contextual information, but frankly that's stretching things to an unreasonable extent). Having a defined scope doesn't rescue a directory from being a directory. If you believe in NOTDIR, this article is, unfortunately, a delete. Elemimele (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2025 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Geschichte (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Creek (Wichita River tributary)

Beaver Creek (Wichita River tributary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources to add to confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject has enough sources to warrant a stub article. Eric Carpenter (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wichita River, as it is a minor tributary thereof. Mr Carpenter does not specify which sources he means, so we must presume he means the three cited in the article. Of these, only one is about Beaver Creek, and it is pretty rote information from the Texas Handbook, not in and of itself sufficient for WP:NATFEAT. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Opinions divided between Keep and a Redirect that seems like a valid ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEONATURAL: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." The Handbook of Texas provides that information, e.g. that it is dammed in two places, forming Santa Rosa Lake and Lake Electra. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2025 (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 no consensus. I think any other outcome here would reflect my own perspective on whether or not this incident could be considered notable. I do think this would have been a good candidate for a Merge if there had been some level of agreement on what the target article might have been. Also, simply arguing 'Merge to a more appropriate page" is an unacceptable argument as it leaves the specific outcome to a closer and that's not how AFDs are supposed to work. This discussion might be taken to Deletion review but, if it is, I think the participants in that review would be put in the position of having their own opinions determine the outcome for this article which is also not what DRV is for. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Payton Washington

Shooting of Payton Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The two cheerleaders who were in this tragic shooting weren't notable persons, like a professional athlete, cheerleader of activist. Nothing resulted from this shooting, nor any continued news resulted from it. It seems to mostly be non-notable information that has no biography of the two victims, including Payton Washington. For most, deleting overall or redirecting this page to another article would be an better solution. Dosman1123 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This article was created as it was one of a series of at the time high profile nearly back-to-back shooting incidents involving teens and young adults being met with gunfire for making simple mistakes. Corresponding articles are Shooting of Ralph Yarl and Murder of Kaylin Gillis. Here are some sources about the shooting months afterwards:
However, as I created the article I won't be voting. Raskuly (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it still notable though? Also, just because you are the creator doesn’t mean you aren’t free to vote. You’re welcome to join the discussion if you want to. Dosman1123 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I choose not to participate in the vote, but the inclusion of the sources here were in direct response to "nor any continued news resulted from it" as that was false. I also attempted to address the concerns of "Nothing resulted from this shooting" and "no biography of the two victims" by improving the article. Raskuly (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but until you can prove that continued news occurred in 2025, what resulted in the shooting, and a short biography of the two victims. Your wikipage would still be in trouble of deletion. Dosman1123 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, since when does there need to be a news article every year to determine notability? Raskuly (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, first and for most. Be cool. Yes, some stories don't get coverage every year. For that, apologize. But there has to be a lasting impact Wikipedia:LASTING. Dosman1123 (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't have to be, that just helps establish notability. Not every incident of notable gun violence for instance is going to have a law passed in response to it. Raskuly (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it helps. That's fact. People mentioned the same thing about my article. So it does matter. Like GreenLipstickLesbian. Do you want me to give an example? Dosman1123 (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you bring up your article, 2025 Berwyn shooting, may I ask if this nomination was done in retaliation for me nominating that article for deletion? What happens in that deletion discussion isn't particularly relevant. See WP:AON. Raskuly (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not doing this for retaliation by any means. You have an article that may not be notable. I like most of your articles and I do not hate or dislike you in any way. Also, when asking a question use a question mark. Dosman1123 (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it does not have to be a law. It could be anything. A protest movement, change in safety protocols, or even affecting culture could prove it having a lasting impact. Dosman1123 (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I just used that as an example, hence why I wrote "for instance". Raskuly (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just meaning it passes GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The first delete !vote cites WP:LASTING, but that's about "a event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable;" that doesn't mean that events that are not a precedent or catalyst don't meet WP:GNG. As Gregory of Tours said of history: "a great many things keep happening, some good, some bad.” History contains a great deal of noted events and people that don't change the world. I could cite thousands of things here but Francine Gottfried would be one I've cited before. Like Herodotus, I think we should try not to personally judge what is worthy, but capture what the world has seemed to think worthy of noting. I realize not all editors share this philosophy.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are shootings in the US always notable? Metallurgist (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability is not temporary; ongoing coverage is not needed. Nor do the victims have to be notable themselves. The article is not about the victims, but about the shooting. When a shooting is notable and the victims are not, this is precisely how such a subject is dealt with. And what would a logical redirect for the article be? Frankly, given how flawed every bit of reasoning in the nomination is, it lends further credence to the ANI argument that this is a retaliatory nomination. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Appears to meet notability criteria, and this also seems to have been nominated as retaliation for another AFD, which is not an actual reason to delete an article. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 05:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retaliation for what? Metallurgist (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article created by the filer was nominated for deletion by the creator of this article. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 07:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well retaliation isnt grounds to oppose an AFD. Its grounds for reporting to administrators if its a persistent problem. But a one off, isnt really anything to fuss over. Metallurgist (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the nominator has been indefinitely blocked as a compromised account.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS, the article documents a tragic but isolated incident with no demonstrated long-term encyclopedic significance. Coverage so far is event-driven and does not establish enduring impact or notability beyond routine news reporting. Herinalian (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is continued coverage of the shooting [4], meets WP:GNG. What argument is there against the GNG? Katzrockso (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT: Routine kinds of news events […] whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time are usually not notable unless something gives them additional enduring significance. (emphasis in original)
I don’t think the ESPN followup constitutes enduring significance. It’s unfortunate but someone getting shot in America is as routine as it gets.
—Rutebega (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brandon (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to a more appropriate page. While the event was tragic, it lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage.
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.


Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Texas&oldid=1317019365"