Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/West Virginia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to West Virginia. 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|West Virginia|~~~~}} 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to West Virginia.
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


West Virginia[edit]

Radiowv[edit]

Radiowv (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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All references are just passing mentions, not enough in-depth coverage for an article. Clearfrienda 💬 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The sources of the article provide the details on the founding, history, reach, cultural impact, and customers of the entity, which seems quite deep. The Tennessean, for example, describes the entity as a «tastemaker» within its musical genre. Anyway, the article sources include, so far:
    • CNN
    • American Songwriter
    • Variety
    • The Atlantic
    • The Tennessean
    • Billboard
    • Pulitzer-award winning SFGate
    • News Corp Australia
    Have we ever deleted an article with such blue-chip sourcing from multiple years and internationally coming from multiple continents spanning the globe? XavierItzm (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these references offer in-depth coverage which is essential to meet WP:GNG. The Tennessean article is about Oliver Anthony's new song, not the YouTube channel, and only briefly mentions it. All the other sources are the same: brief mentions in articles mainly about the song. This does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Some of them don't mention the channel at all. I'd recommend merging it into another article because some information is useful but it doesn't warrant its own Wikipedia article.
    Also, XavierItzm, if you have "a vested interest in the article," (e.g. you created the article) make sure to disclose it before participating in the AfD discussion (see WP:AVOIDCOI).
    Clearfrienda 💬 02:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have stated an absolute falsehood: «Some of them don't mention the channel at all» [the references] and I would kindly ask that you retract that falsehood. On the contrary, each and every single source in the article cites Radiovw by name, as can be readily checked in the Refs section of the article.

Yeah, I created that article and I’ve created numerous articles across various Wikipedia projects totaling about 21,000 edits since 2014, including 54 articles in the en.wikipedia alone. As an amateur editor, this is the first time anyone asks if I have a COI, so I guess this is sort of like a new badge of honour for me? As a retired guy since a long time ago, I have zero COIs on the Wikipedia project. XavierItzm (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles don't mention the subject. This The Atlantic article does not mention the channel, for example. What's actually important is the lack of significant coverage of the channel. The majority of mentions in references are trivial — the references aren't "about" the channel, they just mention it briefly. For an article to meet GNG, it has to have significant coverage. Significant coverage is not trivial mentions (see WP:TRIVIAL). Some references are slightly more than trivial, but are still just brief mentions.
You do have a conflict of interest at this AfD discussion because you clearly have a "vested interest in the article" (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute). That's not a problem but it's generally policy to disclose it so you don't mislead other participants.
Snarky remarks aren't helping.
Clearfrienda 💬 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Atlantic article[1] is used to establish the styling of the script for Radiowv (which was the subject of discussion on the TP). And yes, the Atlantic article does use the style RadioWV in a caption and it is a proper use of a source for a debated detail of the article (to wit, the sources use three different stylings: Radiowv, RadioWV and radiowv). The one source you are arguing about and which mistakenly you cited using plural (as if you had found multiple instances of that of which you actually found none) does mention Radiowv in writing!, thus refuting your false assertion: «Some articles don't mention the subject»

Your lack of contrition and refusal to acknowledge your stated 100% false assertion is troubling and the closer should take note.XavierItzm (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your point is. A credit in a photo caption does not help to prove notability. It doesn't matter if a reference doesn't mention the subject if you're using it to back up information. We're talking about notability here, though. For an article to meet the general notability guidelines it needs significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. I don't see how Radiowv meets this criteria with no in-depth coverage anywhere and a few brief, often completely trivial, mentions in other articles. Do you have any examples of references that help meet this criteria? Because right now other participants see no evidence of actually proving notability and instead just see useless arguing. I'd be happy to help if you need it.
Please stop with the uncivil attacks and start actually contributing to the discussion.
Clearfrienda 💬 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Misguided Debate Over "Rich Men North of Richmond"". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023. Oliver Anthony / RadioWV [from photo caption]
  2. ^ Wickstrom, Matt (1 December 2023). "How RadioWV, the Platform That Helped Launch Oliver Anthony, is Providing an Outlet for Appalachian Songwriters". Wide Open Country. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
  3. ^ Chris Dickerson (13 December 2023). "Defendant files counterclaim in 'Rich Men North of Richmond' case". West Virginia Record. Retrieved 16 May 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion as there is no consensus. By now, I've closed thousands of AFDs and while article creators sometimes self-identify, I don't think it is mandatrory or a COI. If anyone who created or edited an article has a COI then so does the editor seeking its deletion. And don't accuse another editor of being "snarky" when you yourself or making irrelevant accusations. Anyone is free to participate in an AFD except sockpuppets and a few editors with editing restrictions so let's focus on arguments and not personalities.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see any coverage that is unrelated to Oliver Anthony, but I'm also not certain that such coverage is necessary. The "Wide Open Country" reference from XavierItzm, while clearly motivated by Anthony, substantially discusses other aspects of radiowv. As Oliver Anthony isn't a reasonable redirect target, my vote is to keep. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The cited WOC above is only one source, but [1] is another, which according to WP:MULTSOURCES should be enough to establish notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked citation [2] again, and it indeed doesn't go in-depth, despite its title. However, I believe the actually significant article I've provided and all the trivial mentions add up to provide this outlet some borderline notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing is about this channel that I can find, it's all about the gentleman and his song. Trivial mentions don't help notability. Even with what's now in the article, it's all a one-liner explaining what the channel is, in articles about other things. There is nothing extensive in any sourcing about this channel. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources cited are adequate to support the notability of the subject. The fact that a news source is "regional" has no bearing on its reliability; most news sources are regional, and countless notable topics fail to achieve national coverage. A "passing" or "trivial" mention isn't one that discusses one topic in relation to another; it's literally a drive-by name-dropping, and that's not what these sources provide. The article may be in need of cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup. P Aculeius (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AUD says that regional coverage cannot be used for notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should reread the section you linked me to, which says the opposite. P Aculeius (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WVR is a weekly legal publication. The biggest WV newspaper would probably be the Charleston Gazette Aaron Liu (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement was that "regional coverage cannot be used for notability", and that's explicitly contradicted by the linked section of the notability guideline. Although it gives "the largest newspaper in a state" as an example, that can hardly be regarded as a comprehensive list of acceptable regional sources (by that logic, in Pennsylvania you would have to choose between news from Philadelphia or Pittsburgh; in Ohio, between Columbus, Cincinnati, or Cleveland, etc.). The Herald-Dispatch has a circulation comparable to that of the Charleston Gazette, and there are other papers of significance in the region—just in West Virginia, Parkersburg and Morgantown come to mind as having important papers.
    While the West Virginia Record is indeed a legal paper, it's neither a small-town paper or one of "limited interest and circulation", as described by the policy, which gives as an example "a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job". That hardly describes a legal newspaper covering the entire state—it's not something that could be fairly described as a "newsletter", nor is its readership exclusive to "people with a very unusual job"; I don't think that describes the legal profession, or the business community, very well—although I would certainly prefer coverage in papers such as the Charleston Gazette or Herald-Dispatch.
    The article also cites a number of national and regional sources beyond West Virginia: The Tennessean, The Atlantic, CNN. While their coverage may focus on the specifics of a legal case or individual singers, they provide a bit more than mere "trivial coverage" or "passing mentions" of the channel. Taken together with the other materials, I conclude that the topic meets the minimum threshold for notability, and thus the article should be kept. P Aculeius (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can someone give me a link to the WP:THREE here? My perusal of what's currently on the article largely looks like someone trying to piggy-back coverage centered around one of their artists rather than significant coverage on the subject itself. Sergecross73 msg me 11:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blessing Ejiofor[edit]

Blessing Ejiofor (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)

Does not appear to pass WP:NBASKETBALL as they do not meet any of the criteria, or WP:GNG as the sources are insufficient to establish that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I contribute more on this? SusuGeo (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. Any editor may work to improve articles, even those that have been nominated for deletion. If you can demonstrate that the person is notable for some reason (you can see my reasons for questioning this below), then you might be able to prevent the article from being deleted! Good luck! P Aculeius (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some reason can be keeping can be located. Normally I would point out that the nominator did not mention having searched for sources, as required by WP:BEFORE. However, this is a college basketball player, and the sources in which you would expect her to be mentioned are probably news sources. A quick search just using the "news" tool above appeared to show minimal coverage: university profiles focused on one of their student athletes, and a couple of basketball scores. Certainly nothing currently in the article demonstrates notability: there are thousands of college basketball players, some of whom are notable, but merely being one doesn't seem to indicate notability. I admit to some uncertainty: is it usual for all Vanderbilt Commodores players to have articles, even those who weren't part of the team for very long and who don't appear to have been primary contributors to their team? It's possible that there's some policy I don't know of here, or some other reason for notability I didn't think of, but it isn't indicated yet. P Aculeius (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @P Aculeius Usually the majority of college players don't have an article. The editor in question seems to have been creating articles of players from Africa rather than Vanderbilt players. There is no inherent notability from playing for Vanderbilt or any other basketball team, college teams or otherwise. All players must simply pass WP:GNG. There are some sources below that have been uncovered since your !vote if you are interested. Alvaldi (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Playing professionally would tend to make her more notable, but if the only thing to add is that she's done so, then it may not be enough. I don't discount local sources, but merely being interviewed by a student newspaper, however editorially independent it may be, doesn't confer notability. The question is whether she's done something to bring her to attention at some significant level. For instance, being a major contributor to a championship team, or mentioned (not just in passing, or noting the basketball scores) in news sources with a greater reach than college papers. Sporting figures profiled in national papers or similar sources may be notable. I'm not foreclosing the possibility of notability; just that so far it doesn't seem to be here. P Aculeius (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This subject doesn't appear to have nearly enough to meet the WP:GNG. I found 1 paragraph of coverage at [[2]], and the subject was interviewed by 60 Minutes [[3]]. It is a close call though, so please ping me if more sources are found. This source provides depth but is quite local [[4]]. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also [[5]]. Let'srun (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that locality of sources has no bearing on whether they go towards GNG or not. Proposals to discount local sources have been repeatedly rejected in the past. Regarding other sources, This has a few paragraphs about her. There is also this feature in the The Daily Athenaeum. It is the student newspaper at West Virginia University, something we generally don't consider going towards GNG, but it states in its article that it is editorially independent from the university and does not have a faculty adviser. I'm not sure that changes anything. There is also this feature in relations to the 60 minutes interview. Alvaldi (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that since 2022, she has played professionally in Spain and France so there might be some sources there. She is also a member of the Nigerian national team which could indicate that there might be sources about her in the Nigerian media. Alvaldi (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alvaldi, we have a strong consensus against considering any student papers as contributory to notability, regardless of their editorial independence: However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. JoelleJay (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay I've usually never consider student papers being contributory to notability but the part about it being editorial independent cast a few doubts in my mind with this particular paper. Thanks for the clearup. Alvaldi (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The SI article is not independent and potentially not RS, as it was written by a WVU sophomore for the Mountaineers Now "FanNation" blog section of SI. JoelleJay (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you are talking about the one Alvaldi posted? I posted a different one above that one. Let'srun (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in addition to the WP:NBASKETBALL criteria mentioned above, WP:NCOLLATH may be relevant here. However, while the article has some improvements since this discussion began, I still don't see any evidence of notability. The subject doesn't seem to have won any titles or participated in any championships or tournaments of note, and the only details provided in any of the sources describe nothing more than a brief biography focused on her playing basketball at various schools or being a member of various teams or playing in certain places. Nothing that would naturally bring her to national attention, or distinguish her from thousands of other college or minor professional athletes. P Aculeius (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States[edit]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (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)

Most likely fails WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links. WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability
  • Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.
2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Proposed deletions[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/West_Virginia&oldid=1225028957"