Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Virginia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to 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:

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|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.

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 Virginia. 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/Virginia/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Virginia[edit]

Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1931)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ernie Smith (Negro leagues)

Articles for deletion/Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1931) (2nd nomination)

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

Repeating my reasoning from 2021, but WP:NBASE now no longer exists:

Not notable. I cannot locate stats or a roster spot for this person on seamheads.com or cnlbr.org or baseball-reference.com. (B-R "Bullpen" [an open wiki] has an article created at the same time and same person that created this article.) The given source is an obit [1] that vaguely refers to playing on a Negro league team at some time. The given team ceased play in 1951 when the subject was 20, but as I stated, I cannot find any other source backing this up. (This palyer should not be confused with Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1908), also a Negro leaguer.) -- BX (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. BX (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Virginia and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved Boeing aircraft[edit]

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

It duplicates the content on the main article pages. (e.g. Boeing 707) Dedicated aircraft on display articles are only created for single types when the list becomes too long for the main article. The list also includes pictures, which runs counter to the WikiProject:Aviation style guide.

Subsequent to the creation of this AfD, I discovered there is an additional article created by the same user at: List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft. –Noha307 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Virginia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The linked "No images should be included in lists of aircraft, this is not what lists are for." is one of the strangest things I've seen here. All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here? What lists does this refer to specifically? I can imagine for certain large lists you wouldn't want excessive pictures that look similar and add little, but I don't see a need to apply that here; that is not a justification for deletion. Where you're talking about individual aircraft that are preserved and on display for people to see, showing everyone here who can't go to all these museums what they look like is a great idea! While I agree that duplication with the bullet-point lists in the main article is not great, I think a list that can include additional details like useful pictures – or at least be a central navigation page – can be reasonable. Keep Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here?

It increases the file size of the page. However, it also unnecessarily increases the height of each row of the table and reduces the width of the other cells, which makes the table longer and the legibility of information more difficult as the text is wrapped onto multiple lines. However, these are my own reasons. There's a bit more in a section on the talk page of the style guide.

It's worth noting that a number of the images don't show the aircraft on display, but in service, which is not appropriate or useful for a list of this type.

that is not a justification for deletion

Agreed. In and of itself, it is not a justification for deletion. However, it is something that adds weight against it. –Noha307 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any size concerns here, nor issues with the length of the table or column/text width. Even if the retired craft on display is preferred, I would not remove images of service. Reywas92^Talk 01:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this list appears to be missing the 707 Air Force One as noted at Air Force One#Boeing 707s and entry to jet age. No opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but that seems a strange omission. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom and Reywas95 both make valid points. That said, the concerns with the article do not warrant deletion. Rather, improvements are welcome. In this respect, I wonder if it would be possible to create shared sections (not sure on the WP jargon) that can both fit into the model articles and into this article. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that it duplicates information that already exists. There's no need for a separate article listing preserved aircraft unless they are too long for the main article and if that is the case, then it should be broken down by airplane model, not manufacturer. You could argue WP:MERGE into main articles or separate into dedicated articles each models instead of deleting it. However, in the latter case a) certain aircraft would not have sufficient numbers of entries for a dedicated article and b) that would make the manufacturer just a list of links that could be replaced by a category. –Noha307 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had already identified and addressed this problem in my opinion above. Others have addressed it as well. gidonb (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain in a bit more detail what you meant by "shared sections"? Do you mean some sort of transcluded template? Noha307 (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That would be it. gidonb (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not warrant deletion I guarantee to you. Thats why I also voted my vote as a keep. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split to individual aircraft types. These manufacturer-based lists are problematic because they either end up duplicating the information in the article on the type, or they are incomplete because they omit types that have only a couple of surviving examples which are adequately covered on the main article on the type. It looks like the anonymous editor creating these manufacturer-based lists was also recently involved in a bad-faith PROD of an aircraft type article. It would be good for the folks involved in creating and maintaining lists of preserved aircraft could generate some consensus on thesholds of when to split from type articles, and also agree not to create manufacturer lists like this one. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the list only cover Boeing 7x7's? Boeing made many other aircraft types, so shouldn't they be covered in the list is kept? Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. This arbitrariness is another argument against these manufacturer-based lists IMHO. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've updated the article to be based on other aircraft Boeing series aircraft, not just 7x7's 220.244.141.72 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per @Reywas92 and @gidonb 220.244.141.72 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per @220.244.141.72, @Reywas92 and @gidonb Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a few sources to justify WP:LISTN through a quick google search. From the nom's perspective, I can understand how the article as written was focusing on the 707's. But AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets LISTN and works better as a collection rather than splitting into separate lists for each aircraft series/type. Sounder Bruce 05:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Potter[edit]

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Try https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ > https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/27/ > his name in Maryland newspapers. The Frederick News-Post seems to carry the most coverage, with hundreds of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- based on his position as a county executive, I expected to give a delete opinion as that's the normal outcome for such roles. But a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post suggests he was considered notable beyond the typical holder of such a position. The other details (Plaza named for him) wouldn't generally be enough on their own, but together with the obit pushes above the bar for GNG keep. (would not pass WP:PROF on its own). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington County is literally suburbs of Washington DC, so the existence of a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post just suggests the exact same purely local notability that any county executive in any county could always show, and is not in and of itself enough to singlehandedly determine that he's more notable than the norm. So we would need to see a hell of a lot more than just that alone. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I thought of that, but the Washington Post is not a local newspaper in the same way that say that Arlington Sun-Gazzette is. It was written by their same obituary staff as their other obituaries. I think that a look at their current obituaries will show that obituaries in the paper are dedicated to people whom they believe have more than local notability. I don't see, for instance, other local officials or former high school sports coaches there, except in the paid death notices section. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen Large[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very easy keep. This biography clears GNG and NSPORTS by more than a lot of sports bios I've seen here. There is WP:SIGCOV in The Province, Baseball America, and Sportsnet, all of which are WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Sportsnet is owned by Rogers Communications, which also owns the Toronto Blue Jays, the organization that had Large at the time that article was written. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I created this article as a redirect to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players, but I don't think Large is notable enough for a standalone article. The Baseball America reference is a general stat page that all minor league prospects have. In my opinion we only have 2 refs contributing towards notability in terms of SIGCOV (The Province & Sportsnet). If more SIGCOV is found I do think that the article should probably be kept. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Baseball America link is an article, not a stats page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject meets the WP:GNG because of independent WP:SIGCOV from Baseball America and The Province, which each provides in-depth coverage of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never made the majors, coverage is sparse and routine. Non-notable minor league baseball player. SportingFlyer T·C 02:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia proposed deletions[edit]