Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Texas

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Texas/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Texas

Kim Mingyo

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

No indication of notability for this athlete, other than amateur collegiate titles in a non-NCAA sport. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Texas, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly J. Stoeltje

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

Fails WP:NPROF. No coverage. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and no indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Asa Vines

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

Not notable business person. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Arsement

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

Fails WP:NBIO, nothing really significant just a series of "he did this" or unreliable sources. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: Source three is likely a RS. the rest don't seem to be... Source six is about his wife. This [1] is a brief listing, I don't think we have enough to confirm notability needed for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple sources, in here and available. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many sources to make this article bigger 73.216.182.68 (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran McNulty

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

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On first read I thought the discovery of "'hobbit'-like primates" mentioned (I think it must be Homo floresiensis that is meant?) must surely have generated GNG, but it looks like that might just be a mistake; according to D'Alto, Nick. In Search of Hobbits. Odyssey, Oct2009, Vol. 18, Issue 8, p6-8 (via Ebsco) he is just commenting on the discovery in the University of Minnesota News. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A quick WP:BEFORE check shows that the article at the time of nomination buried the lede: he is a full professor (research) at University of Minnesota (an R1 research school) and also department chair (and possibly was head of undergraduate studies at some point too), which, with the "hobbit-primate" research (which made national news if I remember, and there is evidence that this research was covered with McNulty's name attached in Nature) is of a research profile significantly above the average professor. A quick search finds news articles about invited speakerships for him, etc.[2] -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of being a full professor, department chair, or giving invited talks at universities satisfies any of the notability criteria in WP:NPROF, they are all routine. As pointed out by @Espresso Addict he was not a coauthor on the "hobbit" paper, and making a comment on another paper is certainly not even close to notable. Please check carefully the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Ldm1954 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., as a quick clarification, WP:NPROF#C6 is specific that being a Dean is not a proof of notability, so department chair certainly is not. Being a full professor does not satisfy WP:NPROF#C5, and departmental colloquia are excluded by WP:NPROF#C1e. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mscuthbert Is McNulty a co-author on any of these papers? He certainly wasn't on the original Nature publications on Homo floresiensis cited in our article [3][4]. Just being quoted as an expert on a topic in the media is not usually held to confer notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Latham

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

His soccer career was not notable at all, having only played 172 minutes in Revolution, as well as a friendly goal that can't be the basis of a Wikipedia article. I don't think the local news source cuts it GNG-wise, as it is an everyday piece of coverage with the majority being a Q&A interview. It would take much more making this meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to All-time New England Revolution roster as possible search term. Giant Snowman 10:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. All-time New England Revolution roster would not be an appropriate target article as it has been PROD'd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been replaced by List of New England Revolution players, so redirect there instead. Giant Snowman 21:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Language Monitor

AfDs for this article:

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

"Company" identifies no product or marketable service, notes no clients, as of October 2024 has no recent web or social media presence, url is for sale. Sources are dead and unrecoverable. It does however seem to have been a prolific producer of press releases and had garnered some publicity. Just no evidence it has ever existed as a real company. Doprendek (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I share the nominator's skepticism about the company's status as a company. However, claims attributed to this company have been reported frequently in the media. This in turn has triggered numerous debunkings in the linguistics blogosphere, as well as posts complaining more generally about the company's tendency towards misinformation. This isn't quite the gold standard of SIGCOV, but it's in the ballpark. Additionally, I think there's an IAR argument to be made in favour of keeping, namely that the article (if well-maintained) could help journalists vet their sources. Botterweg (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a defunct website that Language Log didn't like 15 years ago. Is there any more to be said? Older versions of this article have excessively-long wordlists from their website added by promotional editing, but nothing interesting about the company. Just because it is cited more than twice doesn't mean it meets GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to support keeping this just because non-US sources mistakenly believed it to be something it was not; but I acknowledge that if there are enough of those sources there will not be consensus to delete. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several analysis of this company in Gscholar, [5], [6] were the first two that came up. They seem like RS, in Russian I think. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some book mentions of their world language clock [7]. Sounds interesting, too bad it's not around anymore. Oaktree b (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a promotional book written by the company's CEO, so it's not an independent source. Botterweg (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you combine it with the other sources, it helps give context. The first two in my first comment are fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The choices here are between the derision of American linguists (some of whom I know to have bona fides) and the praise of folks publishing in "European Publisher", where the remainder of that site has some dubious grammar and has all of the hallmarks of a non-serious enterprise. For example, on the EP web site one of the subjects they claim to publish in is Education, but when you click on Education you are told there are no publications. Various other links also open blank pages. The claim is that EP is based in the UK - all of the editors, staff, and any authors I saw are Russian. Sorry to bang on about this, but I'm guessing "predatory publication."

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Dallas Contemporary (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
KDDM (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)