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. 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Texas/archive

Audio of the JFK assassination (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)

WP:FORK about a nonnotable conspiracy theory. Zero WP:RSs in the article (other than general background on the assassination), and I could find none in the wild referencing this either. EEng 19:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Crime, Police, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find reliable sources about the work mentioned in the article. At best WP:UNDUE coverage of a small part of John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Corti (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 am unable to find enough independent coverage of this Belgian footballer to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Belgium, France, California, and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Our subject does not meet the notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taseer Badar (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 subject doesn't match WP:GNG and WP:NBIO.

Superficial accolades and self-promotion shouldn't form the basis for a Wikipedia BLP. The overwhelming reliance on press releases, self-published notices (such as Aggie100.com), and local business media results in an article that reads more like a CV than an encyclopedic entry. The awards listed, while seemingly numerous, come largely from promotional or local sources, which raise questions about their substantive relevance and genuine impact. Also, some awards appear to be linked to organizations with potential conflicts of interest.

The citations from Bloomberg and the Houston Business Journal, though reasonably reputable, fail to provide the depth of third-party analytical coverage required for notability. Given the heavy reliance on WP:PRIMARY SOURCES and promotional material, the article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines.

In my WP:BEFORE search, I found nothing to improve the article. Rather the opposite. Pollia (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Pakistan. Pollia (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Transportation, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG, no coverage in independent media except self published press release. Clearly not notable. Herinalian (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pervis Taylor (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 is what appears to be a promotional article, with very questionable sources ranging from blogs to an Amazon listing. Does not appear to pass WP:NAUTHOR, nor WP:MUSICBIO. When conducting a before search, I've had no luck coming up with anything even remotely approaching WP:SIGCOV. Kylemahar902 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Texas. Kylemahar902 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clear paid-for WP:ADMASQ for a non-notable motivational speaker. No pass on any WP:NBIO SNGs, and I only see one source that might be WP:SIGCOV, but it appears non-independent given the promotional material that it includes. (Plus, seen in today's light the headline "From Diddy dreams to transforming teens" is quite unfortunate.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Dawson (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)

Sources provided are insufficient for general notability guideline as shown by source analysis (below), in which at most one source is acceptable. WP:BEFORE did not retrieve better sources, in particular for Jet ski at the 2023 SEA Games which one would expect some recent coverage about.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Bri

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dawndawsond2/	subject's SPS can not be used for notability	claims about education do not have an exception in WP:ABOUTSELF	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
http://www.reflectionsadvertising.com/works/	not independent; employer	presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material	has part of subject's name in email address, no other bio details	✘ No
https://aafcos.com/past-winners-silver-medal-award/	not independent; uses awarding org. as citation of award	presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material	provides a year and a name, no details about what was award-worthy	✘ No
https://www.csbj.com/2001/09/28/how-a-co-springs-ad-agency-owner-became-a-world-champion-jet-skier/		Business Journal generally reliable	Dead link, not archived, can not be retrieved for assessment	? Unknown
https://www.ijsba.com/results/2000/results2000wf_overall_expert.htm	source states that this subj is an affiliate of their org (see quote)	presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material	passing mention: "The event is being organized, in part, by longtime IJSBA announcer (and racer) Dawn Dawson..."	✘ No
https://www.ijsba.com/flora-bama-grand-prix-this-weekend-april-13-15-pensacola-florida/	coverage of org's own event	presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material	passing mention of announcer at an event	✘ No
http://mulletwrapper.net/emerald-coast-grand-prix-jet-ski-race-april-13-15-at-bama/		local alt-weekly not considered reliable. At RSN another editor said "somewhat reliable for coverage of its local area" which could mean reliable for the fact that they announced the event.	passing mention of announcer/coordinator for an event	✘ No
http://nzjetski.co.nz/2012-nz-jet-sports-nationals			passing mention: "The Canterbury Club flew the lovely international jet ski announcer Dawn Dawson all the way from her home in the USA, Dawn kept the large crowd informed and entertained all weekend with her cheeky banter."	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNYnCj7Bk8A	Independence of un-authenticated YT uploader is impossible to determine (possibly pseudonymous).	YouTube clips can not be used for notability (WP:YOUTUBE) with rare exceptions. This is an upload by some individual of their personal video and should be treated as non-reliable SPS.	the subject's name is credited in the video description as an announcer, nothing more	✘ No
https://www.csindy.com/Promoted/archives/2018/08/07/local-announcer-dawn-dawson-goes-to-indonesia-for-2018-asian-games		local alt-weekly Colorado Springs Independent, not useful for notability		✘ No
https://www.ijsba.com/australian-national-championships-april-29-30/	about own event: "the AJSBA is proud to once again present the highest level of jetsports competition in Australia says President"	presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material	passing mention: "This year we welcome... Dawn Dawson providing expert commentary..."	✘ No
http://www.blowsionsurfslam.com/news/	website about own event	presumed reliable on basic facts	passing mention: "Esteemed Surfslam announcers Mike Young and Dawn Dawson will be on hand all weekend assisting the web stream" (archived)	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

☆ Bri (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I tried to find an archived link for that colarado springs business journal link on wayback machine and in the csbj's own archives, but failed. I agree with the source review that the other references are passing, promotional or not-independent. --Spacepine (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Women, Television, Advertising, Colorado, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Snediker (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)

Fails WP:PROF pretty clearly and probably WP:BASIC as well. Sources present are largely blog posts or proofs of publication. A short search shows that other available sources don't appear to have significance or independence from the subject. The overall language leads me to suspect COI editing as well. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This subject has a chapbook that was a finalist for the Lamba Literary Award. I’ll make a search now as there are possibilities of passing WP:NAUTHOR. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Canada, Maryland, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The book "Queer Optimism" has 377 citns in Google Scholar; I think that's pretty high for the field, and will probably mean there are many published reviews; just from PQ there are Matz, Jesse.  Modernism/Modernity; Baltimore Vol. 17, Iss. 3, (Sep 2010): 690-692 & Cui, Lily.  Essays in Criticism; Oxford Vol. 59, Iss. 4, (Oct 2009): 363. & Hammill, Graham. Postmodern Culture. ; Baltimore Vol. 19, Iss. 1, (Sep 2008). DOI:10.1353/pmc.0.0032 as well as a lot of commentary. His other book Contingent Figure has two reviews in PQ: Mullaney, Clare.  The Emily Dickinson Journal; Baltimore Vol. 31, Iss. 1, (2022): 67-70. & McLaughlin, Don James.  Genre Vol. 55, Iss. 2, (2022): 173-78. There's also, according to the article, two nominations for the Pushcart Prize, Lambda Literary Awards Finalist for Best Gay Poetry, as well as the win of Poets Out Loud prize; not sure what the last is, perhaps [1], but the other two look significant. I think WP:AUTHOR is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Espresso Addict. There are plenty of reviews on Proquest and Google Scholar for both of his books Contingent Figure: Chronic Pain & Queer Embodiment ([2] [3] [4]) and Queer Optimism: Lyric Personhood & Other Felicitous Persuasions ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9]). I also found at least one review of his poetry [10]. Combined with the awards I think it's a clear pass of WP:NAUTHOR. MCE89 (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Alexander (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)

Many of the sources are written by the subject. Other sources are links to her Ted Talk or "Best of" lists that include movies for which she was screenwriter. What remains does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Truthnope (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Truthnope (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Other sources are links to her Ted Talk or "Best of" lists that include movies for which she was screenwriter. Doesn’t this meet the criteria for filmmakers § 3? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if that counts as being significant or well-known. The article says of Alexander's Memories of Christmas, "This film has been named on several “Best of Hallmark Christmas movies” lists, including “10 Must-See Hallmark Movies that Celebrate Diversity and Inclusion.” These are listicles, not significant coverage. That criterion also requires that the work or body of work "must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". I wouldn't count these "Best of" lists as reviews. Truthnope (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is highly promotional, and many sources do not even include her name much less information about her. There are a lot of unverified statements, like that she wrote the Hallmark movie, and I can't find a source for that. (It's not in IMDB, and writers' credit wasn't on the Hallmark site.) There are a few websites that list her Tedx talk as a resource, but that's all. I can find only brief mention of any of her books so she isn't notable as an author. Lamona (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Inserra (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 fails WP:GNG and does not meet guidelines of WP:NGYMNAST, which appears to be the purported claim to fame. Citations are brief mentions at best with a search uncovering no significant coverage of subject. GauchoDude (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, de-PRODed by Ingratis without addressing any of the issues raised. Adding for awareness. GauchoDude (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - PRODs are for uncontroversial deletions only. There is enough here to suggest the possibility of notability, and that deletion might not be uncontroversial, so more eyes on the article would be beneficial. See WP:PROD and WP:ATD. I have no other opinion on the article or the subject. Ingratis (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the edit summary. Adding for awareness. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, this is uncontroversial as stated in the PROD summary. It squarely falls under WP:DEL-REASON as the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. More than happy to go through the process with as many eyes as needed. While I haven't gone through this process as many times as others, usually when I encounter a WP:DEPROD there is some sort of evidence provided to counter the PROD which wasn't done here so it's outside what I've typically experienced. GauchoDude (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the page clearly meets notability requirements.

  This athlete is notable due to being both the first elite acrobatic gymnast from Texas ever as well as the first men’s pair from the United States to final in a world championship. Sources below:

  https://www.nelson.edu/news/alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/

  https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/athletes/bio_detail.php?id=32153

  https://www.aicag.edu/alumni-stories/68-alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/

  https://usagym.org/history/u-s-acrobatic-worlds-rosters/

  Subject also qualifies as notable as he won his country's “senior all-around or individual event finals national championship while competing for a country that qualified a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships” twice in a row, in 2009 and 2010 - https://usagym.org/history/championships-acrobatic/ 2601:140:8400:4320:4D9A:9A66:A637:9E47 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This gymnast is notable due to being both the first elite acrobatic gymnast from Texas ever as well as the first men's pair from the United States to final in a world championship.

Sources below:

[11]https://www.nelson.edu/news/alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/

[12]https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/athletes/bio_detail.php?id=32153

[https://usagym.org/history/u-s-acrobatic-worlds-rosters/https://usagym.org/history/u-s-acrobatic-worlds-rosters/

Subject qualifies as notable because

"Subject won their country's senior all-around or individual event finals national championship in 2009 and 2010 while competing for a country that qualified a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships"

https://+usagym.org/history/championships-acrobatic/ 2603:8080:7400:223D:9C97:5C6A:6714:DDD7 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources support notability, which requires coverage be independent. JoelleJay (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Point of clarification on the previous user above JoelleJay's argument stemming from WP:NGYMNAST - The assumption of significant coverage applies only to cases of artistic gymnasts, as stated in the first line. Regardless of the assumption, each individual subject must be held to WP:SIGCOV. GauchoDude (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 15:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, as the creator, my vote is delete. I would imagine that's implied as the OP, but wanted to spell out for clarity. Additionally, JoelleJay looks to also be a delete, bringing the total to two in favor of delete.

There appear to be two, anonymous WP:SPA whose only contributions between the two of them in all of Wikipedia are this discussion. That seems oddly specific and niche and someone may want to look into that, but given that they posted nearly identical content, I think it's safe to say it was likely one person who may have had a technological glitch. I think it's safe to say they're a vote for keep.

Original deprod user Ingratis has not to date taken a position, but moreso put this to a procedural AfD.

For me, for any further voters or the closing admin, no one has yet addressed the lack of WP:SIGCOV for this individual. The links provided above were not substantial enough to warrant an article and two, (here and here) appear to be the same article on two separate websites whose main topic isn't even about the subject here of which they're literally mentioned one time. Without an establishment of WP:GNG via sources, which is a guideline, this article goes against WP:V, which is a policy. GauchoDude (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Re GauchoDude's remark above, I have no view one way or the other and will not be giving a !vote. I de-PRODded simply because it seemed quite possible that there might be further significant coverage which could be brought to light by an AfD discussion. If so, fine. If not, also fine. Ingratis (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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