Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

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:
  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:
Purge page cache watch


Texas

Danny Oyekan

Danny Oyekan (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)

Appears to be entirely promotional and has no WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the challenge with cryptocurrency enterprenuers. This fellow has been building and gaining recognition for it since 2017, what else is sustained notabillity? WP:SUSTAINED
It also sufficiently satisfies WP:NOTPROMOTION. Oyindebrah (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Oyindebrah:I am still finding it very difficult to understand how this article is not promotional? Or are there any other sources apart from those listed in the article? Ok, let's take a brief look at them. Shall we?
  • Source 1 is a promotional piece. The lead of the article clearly started with puffy sentences: Danny Oyekan can be said to have the entrepreneurial spirit ingrained in him from birth. How is that even possible? Another one: He was amongst the first wave of Bitcoin investors and is considered a pioneer in establishing the use of virtual currency in the African market. Who named him pioneer?
  • Source 2 is unreliable and full of promotional pieces. From the first sentence Danny Oyekan is a trailblazing tech entrepreneur, investor, passionate advocate for blockchain technology, and founding Chairman of Dan Holdings to the last His journey serves as an inspiration to aspiring entrepreneurs and cryptocurrency enthusiasts, showcasing the transformative power of embracing emerging technologies and forging one's path to success are purely promotional.
  • 4 and 5: promotional pieces, Daniel Oyekan’s journey in the world of investment is rooted in his belief in the potential of new technologies and groundbreaking ideas. I also find it very odd that two independent news media will publish the same post words for words. It can only happen if a PR is involved.
I am able to access source 3 and I can confirm that it is a sponsored post. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://fij.ng/article/dubai-based-daniel-oyekan-borrowed-40000-from-friend-then-vanished/
https://tribuneonlineng.com/daniel-oyekans-coins-app-sparks-global-social-payments-revolution/
https://guardian.ng/news/we-believe-fintech-is-the-future-dan-holdings-danny-oyekan/#google_vignette Oyindebrah (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oyindebrah, this doesn’t cut it. We need independent, secondary significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah L. Turbiville

Deborah L. Turbiville (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)

A person only notable for one event. And, per WP:CRIM, she is not well known, and the motivation for her crime does not appear unusual. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•I agree that this page is not relevant and should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4E3C:CC10:0:0:0:1F (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Fleischer (judge)

David Fleischer (judge) (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 of the article is not notable enough to warrant an article. WP:JUDGE notes that local elected officials are not presumed to be notable merely by their status. WP:SUSTAINED notes that notable topics must "have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time"; the sources in this article indicate that the subject of the article is only known for one event (chastising police in reference 6 by Yasmeen) and the rest of the sources are interviews or entries in databases like the state bar. WP:BLP1E applies here as Fleischer is only known for one event. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the notable thing about this guy is that he's on the streaming sites and getting attention for his videos. ABC News recently did a piece on him[1]. He got other coverage in either June or October (website gives both) in the Atlanta Black Star[2]. There's very little secondary stuff out there about him that I could identify. Oblivy (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The videos are just live-streams and video clips from his court duties, which I would say are primary sources. All the news articles about him are from selected incidents of his "best moments" calling out dubious legal evidence, like the incident that generated all that media coverage in October, which feels like a WP:BLP1E moment where he has his 15 minutes of fame, generates some secondary sources, and remains low-profile. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I'm not saying he's wikipedia notable just that he has some notability and it's not merely being a humble judge as the nomination suggests. The sourcing is an issue. Oblivy (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That Atlanta Black Star article links to an earlier article about another case of Fleischer's on a similar theme, so it would seem to me that the "single event" clause of BLP1E isn't met. Note that the one that was linked by Oblivy isn't referenced in the wiki page, whereas the one I just linked is. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a pretty popular judge on YouTube where several channels cover his court proceedings. He also has his own channel where he live streams his court room. In this interview with him he talks about, among other things, his part in bail reform and other judicial reform in Texas (it's linked as a reference already, but only for bits of his personal life). Towards the end, the interview also touches on that it's pretty unique for a judge to live stream court. He responds that he does it for transparency and educational purposes to let people see how the system works and what the consequences could be, and that teachers have reached out to him regarding using his streams in classrooms. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Xxc3nsoredxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    I feel like the fact that several channels simply clip and repost his courtroom stream doesn't really do much in terms of notability, since I would consider them primary sources that aren't about him. Should every judge on Court Cam have their own wiki page? Him having his own YouTube channel also doesn't matter since the source is not independent from the subject - not even mentioning that it's not a source for the article. As for the interview, IMO his opinions on judicial reform have no bearing on whether or not to delete the article. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that at least some channels go beyond simply reposting. They provide an avenue for discussing specific cases/outcomes, (light) editorializing by giving a brief summary of what they think are specific points of interest, as well as commentary on how they think he's growing as a professional and where he might be falling short. I would consider it a point towards notability that others take the time to analyze his character. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I thought he met the general notability criteria rather than the criteria under judge. But I agree that it's not amazing sourcing. SMasonGarrison 13:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - I've had a look at the sourcing of the article and think I have a pretty good idea of what is out there and I don't think it meets standards for notability. There are some YouTube videos, the ABC video, and some niche and local media talking about him. Meanwhile his article makes him look like boring local judge but but at the moment his fame seems to be as a streamer. He may easily pass our standards soon enough, if he gets some quality news stories about him, in which case it could go back to article space in preferably through new page creation. Oblivy (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is an extremely popular judge, there have been many stories on him in media. He is covered in many channels on Youtube and other social media. His content is widely shared and followed. The article needs to be improved, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Wordsworth1990 (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) — Wordsworth1990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Being popular on YouTube does not contribute to notability, nor does being mentioned in other YouTube videos. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I just overhauled the page, and I think as it stands currently, it meets notability. There are plenty of secondary sources (ABC, Houston Chronicle, Bolt, Houston Public Media), and I think they all contribute to notability. Plus, I removed some of the not-great sources and replaced them with more reputable ones. I also think his online virality should be 1 of many factors that add to his notability. Some people did not like the ABC News video as a source, but plenty of Wikipedia pages use videos as sources. I think a national news organization interviewing the person is a viable source. Plus, what was used was limited to what the ABC News host said. I think before the updates, the page should have stayed, but after the update, I still think it should stay and address concerns of people who voted to delete. Bpuddin (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments of the keeper !voters are not holding waters yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't understand how the Keep votes are not "holding water." Plenty of secondary sources have been added to the page, and a profile of Fleischer from the Houston Chronicle published recently (and added to the page) shows notability. This is in addition to the ABC News interview and other sources highlighting Fleischer. If anything, the Delete people's arguments are not holding water when they say he only has one notable thing about him (his viral videos). If you look at the updated page, there is more than just his viral videos; there are his elections and the fact that he helped push for bail reform in Houston, which was part of an attack during his following election. At this point, the extension of the comment period is unnecessary since there was previously a consensus to keep his page. The people who vote to delete the page should have better arguments to show why the current page should be deleted.Bpuddin (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Humphrey

Julian Humphrey (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)

Draftify as I am struggling to find much of any in-depth coverage of the subject, failing WP:GNG. Despite the WP:REFBOMB, everything that comes up is basic coverage of either his college commitment (or de-commitment) or his transfer to another school, with some quotes and stats sprinkled in. This is what we would call "routine transactional announcements" in other sports. JTtheOG (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy's Building Supply

McCoy's Building Supply (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)

Clearly fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of this company anywhere online CutlassCiera 01:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is new. Granted, needs work. Local/regional news stories: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]
Listed as one of USA's top retailers: [12] Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And national news^ Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://familybusinessmagazine.com/growth/supplied-for-success/ Tejano512 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A little too quick on the deletion-axe there, as this is a brand new article still being worked on, when it was put up for deletion here. I just surfed the internet and found many mentions of this company, branched in Texas and multiple other states. The article could use more work, but the business is legitimate and a pretty big operation overall. — Maile (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are PR-type articles, and the few others that are local sources don't provide enough for significant coverage. An announcement claiming that a company had made a donation does not provide notability and significant coverage. CutlassCiera 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated abv, new sources have been added. Are more sources needed? A good amount of articles are industry news and not PR. Tejano512 (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. While it could definitely be improved (judging from the AI use) and more reliable sources should be added, WP:ORGCRIT requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" for a company to be notable. I think the article's current citations suffice for this requirement. Additionally, this article was only created around two weeks ago; let it breathe a little more. Beachweak (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The coverage fall short of required threshold for WP:NCORP. The sources are PR articles and just two[13][14] appear to be independent with WP:SIGCOV but not sure of their reliability in terms of RS. And even if those two are reliable it still not enough to sustain the article. Mekomo (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The sources are not very robust, so I agree that the article falls short of WP:NCORP. However, since USA Today lists it as one of America's top retailers, there's certainly some potential (once better sources can be found).--DesiMoore (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I see no consensus here yet. It would be very helpful here if an editor put together a source assessment since I'm seeing different feedback on the adequacy of the sources in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Texas