Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Veterans Hall of Fame

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As has been noted, we can only have articles on topics that independent reliable sources have discussed in some detail. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Veterans Hall of Fame

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article seems WP:TOOSOON to me. All the sources I can find are a few local news sources talking about the plans to build the Texas Veteran's Hall of Fame, which does not seem to offer the significant coverage for either the building or the organization that is required by WP:GNG. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I truly do not understand why the TVHOF is AFD

The Texas Veterans Hall of Fame (TVHOF) exists today and has since the beginning of 2018. The TVHOF is a Self-Sustaining Nonprofit 501C3. It is comprised of an unpaid eight member board of directors and a number of dedicated unpaid volunteers. Currently the physical TVHOF is a movable display of panels depicting the conflicts where Texas Veterans were involved and a custom mobile trailer with a similar set of displays. The permanent home for the TVHOF is under final discussion with 2 northern Texas city councils. The TVHOF is small, but, evolving. We appreciate your support.

movable display
custom mobile trailer

I don't understand the WP:TOOSOON part. I'm looking back at the history of various organizations. e.g. Twitter in Feb. 2007, or, Splunk in Apr. 2005. Talk about "too soon". Was there a WP:TOOSOON problem with them at that time? Splunk only got series A funding in Dec. 2004. Please explain further. Thanks

Gary J Hardy (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this organisation is going to be as significant as Twitter you had better find an independent commentator to say so. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- My reference to Twitter/Splunk was an example of a WP article that was started way before they were anything. There is no independent commentator for the TVHOF. It's a non-profit. Was there an independent commentator who started the WP articles for Twitter/Splunk? Most of us helping to get the TVHOF off the ground are Vietnam Veterans and member of VVA Chapter 920. Would it be better if I wasn't asked to be on the board of the TVHOF? Gary J Hardy (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In order for a subject to have notability, articles must have independent coverage in third-party reliable sources. It's a noble cause, but where's the coverage about why it's significant? This article fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not the place to spread information about something you're getting off the ground. We don't create notable subjects; we report on them. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- It's off the ground. It's been reported on by local televisions and newspapers. How large TVHOF will become is hard to say. I'm simply trying to report on it via WP. Sorry you don't see it that way. Gary J Hardy (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - we don't report on "what might be". Local news coverage is something, but we're also not a newspaper. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe I should reference something I have first hand knowledge about. Fortify Software I was employee #7 in Jan. 2005. The first WP article for Fortify Software was created in July 2006 by User:Davedonohue (no longer a WP user). Next edit was by User:RBowen a full-time Fortify employee at that time. Conflict of interest never noted in that case. In July 2006 I'm pretty sure we had only 3 sales and Series A funding. Odds were the market would never understand or be willing to pay for a static analysis tool. No crystal ball needed, but, somehow it all worked out. Oh wait! Holy Crap. I also edited the Fortify Software article. Definitely a conflict of interest. Gary J Hardy (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Gary J Hardy: Since you've brought up the COI notice I placed multiple times, I think it's worth clarifying: I did not recommend the article be deleted because because of your COI, but because I don't think the article's topic currently met our notability requirement. You are not entitled to a Wikipedia article simply because your organization exists, but must meet our minimum threshold of notability. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion.
      - This is not to say that this topic will not merit an article in the future. It certainly seems entirely plausible that it will.
      - And of course we're not always perfect at enforcing our policies and guidelines and they have not remained constant over the last decade; they have in fact changed significantly over the last decade. But we do what we can; we're volunteers. I understand it's disappointing to have an article you created for an organization you support deleted, but I hope you can understand. Retro (talk | contribs) 23:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or alternatively userfy until such a time that reliable sources can be found. There appears to be weak coverage in local sources, but not to the point of satisfying WP:GNG. The majority of the content reads like an unsourced essay rather than as an encyclopedia article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current article is written in future tense.. such and such “will” be done. We can’t/don’t host stuff like that. I read one of the local news articles, which mentions the board has just four original members and that one hopes it will grow. It is not a going concern, it is just an idea so far. It is appropriate for us to wish them well, maybe, but it is not an established thing and Wikipedia can’t be used to promote it. —Doncram (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, i read all three “news” articles in the external links section and they do not support statements in the article and above about the initiative actually being "on". They are really human interest news articles, not hard news. They just establish that a few veterans would like to do something, which is not basis for a wikipedia article. They don't even adequately support the assertion that the board has 4 or 8 members or that it has any display panels or that it has done anything; no fact-checking was done by the Denton Record Chronicle, they are just reporting what someone said, they are not on the line in to assert the truth of what was said to them.

Further, this is in effect a request for wikipedia to endorse this initiative and these people. To play devil’s advocate, maybe this initiative is in fact "bad" for cluttering up the situation and undermining chances for other, better initiatives to succeed. Another group might have more substantial resources or strategy or appeal and potential to succeed. If you want to reach youth so they understand better about veterans or past wars, perhaps it would be better to make a small donation to PBS, say, or one of many Youtube-based military history video producers. So we cannot endorse this one idea. —Doncram (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.