Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Alabama
Points of interest related to Alabama on Wikipedia: Outline – Index – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Alabama. 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|Alabama|~~~~}} 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.
- Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Alabama.
- 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.
watch |
Alabama[edit]
Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)[edit]
On-Demand Trading[edit]
- On-Demand Trading (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)
Doesn't meet WP:NORG. The sources are all paid PRs. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 06:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 06:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: These are press releases. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Alabama, Florida, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly fails WP:NORG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. -- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. 2 primary sources + 5 copies of the same press release ≠ notability. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly feel like this should be speedy delete on A7/G11 grounds, but I guess since it's already here may as run it for the full 7 days so it's G4 as well next time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Patrick Braxton[edit]
- Patrick Braxton (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)
Falls clearly within WP:SINGLEEVENT. Braxton is notable only for one event - the controversy over his mayoral election. He is not even notable for being mayor, as he has done nothing significant in his capacity as mayor (likely due to the controversy), and the position of mayor of this tiny town is not itself notable. The controversy is currently covered in the Newbern, Alabama, article, which is the appropriate place for that. There is no need to have this separate article whose subject is not notable. Ergo Sum 03:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but consider a page move (outside of AfD). This is a WP:BLP1E but the guidance on that gives three arms to consider as to whether the subject should have an article:
On point (1) the nom is correct. Reliable sources only cover the subject with respect to this event. It is a BLP1E. On (2) I am unconvinced. It appears likely that the town will be forced to hold elections and the subject could win such elections, and that this would be notable and covered widely. That is speculation at this stage and WP:TOOSOON applies, but I don't think it is likely they will return to a low profile. On (3) the event is, in fact, quite significant, and is already reasonably well documented, although largely in primay sources.So I think coverage of this is due. But the nom. also correctly points out it is covered in the Newbern, Alabama page. It should be there, but the case is significant enough and notable enough that I think, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there is a good case for a spinout page that discusses this in particular. People will be referring to this event for some time to come, and although it is again TOOSOON to judge the lasting impact, it is likely to be covered in secondary sources as a notable event in its own right. So I find that some article just on the event is due. The only remaining question is whether it is due as a BLP or due as an article on the event. If the latter, this article should be moved and covered as an article on the event and not as a BLP. This is in line with other BLP1Es, e.g. Lucia de Berk case. Note also arm 2 of BLP1E actually suggest merging with an article on the event, such an article being assumed. However that discussion need not be at AfD. An RM could be opened on the page instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.- Just a word in response. I think it highly unlikely that one can say with any degree of confidence that the subject of the article is likely to become a high-profile figure. That would just be speculation and could be said about any other person or any other mayor of a tiny, rural town with less than 200 residents, which is not the standard BLP1E contemplates.
- As for the significance of the event, that too seems minor and fleeting. Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. It seems that only two large news outlets wrote articles about the controversy and there has been no sustained coverage. In any event, WP's coverage of the controversy should be in the article about the town. Ergo Sum 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Perfectly willing to accept we may be WP:TOOSOON to judge the impact. I already made that point, but I disagree that
Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS.
A quick google of the name reveals that in addition to the UK's Guardian source on the page, it is also covered in the Daily Mail (we all know what we think about that one - but note it is a right wing source), ABC News, CNN, CBS, the Wall Street Journal etc. All of these are news sources, and reporting is generally a primary source but they are all (other than the Daily Mail) reliable sources. Then we have sources like the Equal Justice Initiative [1] and many similar. Also additional information, e.g. [2] - Law & Crime. Again, we are close to the event, and that is always problematic in separating secondary sources from primary, but there is a lot of coverage of this and it is worldwide. It is simply not true that this is entirely local sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Perfectly willing to accept we may be WP:TOOSOON to judge the impact. I already made that point, but I disagree that
- Redirect to Newbern, or re-scope to include the court case ala other one events. He as a person is not notable beyond the role. Star Mississippi 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Newbern, where the entire controversy can be covered comfortably. He's not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
2007 Montgomery mayoral election[edit]
- 2007 Montgomery mayoral election (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)
Only a single source, not enough to demonstrate notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 5. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Alabama. Owen× ☎ 17:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable mayoral election (in fact, this is the first I ever heard of it). TH1980 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per WP:POLOUTCOMES. I tried several searches and yet found nothing at all. In the past, we have generally redirected individual non-notable candidates to the election article, and I see no reason why we can't do vice-versa to Bobby Bright. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more points of view on whether the proposed redirect and its target article are acceptable. I've never come across an election article being redirected to a candidate's page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete only one source and it's an excel file, only a city election, nothing to ATD here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed that other mayoral elections in Montgomery have articles, thus I suggest all these articles should be Merged to a new election overview article, Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama. Possibly something similar to Mayoral elections in Chattanooga, Tennessee or Mayoral elections in Evansville, Indiana? Samoht27 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to a newly-created Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama as that's the general practice for mid-sized American cities. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 05:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)