Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Virginia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia/Deletion sorting)
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Virginia. 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. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Virginia|~~~~}} 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 Virginia. 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


Virginia

edit

Derrick Anderson (politician)

edit
Derrick Anderson (politician) (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)

Political candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. Otherwise, there is no evidence of the subject meeting WP:GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nomination, doesn't yet meet WP:NPOL until he's won an election. An online search for reliable sources returned routine candidate coverage and interviews with Anderson, and interviews are primary sources. His previous work in the White House was as a lawyer for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and I couldn't find any SIGCOV of him in that role. The closest I came was these two articles in the Washington Post [1], [2], both of which are about the election rather than about Anderson. The sentence in WP:NPOL that declares presumed notability for "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" doesn't seem to apply here, so I don't see that as pulling him over the line for WP:NPOL, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to redirect per User:Bkissin below. Wikishovel (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Hundred

edit
Stanley Hundred (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)

One source (a historical marker database); contested merge. The location (a 1626 parish or planation) doesn't reach WP:GNG. See also discussion at User talk:Jacobsatterfield#I have sent you a note about a page you started. Klbrain (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has developed further (great!), but the references and discussion relate to a much broader topic. None of the new references have Stanley Hundred as their primary subject. Mulberry Island might be reasonable focus for an article with the existing content. So, I therefore that a merge to a broader topic, like Mulberry Island, would be better. Klbrain (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd indeed support a subsection in Mulberry Island article if the consensus is that Stanley Hundred doesn't stand by itself. It would be much more precise/applicable than the previous attempted Warwick Shire merge. For geographic reference, Stanley Hundred would be about 1300 acres out of around 8000 that comprise the entirety of Mulberry Island. For temporal reference, it's about 150 years out of 400 years of recorded history in that area. The Mulberry Island article itself could be significantly expanded with content by a willing editor, there's much more colonial history that isn't given much attention currently, not to mention the overlap with the modern usage as Fort_Eustis aka Joint Base Langley-Eustis. Contra-wise, a large and sprawling Mulberry Island article could get difficult to follow. Might suggest looking for other examples of historical places of similar size to see what works well.
Do note that the cited Richie/Colonial Williamsburg source has over ten pages dedicated specifically to Stanley Hundred, and the place has it's own historical marker separate from Mulberry Island. But I'm ultimately ambivalent to how the taxonomy of WP pages should be structured, I leave that to the editing pros.::Jacobsatterfield (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Also as a point of reference for other reviewers/commentors, see the Flowerdew Hundred Plantation article, which is Yeardley's other plantation contemporary to this one. As that other historical location is not currently on an active military base, it is a bit more visited and well known/documented than this one. As such, another viable option would be to merge all of this under their founder George Yeardley, but again it boils down to personal preferences for one huge article or several smaller ones, perhaps the Article size guidance is helpful here? Guidance/priority/experience/wise words from a senior editor on WP preference to organizing articles by geography, time-period, or biographical association would be useful, as there's no clear taxonomic preference to the overall corpus.

Jacobsatterfield (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The current version of the page easily demonstrates notability. Whether the article topic is the primary subject of its sources are irrelevant: what matters is that they discuss the topic (other than passing references, like phone-book entries) and that the sources be reliable secondary sources. All but one is secondary (the exceptions being the Virginia Company records), and all of them are reliable. In this kind of context, such sources typically discuss early settlements in detail; I strongly doubt that they merely give passing references. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There's been some effort here to improve quality and better document notability. It is now least as good as many other historic articles of similar age/scope, and the articles that link to it. Appreciate Klbrain for originally taking interest in the article and encouraging the cleanup. I'll try to visit some of the related articles such as Mulberry Island and do some better organizing soon, which this discussion has highlighted is needed. Jacobsatterfield (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would definitely have agreed on a delete if the article was still in the state it was in when it was nominated for deletion. Of course it still needs work but notability is clearly established in the current version of the article, in my opinion. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia proposed deletions

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Virginia&oldid=1245787333"