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:

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|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

Purge page cache

watch

Texas

The Murdocks

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

There's reliable coverage from The Austin Chronicle, including this EP review, but most of it is very brief concert announcements. Outside of that, I couldn't find anything of value. Seems the band was prominent locally but never broke through outside of their city. It's at least a step above GARAGEBAND, but I still don't think it's enough. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Professional Landmen

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

Purely promotional article with only primary sources; the current version of the article is already a cut-down version of even more promotional material seen here: Special:Diff/755821962. Could find no secondary sources on Google LR.127 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. LR.127 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Landman (oil worker) - These two are essentially saying the same thing about the subject matter. We don't need two articles on the subject. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Prager

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

No independent sources found since article creation in 2006. No indication of notablity. Hipal (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate issues here: notability, and sourcing.

I would Keep on the basis of notability. This would be on the basis of his role in founding Revision3 (we have articles on the other two founders). Being the son of Dennis Prager is certainly interesting, but doesn't convey notability. I'm sure his prominent parent was a help to his career, but I don't see it as crucial enough for a "famous son" article.

Poor sourcing would still be a reason to delete, so I'm neutral on that one. Although I'd be surprised if it can't be improved to an acceptable level. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And who told you that sourcing and notability are two separate issues? A lack of quality sources implies that the subject isn't notable. It doesn't matter whether the other founders have articles, because they're not the subjects of this AfD. I also don't see why I should care about what companies he's affiliated with, because notability is not transitive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, atrociously poor sourcing, and I can't find anything better out there either. I will reconsider if somebody with better search skills than mine should turn up one or two secondary reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject. Bishonen | tålk 22:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Computing, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I seconded the proposal to delete because of the poor sourcing. Just because one or two founders of a company are notable due to significant coverage, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all of them are notable. I would not oppose a redirect to an appropriate target article. Bearian (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP: GNG, can't find good sources either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Revision3 article. Suitable alternative to deletion and the article subject is already mentioned there. Pavlor (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy's Building Supply

(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 Cutlass ^Ciera 01:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local news stories and PR items this was about all I could find [1]. No sourcing in the article now we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is new. Granted, needs work. Local/regional news stories: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Listed as one of USA's top retailers: [10] 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. Cutlass ^Ciera 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crispy Concords

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

Non-notable YouTuber. Some minor coverage in gaming-adjacent sources, but the coverage I could find was either not in-depth or took the form of listicles - Nothing enough to meet WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Best source I could find is the Dexerto source, number 7 now in the article. Dexerto is a marginally RS and not really used for BLP [11]. So we just don't have enough sources for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to locate reliable sources to establish notability. I found this, but as I said. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As much as I love watching this guy's TikTok Bingo videos, I don't see GNG being met, sadly. E_F⁵ 01:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Here

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

Non notable YouTuber with noting close to notability requirement. Majority of the sources are primary to his YouTube videos and websites announcing events. Wanted to put it up for CSD A7 but thought that bringing it here for general discussion will be better Mekomo (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United States of America. Mekomo (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, California, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in RS that I can find, most of the sources used in the article are primary or in non-RS. Don't quite seem to have notability for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Quickly fails on WP:A7 citing YouTube are not reliable sources. Royiswariii Talk! 22:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, Most of the sources in the article are unreliable. Baqi:) (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Asa Vines

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

Not notable business person. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran McNulty

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

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On first read I thought the discovery of "'hobbit'-like primates" mentioned (I think it must be Homo floresiensis that is meant?) must surely have generated GNG, but it looks like that might just be a mistake; according to D'Alto, Nick. In Search of Hobbits. Odyssey, Oct2009, Vol. 18, Issue 8, p6-8 (via Ebsco) he is just commenting on the discovery in the University of Minnesota News. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A quick WP:BEFORE check shows that the article at the time of nomination buried the lede: he is a full professor (research) at University of Minnesota (an R1 research school) and also department chair (and possibly was head of undergraduate studies at some point too), which, with the "hobbit-primate" research (which made national news if I remember, and there is evidence that this research was covered with McNulty's name attached in Nature) is of a research profile significantly above the average professor. A quick search finds news articles about invited speakerships for him, etc.[12] -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of being a full professor, department chair, or giving invited talks at universities satisfies any of the notability criteria in WP:NPROF, they are all routine. As pointed out by @Espresso Addict he was not a coauthor on the "hobbit" paper, and making a comment on another paper is certainly not even close to notable. Please check carefully the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Ldm1954 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., as a quick clarification, WP:NPROF#C6 is specific that being a Dean is not a proof of notability, so department chair certainly is not. Being a full professor does not satisfy WP:NPROF#C5, and departmental colloquia are excluded by WP:NPROF#C1e. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mscuthbert Is McNulty a co-author on any of these papers? He certainly wasn't on the original Nature publications on Homo floresiensis cited in our article [13][14]. Just being quoted as an expert on a topic in the media is not usually held to confer notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. 149 publications in google scholar seems to be a significant number, and his citation count is high for a low citation field. I think this would probably meet criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be around the average professor in this area. Here are the Scopus stats for McNulty and his 80 coauthors with ≥15 papers:

Total citations: average: 3110, median: 1975, McNulty: 1121.

Total papers: 70, 53, 46.

h-index: 26, 23, 19.

Top 5 papers: 1st: 399, 245, 142. 2nd: 258, 197, 85. 3rd: 186, 144, 68. 4th: 150, 121, 62. 5th: 128, 100, 58.

JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He got a little press for his analysis (not discovery) of Homo floresiensis but he's not even cited in that article (unlike his coauthor on the analysis Karen Baab). I don't think this is enough for WP:PROF#C1 and if we're going to try to claim WP:GNG-based notability based on this then I think it falls short of passing WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Language Monitor

AfDs for this article:

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

"Company" identifies no product or marketable service, notes no clients, as of October 2024 has no recent web or social media presence, url is for sale. Sources are dead and unrecoverable. It does however seem to have been a prolific producer of press releases and had garnered some publicity. Just no evidence it has ever existed as a real company. Doprendek (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I share the nominator's skepticism about the company's status as a company. However, claims attributed to this company have been reported frequently in the media. This in turn has triggered numerous debunkings in the linguistics blogosphere, as well as posts complaining more generally about the company's tendency towards misinformation. This isn't quite the gold standard of SIGCOV, but it's in the ballpark. Additionally, I think there's an IAR argument to be made in favour of keeping, namely that the article (if well-maintained) could help journalists vet their sources. Botterweg (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a defunct website that Language Log didn't like 15 years ago. Is there any more to be said? Older versions of this article have excessively-long wordlists from their website added by promotional editing, but nothing interesting about the company. Just because it is cited more than twice doesn't mean it meets GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to support keeping this just because non-US sources mistakenly believed it to be something it was not; but I acknowledge that if there are enough of those sources there will not be consensus to delete. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several analysis of this company in Gscholar, [15], [16] were the first two that came up. They seem like RS, in Russian I think. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some book mentions of their world language clock [17]. Sounds interesting, too bad it's not around anymore. Oaktree b (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a promotional book written by the company's CEO, so it's not an independent source. Botterweg (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you combine it with the other sources, it helps give context. The first two in my first comment are fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have the same (2 out of 3) authors. If the organization still existed we could see if these folks "happen" to be directly associated with it. Also, the second one is really poor in content - reads like an undergraduate paper, really. I'm not willing to see these as significant. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The choices here are between the derision of American linguists (some of whom I know to have bona fides) and the praise of folks publishing in "European Publisher", where the remainder of that site has some dubious grammar and has all of the hallmarks of a non-serious enterprise. For example, on the EP web site one of the subjects they claim to publish in is Education, but when you click on Education you are told there are no publications. Various other links also open blank pages. The claim is that EP is based in the UK - all of the editors, staff, and any authors I saw are Russian. Sorry to bang on about this, but I'm guessing "predatory publication." Lamona (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

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