Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Virginia

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:

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|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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Virginia/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Virginia

William Smoot

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

Fails WP:NBIO, including all three prongs for WP:ANYBIO. Contains only one independent, verifiable source by Ryland (1955), who only mentions him for half a paragraph. Google only gave results for different persons under this name, as did JSTOR. I was able to find one other source from the local government, which cites Ryland. PROD was removed by an editor, who suggested bringing to AfD. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not see evidence of a WP:GNG or WP:NBIO pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to enjoy this, ThaesOfereode. Observe footnote 16 on page 251 of Ryland 1955. Then cross-reference that to the list of sources on page 351. Guess which 1902 book is Ryland's own source! ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe I missed that! Well, I think it's probably safe to say that this should probably be a delete then. Incredible. Thanks for the laugh! ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Occoquan, Virginia. Washington Post article here[1], Landmark designation of his church here[2] lists other sources. Jahaza (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth pointing out here that right now this page only links from Smoot (disambiguation) and Occoquan, Virginia in the mainspace. ThaesOfereode (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely obscure, run of the mill minister. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Coleman (radio host)

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. The subject authored a "Wall Street Journal best-seller" but I'm not sure what that is and whether that meets WP:AUTHOR notability. The page was created by an editor who is creating lots of promotional pages for figures related to Dave Ramsey. Thenightaway (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, Politics, Georgia (U.S. state), and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ramsey Show is the second-most popular radio show in the US and the hosts are well known across the country and have their own podcasts that have big audiences (which you can see from their YouTube views). I created this article because Coleman's notoriety and place as a co-host on the show warranted it.

What about this article sounded promotional? Was there too much biographical info? Are we not supposed to write that books are bestsellers? Are we not supposed to mention that certain recording artists have x amount of top 40 hits or that movies from a certain actor have made billions of dollars, for that matter? Because I've seen that on this platform as well. What is the standard?

I really want to know because I don't think the article deserves to be deleted. I'm happy adjusting to fit standards, and have attempted to do so in the past.

And I don't just edit Ramsey-related articles. I have edited and created articles on a variety of subjects from pop culture to Disney, music, etc. Ramsey was just something where I saw a need and filled it. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ramsey Solutions and/or The Ramsey Show, not seeing anything which suggests that the topic is of stand alone notability. GNG is not met and I don't think that any of the SNG are either... Best selling alone does not meet AUTHOR (you could buy your own books after all). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ramsey Show: I don't know what from this page would be WP:DUE to merge there, but a redirect is an appropriate AtD here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to a redirect if it turns out that there isn't really anything to merge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't merging these articles with The Ramsey Show article make the latter a bit large? And I have seen quite a few biographical articles that contain thinner information than Coleman's. Why are those okay?

I can try and rewrite the article and resubmit for review. I don't think it warrants deletion. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Coleman article should not remain in mainspace because as a subject he fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. But there's a valid reason per WP:ATD to redirect to a notable topic he is associated with, and it will preserve the page history if Coleman becomes notable in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with The Ramsey Show: After giving this some thought and after reviewing the GNG and SNG, I'm agreeing with this nomination. The Coleman article should be merged with The Ramsey Show, as Coleman is best known for being a co-host of the show. I will work on merging these articles by creating a section about the hosts on The Ramsey Show article and submit the article for review. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Demsas

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources. Self-auhtored articles are not enough to prove her notability. Gheus (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Multiple references show significant, not trivial, coverage in independent secondary sources, discussing her early life (references 1-5), professional career and her views and contributions to the discussion of the housing crisis. An important notability factor (WP:AUTHOR) relies on the following: The person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention. Her book has received has significant critical attention, including book reviews in major sites including Vox and Bloomberg News (ref 9), which stated that Demsas "has distinguished herself within the supply-side camp." Her overall work has led to multiple high profile interviews, including on Bloomberg (ref. 9), NPR (ref. 11) and Ezra Klein's NYTimes interview (ref. 12), indicating her work has had significant attention. Per WP:NAUTHOR, references 8 & 9 show she is known for originating a significant new concept, further enhancing her notability. Included in the article were her opinions on the housing crisis; there is no Wikipedia injunction against discussing a subject's views. There is no Wikipedia injunction against using the subject's self-authored published works in reputable publications to verify the information presented. The references discussed above were used to verify Demsas' views, not to establish notability. And, only 4/23 references even fall within that purview. In brief: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). The article meets all criteria.

I note that the first reviewer (Ipigott]) did not see a problem with this article, and later removed a tag stating that this article may not achieve notability, claiming that "del tag - no longer applicable." Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was because additional pertinent work had been carried out on the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that she meets WP:AUTHOR. A search of Newspapers.com shows a lot of columnists in other newspapers basing columns on articles by Demsas in The Atlantic and critiquing what she has written. So far I've found examples in The Indianapolis Star, The Herald-Palladium, Sun Journal (Lewiston, Maine), and The San Francisco Examiner, by 5 different columnists. I'll try to add them to the article. (Before searching, I had thought this might be a case of TOOSOON, as she joined The Atlantic only 3 years ago, in 2022. But it's clear that she very quickly had a big impact.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think added refs are examples of WP:SIGCOV. Quotes of her work in independent secondary sources are helpful to expand the article (and I'm thankful to you for doing this research), but there must be some coverage that is directly about her (preferably about her early life, education, career) to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with you; check references 1, 3-5 and 7, particularly such reporting in reference 1.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing the kind of coverage required to meet WP:NJOURNALIST. Some participants above are citing discussion of her work ([3], [4]) as WP:SIGCOV of her, which it's not (that's more of an WP:NACADEMIC criterion). These are mentions, not independent reviews of her body of work required to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Meanwhile, the Bits and Deets article should be deleted as an unreliable blog that scrapes personal info and aggregates it as SEO bait. The rest of the sources appear to be her own work or WP:INTERVIEWs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Interviews: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." The multiple interviews listed were done by highly reputable outlets, including the New York Times and NPR. The interviews were presented as investigative journalism with the interview material often interspersed with the interviewer's own analysis and thoughts. Please review the interviews. She meets criteria for WP:NAUTHOR as there are multiple reviews of her book, her body of work, as it encompasses her previous columns and essays.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT interview is a podcast interview with Ezra Klein - a classic Q&A primary source interview with no editorial interpolation and no "investigative journalism". The so-called "NPR" interview is actually a PBS interview (these are not the same outlet) and again, it is a Q&A interview with Demsas. These are primary sources and do not count toward notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, mixed up PBS and NPR, my bad. But, disagree, both interviews had in-depth comments by interviewers, particularly the Ezra Klein, even with only a cursory glance.~~~ Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Took out original ref. 2 and added another re high school attended. Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: By my reading of WP:AUTHOR criteria #1, the subject meets notability given here essays and book on the housing crisis, e.g. book review in Bloomberg, Discourse Magazine, piece by Megan McArdle, discussion in San Francisco Examiner. I understand interviews don't count towards notability but they tend to have summary (i.e. secondary) coverage of the subject and in this case are in notable media. While these aren't WP:SIGCOV of the subject herself, they do discuss her research and vantage on this topic extensively. Nnev66 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANSER

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

This is an article on a particularly important company, however, it has languished for eight years with only two marginal sources, a situation faced by many B2B and B2G firms. Unfortunately, a thorough WP:BEFORE search fails to find anything that could redeem it, however, this may be frustrated a bit by the non-unique name. I would particularly welcome anyone who can salvage this article and will happily withdraw this nomination if someone can but, I'm afraid, from where I'm sitting right now -- having exhausted a variety of avenues -- deletion is the only realistic outcome. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, or move to draft. I was able to find a reasonable tertiary source (talking more about the president of the entity than the entity itself, but still supporting its history and notability) without too much difficulty on Newspapers.com, which returns enough hits to suggest that sufficient sourcing exists. BD2412 T 17:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also returned a lot of hits on newspapers.com. When I started to read individual articles, however, they were on things that were not this company. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's "a particularly important company" then it should never have been proposed for deletion! That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I would love for us to have a policy or guideline called "Chetsford said it's important", as of now my subjective belief of a person or thing's importance using personal criteria of importance, unfortunately, do not trump our standards to determine WP:N. Perhaps one day that will change. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If this article has languished for years, what new sources have been found to establish notability now?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP. First, I found more relevant (but not independent) sources using "Analytic Services Inc". For some reason the title was changed from that (the actual organization name) to ANSER at some distant time. I can find many company announcements and, as they are essentially a gov't contractor, gov't documents that name award amounts. I do not find independent sources. They do military and intelligence contracting so it would be surprising to get independent articles about their work. The 3 sources currently listed cover only a fraction of the content of the article, and none are substantial. (The DIANE one is less than a full page.) Lamona (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any sourcing for this corporation, Gnews, Newspapers, Journals... The sourcing now in the article isn't helping. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia proposed deletions

The 63 Crayons (via WP:PROD on 20 October 2024)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Virginia

Contents

Virginia

William Smoot

Ken Coleman (radio host)

Jerusalem Demsas

ANSER

Virginia proposed deletions

zproxy.org