Points of interest related to Virginia on Wikipedia: Outline –  History –  Portal –  Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
( talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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.

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 Virginia.

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

List of preserved Boeing aircraft

List of preserved Boeing aircraft (  | 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)

It duplicates the content on the main article pages. (e.g. Boeing 707) Dedicated aircraft on display articles are only created for single types when the list becomes too long for the main article. The list also includes pictures, which runs counter to the WikiProject:Aviation style guide.

Subsequent to the creation of this AfD, I discovered there is an additional article created by the same user at: List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft. – Noha307 ( talk) 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 4. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Virginia. ―  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• The linked "No images should be included in lists of aircraft, this is not what lists are for." is one of the strangest things I've seen here. All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here? What lists does this refer to specifically? I can imagine for certain large lists you wouldn't want excessive pictures that look similar and add little, but I don't see a need to apply that here; that is not a justification for deletion. Where you're talking about individual aircraft that are preserved and on display for people to see, showing everyone here who can't go to all these museums what they look like is a great idea! While I agree that duplication with the bullet-point lists in the main article is not great, I think a list that can include additional details like useful pictures – or at least be a central navigation page – can be reasonable. Keep Reywas92 ^Talk 17:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here?

  It increases the file size of the page. However, it also unnecessarily increases the height of each row of the table and reduces the width of the other cells, which makes the table longer and the legibility of information more difficult as the text is wrapped onto multiple lines. However, these are my own reasons. There's a bit more in a section on the talk page of the style guide.

  It's worth noting that a number of the images don't show the aircraft on display, but in service, which is not appropriate or useful for a list of this type.

  that is not a justification for deletion

  Agreed. In and of itself, it is not a justification for deletion. However, it is something that adds weight against it. – Noha307 ( talk) 01:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I don't have any size concerns here, nor issues with the length of the table or column/text width. Even if the retired craft on display is preferred, I would not remove images of service. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment this list appears to be missing the 707 Air Force One as noted at Air Force One#Boeing 707s and entry to jet age. No opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but that seems a strange omission. Jclemens ( talk) 18:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Nom and Reywas95 both make valid points. That said, the concerns with the article do not warrant deletion. Rather, improvements are welcome. In this respect, I wonder if it would be possible to create shared sections (not sure on the WP jargon) that can both fit into the model articles and into this article. gidonb ( talk) 00:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Neal Potter

Neal Potter (  | 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)

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. Bearcat ( talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Bearcat: Try https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ > https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/27/ > his name in Maryland newspapers. The Frederick News-Post seems to carry the most coverage, with hundreds of articles. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- based on his position as a county executive, I expected to give a delete opinion as that's the normal outcome for such roles. But a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post suggests he was considered notable beyond the typical holder of such a position. The other details (Plaza named for him) wouldn't generally be enough on their own, but together with the obit pushes above the bar for GNG keep. (would not pass WP:PROF on its own). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Chris Sullo

Chris Sullo (  | 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Purely written for promotion. Article's author also wrote Nikto (vulnerability scanner) - subject closely related to the article in nomination. (Note: The author ( User:Root exploit) also self-describes themselves as "Security Researcher" on their userpage). -- WikiLinuz ( talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- WikiLinuz ( talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Phil Agcaoili

Phil Agcaoili (  | 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)

Almost entirely the work of User:Greyhat, who, based on the deleted edit summaries for File:Phil Agcaoili 2011.jpg, has been in personal contact with the subject. Unclear the subject is notable, and the article is highly promotional. The company he founded is apparently not notable enough to have an article. -- Beland ( talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Beland ( talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Michael D. Aeschliman

Michael D. Aeschliman (  | 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)

This is another sockpuppet production from the same drawer that brought us Conrad Hughes. After socks were blocked, I removed all primary sources before nominating. This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. There's no sustained reliable coverage significantly about this subject indicating his encyclopedic notability. There was lots of primary stuff, by related parties. Now it's two books. If one is notable, it might need an article instead of a socky BLP. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Italy, Switzerland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete, with redirection also being an option if anyone other than a blocked sock is interested in making a stub on the notable book. I see a notable book with reviews (and also respectable citations in a low citation field), but little other evidence of notability. WP:BLP1E at best. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 07:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Despite the problems of puffery and COI authoring etc before the gutting of the entry ... he seems to me to pass WP:Author as his book has been primary subject of multiple independent reviews and an article on him might therefor be useful. An article on the book would seem to me odd, but a brief article on the author mentioning the books would seems OK. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)) reply
  • Had another look (thanks to User:JoelleJay's ping) and think the book's publishers WE & DI and reviews in some marginal journals raise enough fringish worries to make my keep based on the book not so wise. Perhaps he is more known as a journalist in the National Review but notability is not so clear enough to me to justify. Preface by Malcolm Muggeridge to, and praise from Rowan Williams for, the book were the things that I now think mislead me. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)) reply
• Delete. This is about a "survey" (as the book is self-described) published in 2019 by "Discovery Institute," a Seattle-based think tank, which was later translated into French. At the risk of stating the obvious, if the guide or the author were notable, sockpuppets and primary sources wouldn't have been necessary for the article creation. The guide reviews aren't found in reliable sources and appear (as is sometimes the case with unknown manuals) to be provided by the author's associates. There don't appear to be any reliable sources for the author either. In addition to failing WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR, the article reads like a peacock marketing piece that runs into further WP:GNG problems when considering a ten-year or twenty-year test. 174.197.67.208 ( talk) 14:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per FRINGE and our notability guidelines. As noted above, this guy is affiliated [1] with the Discovery Institute, a disinformation-spewing intelligent design think tank. The Restoration edition is not reliably published -- it went through Discovery Institute Press, [2] a fact that is strangely absent from the article. Its reviews include several in unreliable sources like Evolution News (DI magazine) and/or do not satisfy WP:FRIND's criterion (bolded) The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself. The Le Figaro review might be acceptable, but one review is definitely not sufficient for an unreliably-published fringe book.
  The earlier Restitution edition went through a non-academic Christian publisher that doesn't seem inherently unreliable, and some of its reviews are in reliable (if biased) journals, so it's possible an article could be written on it and the biography title redirected to it. While it is sometimes preferable to cover multiple marginally-notable books (or one notable book and one or more related marginal ones) by the same author in a biography page rather than in separate weak pages (or not at all), I don't think Restoration is sufficiently distinct from its precursor to use this as justification for a biography. Moreover, I do not think a biography would be appropriate when a) all IRS SIGCOV is of the author's works and b) the non-independent/primary material we would normally use to fill out a biography on an academic will necessarily be sourced to fringe orgs and thus be overtly non-neutral. Ping @ Msrasnw. Also ping @ David Eppstein as someone more experienced with NAUTHOR/humanities cases, which I normally avoid. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. For me, one book (even in multiple editions) is never enough for WP:AUTHOR, and there appears to be no evidence of WP:PROF notability. No objection to redirecting to an article on the book, if anyone cares to make an article on the book. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter to me that the book takes a fringe anti-science position, whether it is reliably published, or whether the reviews are positive or negative; all that matters for AUTHOR or for notability of the book is the number and depth of mainstream (per WP:FRINGE) reliably published reviews. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete One book is not enough to support an author biography, in all but the most exceptional cases (say, if that one book had become the standard text for a mainstream university course). An article on the book itself is possible in principle, if multiple reviews exist that can truly be said to come from outside the fringe bubble. That's a separate discussion, however. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Matt Hunt (journalist)

Matt Hunt (journalist) (  | 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)

Heavily embellished promotional bio created by an SPA, with no actual in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Except for nigeriasportsnews.com, which appears to be a puff piece, none of the sources refbombed in the article are actually about the subject—only tangential mentions from issues he has been involved in. Paul_012 ( talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and Thailand. Paul_012 ( talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Pinging Jamiebuba, who recently accepted the draft at AfC. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Environment, Internet, California, Florida, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Hayden Evans

Hayden Evans (  | 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)

This article seems to fail WP:SPORTBASIC as well as WP:SIGCOV—he is a college soccer player who signed but never played in the league for a fourth-tier English team for one year. All coverage is local and/or match reports. Anwegmann ( talk) 03:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann ( talk) 03:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, England, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Cullen Large

Cullen Large (  | 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)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 00:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai ( talk) 00:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

A very easy keep. This biography clears GNG and NSPORTS by more than a lot of sports bios I've seen here. There is WP:SIGCOV in The Province, Baseball America, and Sportsnet, all of which are WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note that Sportsnet is owned by Rogers Communications, which also owns the Toronto Blue Jays, the organization that had Large at the time that article was written. Let'srun ( talk) 15:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The subject meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete I created this article as a redirect to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players, but I don't think Large is notable enough for a standalone article. The Baseball America reference is a general stat page that all minor league prospects have. In my opinion we only have 2 refs contributing towards notability in terms of SIGCOV (The Province & Sportsnet). If more SIGCOV is found I do think that the article should probably be kept. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 14:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  The Baseball America link is an article, not a stats page. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: This subject meets the WP:GNG because of independent WP:SIGCOV from Baseball America and The Province, which each provides in-depth coverage of the subject. Let'srun ( talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete never made the majors, coverage is sparse and routine. Non-notable minor league baseball player. SportingFlyer T· C 02:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (  | 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)

Most likely fails WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links. WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.

2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Even if hypothetically NLIST was not met (which I believe it is), WP:LISTPURP suggests that there would still be other grounds to keep.

As prodder and nom, you have not shown any evidence of having demonstrated WP:BEFORE due diligence. The plethora of Google results for searches like "stamp clubs in America" suggests that this was not done. It isn’t really the most GF behavior to simply, since the burden of proof generally lies with the “keep” side once process has begun, make a prod or AfD nomination without actually determining if there’s a prima facie case for a notability or verifiability challenge.

Sorry for the sharpness, but sometimes it’s necessary.

RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep as deprodder. In my view it meets WP:LISTPURP and WP:NLIST and I feel this is a commonsensical call. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 07:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• delete I'm just not seeing this. The NY society's building is historic, but when you look at sources about these places, even the few with articles really don't seem notable. And anyway, what are the sources for this list? I'm looking at the listing from Linn's Stamp News, and it's far more complete and is up-to-date; it's also clear that most of the listings would never garner an article. I don't see the point of duplicating a not-very-useful subset of thei info (just the names), and once we go past that, we're in WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. Mangoe ( talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:BEFORE - while stamp collecting is not the huge hobby it was a couple of decades ago, there is a huge literature on such clubs. Bearian ( talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. "There is a huge literature on such clubs"....it would help, of course, if examples were provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply