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.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.
watch |
Doesn't meet WP:NORG. The sources are all paid PRs. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 06:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Only a single source, not enough to demonstrate notability. Yoblyblob ( Talk) :) 16:34, 5 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)
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,
Toadette
Edit! 05:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
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.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.
watch |
Doesn't meet WP:NORG. The sources are all paid PRs. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 06:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Only a single source, not enough to demonstrate notability. Yoblyblob ( Talk) :) 16:34, 5 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)
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,
Toadette
Edit! 05:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)