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.
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|Alabama|~~~~}} 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 Alabama.
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:
Dubious notability, zero hits from RS in Google, created by an SPA intent on promoting a business the article's subject managed
Fastily 20:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails to establish what the individual is actually notable for - no notable achievements apart from running a small local funeral parlour.
Dan arndt (
talk) 00:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete--I don't see any notability for this person either.
Drmies (
talk) 17:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand the concerns raised about the article's subject, David Calloway Ross, Jr. However, I'd like to provide additional context and evidence to support his notability. While it's true that Ross's achievements may not be globally recognized, his contributions to the local community and funeral services industry are significant. As the president and funeral director of Ross-Clayton Funeral Home, he has:Continued the legacy of his family's business, which has been serving the community for over 100 years; Provided leadership and guidance to the funeral home, ensuring its continued operation and service to the community; Demonstrated a commitment to the local community through his involvement in various organizations and initiatives; Regarding the lack of Google search results, I'd like to point out that not all notable individuals have a strong online presence. This doesn't diminish Ross's achievements or impact on the community.As for the article being created by a single-purpose account (SPA), I assure you that my intention is not to promote a business but to document Ross's historical significance and contributions. I believe the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and verifiability. Ross's achievements may not be widely recognized, but they are notable in the context of his community and industry. I'm willing to work with you to improve the article and address any concerns. Please consider retaining the article.
Mcrossphd (
talk) 17:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Currently he does NOT meet our requirements; what is needed is reliable secondary sourcing. You argued that the Ross-Clayton funeral home is the oldest in the city--that's not even verified and I'm not sure it's true. There's a few mentions in a few books, but nothing of significance. If you would produce reliable secondary sources, that would be a different matter.
Drmies (
talk) 17:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The article on the business by Brad Harper is maybe a small step on the way to notability, but that's for the business, not the person. I note also that neither Harper nor the historical marker (I'm surprised the Alabama Historical Society accepted that text) make the "oldest funeral home" claim. BTW I'm about to write up the article on Lincoln Cemetery--there is no doubt that that is notable, on the basis of secondary sources and history. For this person, that argument is hard to make though perhaps the business might be notable.
Drmies (
talk) 17:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sir, please review
Historical Marker Database for reliable source for Ross Clayton Funeral Home's History. Also view
link for David Callaway Ross's notability references
Mcrossphd (
talk) 17:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Mrcrossphd, please don't call me "sir"--"Drmies" will do just fine, thanks. Historical markers are not generally accepted as acceptable secondary sources here, and that particular text is so blatantly non-neutral. Let me put it another way: it would be somewhat silly to dispute the facts on a marker (the Historical Association--Scotty Kirkland runs that--checks it) but we shouldn't be using historical markers as the basis for our articles. A historical marker is an indication of some importance, but not by itself a guarantor of notability. I've done that Google search, but better: I looked at Google News and Google Books. Your search, unfortunately, does not deliver a single reliable secondary source; if you correct "callaway" to "calloway" and check news, you at least get the obituary from WSFA, but that's really all. If you had checked "books", you'd have found
this--but again, that's not much. Sorry.
Drmies (
talk) 20:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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
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.
DreamFocus 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
StarMississippi 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
Delete: As of now (
permalink), sources 1 to 5 are not independent and do not count towards notability. The rest of the sources cite reports by the organization, and some (like the one
from apublica.org) go quite into depth into the reports, but still there does not seem to be in-depth coverage about the organization itself. It does not seem to meet
WP:ORGCRIT, but the content of sources 6 to 10 would be due in various other articles.
MarioGom (
talk) 20:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep to be honest I only found out about the previously deleted article when creating a redirect at
GPAHE. I think the deletion in 2022 was adequate, but the organization's publications have since generated numerous news pieces including from
CNN Portugal and
Diário de Notícias, besides the above mentioned
apublica.org. While these sources don't exclusively cover GPAHE itself, they do mention the organization extensively (at least one paragraph in each of those, and several in DN), they're entirely based on GPAHE's reports and cite them throughout. IMHO this is enough to attest
significant coverage while clearly being independent, reliable and secondary.
Rkieferbaum (
talk) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as I also recommended in the 2022 AfD. There has been no significant change in the quality of the sourcing that I can see. According to
WP:NORG, The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. I do not believe that the coverage of this organization rises to the level required by the relevant notability guideline, and I believe that
Alsee analyzed the matter very thoroughly in 2022.
Cullen328 (
talk) 22:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Cullen328: with all due respect, I think you're reading too much into that particular part of
WP:NORG. Firstly, "well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" - at least the three pieces I mentioned above, and many many others, do go well beyond brief mentions. They're not news pieces about something that were written independently of the organiation and then cite it in passing somewhere in the middle of the article. They're entire pieces built around the organization's reports and that give substantial coverage to the organization itself. The fact that this coverage isn't about the history of the organization isn't all there is to it. The pieces are about the organization's work and that cannot be ignored. A Pública's piece mentions GPAHE eight times throughout the text, as does Diário de Notícias. Surely that does not qualify as "brief mentions". Lastly, I call your attention to
WP:NONPROFIT: the group must act nationally or internationally and, more importantly, "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." I find that having their work featured in full pieces from outlets in Portugal, Brazil, the US, the UK and other places should be enough to cover both of those points. Mind you that none of the three articles I mentioned were published during the previous discussion: they're from jun/23, jan/24 and apr/24.
Rkieferbaum (
talk) 00:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Rkieferbaum, we disagree about how
WP:NORG should be interpreted. That's OK. I stand by my recommendation, but if consensus develops to keep the article, so be it.
Cullen328 (
talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't !vote last time but I think it is a weak keep this time. There are 70 hits in Google Scholar and several pages of Google News hits showing that academics and Reliable Sources take them seriously and are happy to use their research as a source but I don't see anybody covering the organisation itself as a primary subject, which is what it would take to move it from a weak keep to a full strength keep. If anybody can find something like that, even if it is not in English, then I think that would secure the keep. --
DanielRigal (
talk) 23:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Numerous references in reliable sources, including several from scientific publications available at Google Scholar. Direct and extensive coverage at some of the most well known Portuguese newspapers, like
Público,
DN,
Sábado, etc. I don't have any doubts about its relevance.
DarwinAhoy! 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - I feel resonance with
User:DanielRigal as there seem to be yet further articles that quote the organization. If increasing numbers of prominent publications mention the organization, then perhaps there is a point at which the subject should be considered sufficiently notable, perhaps. Some additional articles mentioning them that are not used in the article:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 04:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, per Cullen; the issues from the prior AfD persist. The fact that they were mentioned in a couple newspaper stories doesn't really seem to change this. If not deleted, then this article at a minimum needs to be stubified -- it is unbelievably promotional and reads like a press release. The organization's mission is to strengthen and educate a diverse global community committed to exposing and countering racism, bigotry, and hate, and associated violence; and to promote the human rights values that support flourishing, inclusive societies and democracies? Holy freaking Christmas, what a mess. jp×
g🗯️ 01:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply