This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Colorado. 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|Colorado|~~~~}} 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 Colorado.
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:
Delete.
Steakvault who created the article, and nothing else, was immediately blocked as a Spam-advertising only account.
— Maile (
talk) 02:23, 26 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
Bio of a composer/academic fails GNG, NBIO, NACADEMIC, NMUSIC. The independent sources do not show
WP:SIGCOV;
WP:BEFORE search turns up no other reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage or evidence of notability under any of the other SNG guidelines that might apply.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 23:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete -- composer/researcher doing good things to advance his career that are pretty typical for composers at this stage. Significantly TOOSOON at this point. On the non-academic side, lacking the awards or major ensembles (those not dedicated to producing student work) to pass notability; on the WP:PROF side, does not have academic appointments or the sort of extensive influence to pass there. (Some of the journals are important in the field, but book/CD reviews are not articles.) --
Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
These are mostly fair points. Not sure what the "TOOSOON" means--too soon to have a wiki article? Regarding academic appointment, a Google search shows that Forshee was a visiting professor and now instructor. As to the ensembles performing Forshee's compositions, the Callithumpian Consort and Trio Kobayashi are, according to their own websites, not dedicated to performing student works (they list Elliott Carter, Schuittke, Huber, Scelsi, Cage, Lachenmann, Richard Barrett, Jürg Frey, Larry Polansky, James Tenney, basically all widely known composers on the international scene). The articles by Forshee don't appear to be book reviews or CD reviews, but neither do they appear to be rigorous scholarly research articles; they seem to be somewhere in between: interpretive analytical essays? The one in Computer Music Journal is an early review of software by the pioneering computer music composer Trevor Wishart. Part of the motivation for this article is that Forshee is one of the few notable (or borderline notable) students of composer Anthony Davis, who just had his Met Opera premiere of his Malcolm X this season.
Dolemites (
talk) 18:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Notability cannot
WP:INHERITED from Anthony Davis or anyone else; for each subject it must be established independently according to the criteria. No articles by Forshee can be used establish his notability, only what independent and reliable sources have to say about him with "significant coverage."
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Discussion currently leans toward deletion, but a clearer consensus would be appreciated given that there has been an objection to deletion and thus soft-deletion seems inappropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply