Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arizona

Points of interest related to Arizona 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 Arizona. 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|Arizona|~~~~}} 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 Arizona. 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/Arizona/archive

Charlie Booth (soccer) (edit | 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)

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Rhode Island. Let'srun (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: More non-notable footy spam. Fails WP:SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: lacks enough SIGCOV sources to support notability so far.Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Chavez (perennial candidate) (edit | 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)

A perennial candidate with no indication that he made any difference in any of the races that he ran. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Seems that the article was created only because the person changed his name to that of a very famous person who died 20 years prior to the name change. Although not a reason for deletion, it should be pointed out that the subject of the bio appears to have edited the article mutiple times made multiple edits to the article. Green Montanan (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:POLITICIAN is not the relevant guideline, but WP:GNG; WP:POLITICIAN explicitly states "being ... an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". He received significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources and as such qualifies under the WP:GNG. See Politico, 2014 [1], Washington Post, 2014 [2], AZ Capitol Times, 2015 [3]. This is an edge case for WP:BLP1E (see however WP:NOTBLP1E), however there isn't an article on the "event" to redirect or merge the content to (as the second prong of the guideline denotes). These events have also been situated in broader contexts in academic scholarship about race changing/fluidity [4] and laws about candidate names [5]. Katzrockso (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG linked above. Sadly amusing that a potential candidate changed his name to fit the presumed ethnicity of the majority of the voters. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of IATSE locals (edit | 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 list seems to be functioning as a web page directory, not as an encyclopedic list with a certain amount of notability. This duplicates the list on the union's web site, which seems like a more appropriate place for readers to go to find this information. -- Beland (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a list split out from the main IATSE article as the list of locals would be overly large for the article. And a list of locals is no different than any other list of subsidiary structures found all around Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clear case of WP:NOTDIR and also doesn't satisfy WP:NLIST either. Ajf773 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic is notable, and could be included with the main article but for its size. The main reason given for deletion is also invalid: NOTDIR does not describe this kind of list, but random information with no particular reason to appear together in an encyclopedia, giving five specific instances, none of which describe the contents here: this is not a 1) a simple list without context (context is provided); 2) a collection of loosely-associated topics (these all belong to a single topic); 3) a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (not a cross-categorization, since they all belong to a single category); 4) a list of genealogical entries (not genealogical); 4) an electronic program guide (not a program guide); or 5) a resource for conducting business (it's not comercially-related, and provides no information about products or pricing). P Aculeius (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you missed the beginning of WP:NOT:

  Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not exhaustive.

  Emphasis mine. This is very much in the spirit of what's addressed here, even if it not specifically listed as an example. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But NOTDIR is being cited, and NOTDIR doesn't have anything remotely applicable. You can't just claim that a policy applies because it sounds to you like it ought to apply. It almost sounds like you're citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE, another policy that's constantly cited without any obvious correlation between anything said under it and the thing they're upset about being included in Wikipedia. But there is nothing indiscriminate about a list of chapters of a notable organization. That's the opposite of indiscriminate. If NOTDIR meant "lists of sub-units of something notable", surely that would be the very first thing mentioned. The fact that nothing of the sort is mentioned at all under NOTDIR speaks volumes. P Aculeius (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  NOTDIR says:

  Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.

  That sounds to me like it very much does apply. As mentioned, the examples following that preamble are not exhaustive, and cannot possibly cover every conceivable case. This is a mere directory listing of over 250 local chapters of a particular union. Maintaining such a list is outside Wikipedia's scope. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very very clear case of the sort of thing that WP:NOTDIR is meant to address. See also this essay for a bit of context on the phenomenon of how this sort of list comes about to be. It didn't belong in the main article, and it doesn't belong in a standalone list either. Kill it now. Kill it with fire. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I question whether those citing WP:NOTDIR have actually read the policy because it clearly does not match a list with a clear limited and defined scope such as this list. If they did read it, they didn’t understand it. I’m not really seeing a good argument that this doesn’t meet NLIST either based on the sourcing in the parent article. Seems like a valid WP:SPINOUT. This is just another badly made deletion argument that boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT by trying to cite policies that aren’t applicable.4meter4 (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOTDIR and a duplication of the IATSE website. Not notable as a standalone concept. Very clearly inappropriate. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brandon (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have definitely read the WP:NOTDIR policy and can confirm that this is clearly an example of the first category of notdir, it's a simple list of web-links to contact each local, analogous to a list of telephone numbers (okay, if you really really push it you can just about claim that the "craft(s)" column is contextual information, but frankly that's stretching things to an unreasonable extent). Having a defined scope doesn't rescue a directory from being a directory. If you believe in NOTDIR, this article is, unfortunately, a delete. Elemimele (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: List that doesn't explain why these are notable, or what they are. Primary sourcing... A wall of text without context given doesn't help Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR or WP:LISTN. – The Grid (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]