This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tbhotch (talk | contribs) at 21:15, 7 January 2025 (Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2011 Mexican drug gang attack Twitter hoax.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:15, 7 January 2025 by Tbhotch (talk | contribs) (Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2011 Mexican drug gang attack Twitter hoax.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Points of interest related to Mexico on Misplaced Pages: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Mexico. 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 {{Misplaced Pages: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|Mexico|~~~~}} 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 Mexico. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 Americas.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:Purge page cache | watch |
Mexico
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Liz 05:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
2011 Mexican drug gang attack Twitter hoax
- 2011 Mexican drug gang attack Twitter hoax (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 is a permastub incident that took place 13 years ago. Unlike what was said at the previous AFD, it had no lasting consequences. This article is rarely visited as it is linked to nowhere since it was a minor incident. (CC) Tbhotch 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Internet, and Mexico. (CC) Tbhotch 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Disregarding all news attention, received quite a bit of academic attention for its legal considerations and relation to drug trade/ internet usage. , for a random selection. Quite a bit more if I looked harder. That it is a stub is of no consideration for notability, as stubs are not against the rules. Could very well be linked to several pages if expanded. Seems quite the unique incident and much could be written on its background/impacts/events from these sources, so it does pass WP:NEVENT. Very clearly not a permastub, as it can be expanded. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per PARAKANYAA. Relatively extensive contemporary news coverage + a fair bit of ongoing attention in academic sources is enough for me. MCE89 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: The academic sources above seem fine, should really be updated. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep based on continuing coverage. Updating is not normally a good reason for deleting an entire article. Bearian (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Liz 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Osvaldo Gutierrez
- Osvaldo Gutierrez (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)
Page on an academic created as part of Wiki Education project, unfortunately with WP:NPROF being ignored. High citation area, so h-factor of 38 is fair but not yet passing #C1. He was recently promoted to full professor, no major awards and only WP:MILL mentions in minor science press -- WP:TOOSOON. (Unis have become quite good at promo for junior faculty.) Perhaps in a year or three it can be revived. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. I must have a lower threshold for #C1 notability than the nominator, because I think the case for notability through many triple-digit citation counts is enough. It's interesting that he made it from dreamer to full professor; interestingness isn't a notability criterion but the KCRA video profile and ACS "talented 12" coverage look independent and in-depth (a third source, the NIH career conversation, is not independent because it's just an interview) giving him also a weak case for WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mexico, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with David Eppstein. Qflib (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leans towards keep but lets relist for a firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Understood re: the C1 concerns... but his work has gained significant enough coverage/usage to be included, also agree with David on this one. Snowycats (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - full professor at UCLA is tough to do. Bearian (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Bitso
- Bitso (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)
An article on a crypto-exchange company, created in a promotional way in a promo tone, with most references only passing mentioning the subject. The available coverage is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH 89KimberlyRoad (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Mexico. Spiderone 12:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comments: Just looking at the sources, it has significant coverage. I'm genuinely unsure whether this can be fixed or not. Bearian (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak delete - while these is some coverage, this is still a mess, and nobody has stepped up to fix the issues. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.