This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Washington. 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. 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|Washington|~~~~}} 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 Washington. 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/Washington/archive

James Lowell (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 does not appear to have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, New Hampshire, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Coppola (actor) (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)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this actor and DJ with notable relations. I can't find any significant coverage in independent sources to add. There are passing mentions verifying some of his roles. I do not think he meets WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Redirect to Coppola family might work. Tacyarg (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin. Tacyarg (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, why would you want to delete Marc Coppola's Wikipedia page but leave the other Marc Coppola up.

  Marc is a 50 year veteran of NY city radio and would be the next oldest living male member next to his uncle Francis Coppola. Meaning he would also be the next Patriarch of the Coppola Family. Are you also considering deletion of his brother Christopher Coppola. Or his Father August Coppola? Why the attack on Marc? And all of a sudden?

  Please explain. I would appreciate it and so would the Coppola Family to leave families members up. Jocristy (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to one of the Coppola articles, perhaps Nicolas Cage. In answer to the question above, Wikipedia exists on reliable sourcing to verify its content. Not all sourcing is considered reliable. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. On Wikipedia, Reliability is not inherited. I have spent a lot of time today trying to find what Wikipedia considers reliable source for this individual, and I only found two such sources. There needs to be more. — Maile (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (as nominator). I have undone the addition of the text Isn't IMDB.com a reliable source? At least for the movies listed in the article to the top of this discussion, and asked the editor, Jocristy, to add it to the end of this discussion instead; this is because it had overwritten my original reason for nomination, which appears in the article for people with xfd helper installed. Tacyarg (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Didn't mean to overwrite. Accident. But I'm trying to put in sources that should be reliable. Jocristy (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't IMDB.Com be a reliable source, at least to verify the movie and tv credits? https://www.imdb.com/find/?q=marc%20coppola&ref_=nv_sr_sm And I found this recent article: https://www.thelist.com/1752088/francis-ford-coppola-nepo-baby-network/

Tosh Samkange (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 does not appear to meet the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. The current sources are all primary to the clubs the subject has played for and I couldn't find any secondary coverage elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, Colorado, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Svartner (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I didn't find anything approaching SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage. Sources are primary at most. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacking in independent RS citations to support it. Agree with findings so far above. Villkomoses (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not have enough independent RSes to justify inclusion. This is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Melissa Batten (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)

Fails WP:EVENT. Not shown to have continued coverage beyond news reports at the time of the incident and consequent investigation. A state representative later cited the case when a state gun control law was passed six years later (per this article), but this seems like a passing mention. Bridget (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Crime, Events, and Washington. Bridget (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The event led to legislation, even if the mention of the original event was brief in context of the legislation. Between the in-depth coverage of the event and the eventual lasting effect, I would consider it notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia.

  Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There is sigcov in this academic article from 2015 [1] which seems pretty good and analytical about the case and its impact. Weak keep unless I can find more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There also appears to be significant coverage (maybe only of the perpetrator? I can't tell, he had some notability as a creator outside of the crime. it covers the game development which due to timing i believe may intersect with the murder) in Designers & Dragons by Shannon Appelcline. So keep probably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is also a relatively lengthy description of the circumstances surrounding the murder in a debate on gun rights from 2013 as an example of lasting coverage [2] Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also several paragraphs from the NYT in 2013. [3] PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Seattle Times and NYT articles on the gun control debate that you cite aren't significant coverage – there are only a couple paragraphs dedicated to the crime. Bridget (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you define as "significant coverage"? Per WP:SIGCOV it is "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I'd say several paragraphs counts, yeah. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These are both lengthy articles that briefly touch upon multiple crimes, including Batten's murder, alongside each other. They do not look to me like they "[address] the topic directly and in detail" per WP:SIGCOV. Bridget (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Touching upon multiple crimes doesn't have much effect on whether it is sigcov. Criminology books regularly cover multiple crimes and that doesn't make the coverage not sigcov. A sentence is plainly a trivial mention, a short paragraph is not enough, I think multiple paragraphs is sigcov... It definitely does address the topic directly and in detail. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the results of the previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Melissa Batten. BOZ (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found by PARAKANYAA and Anonrfjwhuikdzz, especially McNamara (2014–2015). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2001:8003:7473:B700:6D31:6171:8A39:89E (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There does seem to be WP:SIGCOV from all sorts of valid RSes here. The incident also led to legislation which adds to its notability. Definitely notable enough, it also almost got 8,000 page views last year. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy House (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)

Alright -- the subject of this article fails WP:GNG, and notability for companies because of lack of WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SUSTAINED in WP:RS. There are lots of sources, but they are either WP:ROUTINE, very old announcements of the opening, or not independent. This article has serious NPOV issues to go along with that -- seems like advertising and promotion. This article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Washington. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft keep: The article is in desperate need for and update and rewrite, but I found a few local newspaper sources about the subject [4] [5] [6] [7] and a mention in Time Magazine [8]. These articles aren't very old and are independent. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Muyia Nafukho (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)

Requested by individual Maomulma (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - I am not sure what the reason for deletion is? Is it the person the article that this article is about saw it, and now wants it deleted? Is it a bot that made this deletion request? I've never seen a nomination like this on Wikipedia. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, Kenya, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: According to whom? I see nothing on this article's talk page. I see nothing on the nom's talk page or the creator's talk page. Short of the subject dropping a verified UTRS request (or a substantive challenge to the subject's notability), there are no grounds to sustain a deletion, and the nom has failed to make one. Ravenswing 21:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I presume that the subject himself wants the article deleted? Is there evidence of this? However, I see a substantial GS profile with an h-index of 49 which easily clear WP:NPROF but the article does have some issues and needs cleanup, but I do not see a reason for deletion. --hroest 20:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - without clear and convincing evidence of the subject's wishes, it's merely speculation. If this were a child or an associate professor, then I would go along with deletion. He's fairly notable. We're an encyclopedia, not a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Baker (entertainer) (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)

Was nominated by Badbluebus back in February, and was closed as a soft delete, with only one other editor !voting for delete. No oppose votes. There simply is not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that they pass notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I see some room for improvement, maybe a few more better sources, so I am employing a weak version of WP:BASIC. Barr Theo (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in the Seattle Times, Oklahoman, Idaho State Journal, and Daily State News. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Seattle article only briefly mentions him, the Olkahoman isn't much better. Idaho State is the only decent source. Last source talks with people after a state fair, saying how good he was. I'm not sure most of these help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Still a !delete, I don't see any new sources from the last month when this came up at AfD, that would change my mind. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]