Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Washington: Difference between revisions

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. 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|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:

Zacky Vengeance (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)

Imo this should be a redirect to Avenged Sevenfold; edit was reverted. seeking a wider consensus.TheLongTone (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources indicate that the subject has demonstrated individual notability per WP:BANDMEMBER. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth H. Frisch (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 person does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Of the sources in the article, three are from Wellesley College, where Frisch taught, and thus not independent coverage. The banner at the top of the 21centuryantiques.com article says they were “commissioned to represent” Frisch, so that’s definitely not independent coverage either. My search on Google does not turn up any better sourcing. My search on Newspapers.com does turn up a few hits, with the two best matches I found being from The Day: a 1980 obituary and a 1962 profile of an art exhibition at Wellesley College. All the other hits I looked at were passing mentions (“Frisch exhibiting here on this date” type blurbs). Overall, I’m not seeing enough to establish notability. Zeibgeist (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and Massachusetts. Zeibgeist (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, New York, Washington, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. She has works in the collection of one notable museum. That’s not enough for WP:ARTIST but one more like that might be. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s worth noting that the museum in question, the Davis Museum at Wellesley College, is run by the institution she taught at. Zeibgeist (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, slightly curious one here; was she related to Theresa Grace Frisch who taught at Wellesley at the same time? Theresa Grace was an expert in mediaeval art and is a published author, making it easier to justify an article about her. Did Elizabeth Holmes Frisch actually publish academically, or just teach painting? Elemimele (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage is limited to primary and institutional sources no independent reliable sources establish notability per WP:N and WP:NARTIST CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 11:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garret Cord Werner (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:NCORP. Cited sources are either promotional/unreliable or briefly discuss this obscure interior design firm. Gheus (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, Canada, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Same as the other one, coverage seems to mostly fail WP:AUD. I’m not seeing any notability here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am also inclined to push for a deletion on DELREASON 4 on a re-read, even though it doesn’t quite meet G11. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article is about an architecture and interior design practice with projects in the United States and Canada. In independent sources the firm is discussed mainly through coverage of specific completed work, including custom houses, multi unit residential projects and renovations of historically significant properties, rather than in general business reporting.

Over a number of years these projects have been written up in independent design and property publications as full project features, not just brief mentions. For this type of practice, coverage of built work is often the main way independent sources address the subject. I have added a couple of additional independent sources to the article to reflect this more clearly.

When I created the article I based my judgement on wiki policy that this kind of firm is less likely to receive sustained general coverage and more likely to be known through notable projects, in the same way that law firms may be covered through significant cases or academics through their h index and peer reviewed work. I still think this is the situation here, and I first learned about the company while reading about a historic renovation project that caught my attention. I also think there are a few good articles about the company that provide significant coverage. I have shared my view and I am happy to leave the final decision to other editors.

[1][2][3] Nullius Inverba 2 (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Acceptable for the niche. I’ve evaluated a few sources:

Brosticate (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Brosticate Bagwe Neza (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What evidence do you have that Western Living and General Contractors Magazine have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy Bagwe Neza and Brosticate? They look like vanity/content farm websites from the about pages. I’m willing to defer this to a opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but surely there’s something intelligible to say about your position (like what would normally go in the rj= box)? Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Western Living is a long-standing architectural magazine with editorial oversight. Its awards are industry-recognized, and it is used in other articles (e.g. St. Lawrence (restaurant), Battersby Howat, Lang Wilson Practice in Architecture Culture, Tayybeh). As for General Contractors, its firm profiles are compiled through independent editorial selection and include methodology descriptions, comparative assessment of project typologies, and verification against built-work portfolios. It is acceptable as a supplementary industry source, especially when it is not being used to make claims of extraordinary significance but simply to support facts about recognition within the design-build sector. Brosticate (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Since when did we use “supplementary industry sources” for notability? The relevant guideline explicitly says to avoid doing that unless independence is clear, and that there is a presumption against it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There’s no need to mince words. WP:GNG insists on independence, and it seems we have no sufficient grounds to question it in the case of GC, as the firm is being considered alongside others, and the article itself is attributed to the magazine’s chief editor. Brosticate (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The fourth source in the table is about a project, not the firm. This leaves us with one source that has two paragraphs (137 words) and is from the trade press. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see a sufficient number of sources covering Garret Cord Werner and its projects. Moreover, I don’t consider it appropriate to disregard the latter altogether. We’re assessing the notability of the firm as a whole (that is, including its projects), rather than the suitability of creating a separate Wikipedia article for one of the projects. In the latter case, it would indeed be appropriate to separate a project from the firm and evaluate it independently.Better Nuncio (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]