Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Missouri

Points of interest related to Missouri on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment

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 Missouri. 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|Missouri|~~~~}} 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 Missouri. 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/Missouri/archive

Mary Darling (Civil War nurse) (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 could hardly find an independent reliable source confirming that she existed. The primary source for this article is the subject's own account of their service. Otherwise, does not seem to meet GNG. There is coverage in Hall 2006, but it is confined to one page; I can't see what it is. Either way it's not enough for a stand-alone page. Without secondary analysis of Darling, we can't build an article here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Missouri. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep sorry but "I could not see the source" isnt really a good enough reason to delete, there seems to be at least one secondary source on her. --hroest 12:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we would need multiple to establish notability, @Hannes Röst. Even if that book has sigcov, which is not clear, I found no other sources offering more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was able to access the Hall book — the extent of the coverage is the following text in the "Honor Roll of Civil War Service" on p.233:

  DARLING, Mrs. Mary E. Became a regimental nurse in her husband's Missouri Home Guard unit that was mustered into U.S. service in December 1861. She traveled with the regiment and cared for soldiers in tents and field hospitals and in the division hospital near the Shiloh battleground.

I would not consider that SIGCOV. The citation for that entry in Hall 2006 is also the same primary source published in Darling 2002 that is cited in our article, so there's no indication of additional secondary sources there. I'll come back to this once I've done a proper search for other sources, but I agree that I don't see a GNG pass based on the current two sources. MCE89 (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a look for additional sources and came up with nothing. Even if we were to be extremely generous and considered the two sentences in Hall to be SIGCOV, I don't see any sign of a second GNG-qualifying source. MCE89 (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no coverage that indicates that Mary Darling was any more notable than the tens of thousands of other women who had similar roles during the war. The article has also been claiming since creation that she was a Confederate nurse; both the article content and the qutoe from the Hall book make it clear that she was a nurse for a Union unit. I suspect this is probably from a confusion between the Union Missouri Home Guard and the Confederate Missouri State Guard. Hog Farm _Talk 01:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Missouri (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)

Same reason as "List of villages in Missouri". Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, United States of America, and Missouri. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For legal reasons, mergers are almost never reasons to delete due to the need to retain attributions. I don't have much of an opinion beyond that at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly valid navigational list, and the merge target is the worst article of the three proposed. The "proposed merge" was not a formal merge discussion, either. SportingFlyer T·C 07:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wouldn't a merge be more appropriate? There should be two lists: List of municipalities, and List of census-designated places. Those two are comprehensive and do not overlap. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect The gallery and lead info should be retained, but List of municipalities in Missouri provides the exact same navigational information. The highlighting of county seats is also nice, but there doesn't have to be a separate duplicative page here. Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing wrong in keeping the list of cities of a state. NavjotSR (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that there is a list of cities in the municipalities list... Reywas92^Talk 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge, this is a valid and standard list for U.S. states, but the existing List of municipalities in Missouri seems best to house this.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Category:Lists of cities in the United States by state. Different styles by different cities, but this does seem to be acceptable within Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the pages in that category are actually lists of municipalities, and many of those with city lists should also be merged (though in several cases like Alaska and Idaho, city is the only type of municipality). Just because this article title is acceptable in other situations doesn't mean we need duplicative pages for this state when all content is in another page already. Reywas92^Talk 13:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete As the user who overhauled the Municipality List because of the Merge suggestion at the top, I did want to reproduce the same formatting at the cities one, county seats highlighted, more color coding, etc. but did not know how to do at the time. As for the introduction and background information, I think that should be moved over.
• It does not make sense to me why there should be a list of cities, villages, and municipalities, especially when municipalities is both comprehensive and clear, while most readers may not understand the legal distinctions of what constitutes a village vs a city, nor do they really need to know that, and if they did it is in the table for the municipalities.
• Additionally, I know that the Municipalities List is accurate and up-to-date data from the state of Missouri, and the other articles are not. If the cities and villages articles are to be kept, I think their data needs to be overhauled.

SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Missouri (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)

Already merged with "List of Municipalities in Missouri". Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, United States of America, and Missouri. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For legal reasons, mergers are almost never reasons to delete due to the need to retain attributions. Even at that, a {{Being merged}} tag was removed from this list last year by Nythar (talk · contribs) sayingno such consensus exists (in reference to the proposed merger). (For what it's worth, a similar tag was not removed from the list of cities in Missouri, which the nominator has also proposed to delete.) It would not surprise me if this nomination ends up not leading to anything, but at this time have little opinion beyond that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly valid navigational list, and the merge target is the worst article of the three proposed. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Villages are by no means so different that they should be listed separately from the list of all municipalities. This is purely redundant and serves no purpose, List of municipalities in Missouri provides the exact same navigation but with data that isn't just bulleted blue links. You should merge the lead info as well. Reywas92^Talk 15:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Category:Lists of villages in the United States and Category:Lists of villages by country These seem to be accepted lists used by country and others. This seems to be global category listings. And as usual with Wikipedia, different styles for different places.— Maile (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, only a few other states have village lists, and in cases like List of villages in Massachusetts, the villages are not incorporated so they must be listed separately from actual municipalities, or in Guam, they are all of the municipalities and this is the only list for it. Several others in the category are the primary municipality list where the villages are included, just like List of municipalities in Missouri! In Missouri, villages are incorporated municipalities that are already listed in the main list, and there is nothing special about them that justifies a duplicate listing. Villages in other countries are obviously going to be too different to compare, but the style for Missouri should be to list the incorporated places together, without pointless redundancy. The fact that village lists are accepted elsewhere has no bearing on this page. Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Kunce (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)

Per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Candidate for office but has never been elected. Not notable outside of the campaign. All coverage is related to his unsuccessful campaigns. Unless his military service is notable, this is individual has dubious notability. Zinderboff (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Missouri. Zinderboff (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree I don't think failing to win the plebiscites a person has stood as candidate in makes their participation meaningless or unnoteworthy; WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES are really some lousy policies, and I'm going to argue here from WP:FLEXIBILITY instead. Democracy is a conversation at heart, and while the chatter mostly occurs in the electorate, it's the candidates that do the driving. It's important that our collective memory retain a record of the people who have the courage to participate in the system and do that driving. Let the Secretary of State for the jurisdictions do the gatekeeping, but here I think we should give a pass on WP:N to people that satisfy whatever that official administering the race enforces, especially on the statewide offices in the U.S. I hardly watch television/streaming video, but I actually remember seeing a short clip by this guy last year and what he said led me to believe he was a serious person trying to positively impact lives in his area. If he can manage to win a national party's nomination for statewide office and be both seen and remembered by a guy from California with zero connection to Missouri ~6 months into my steadfast effort to forget that the entire election cycle even took place, that's notable enough for me. Furthermore, it's obvious that some number of our editing brethren put real work into making this a solid and informative article, and I won't be a party to treating their work as unworthy when it clearly isn't. RogueScholar (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since it was asked by the nom, this person's military service is not notable. LtCol isn't an especially high rank, and JAG officers enter as captains in any case (so he was promoted twice).Intothatdarkness 14:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• keep clearly notable per WP:GNG through multiple political campaigns. WP:NPOL establishes notability but doesnt mean failing NPOL automatically means that a person is non-notable, the person can still be notable per WP:GNG. --hroest 16:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. He technically fails NPOL, but there is significant coverage of his ongoing efforts in the political discourse and his antics. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. QoopyQoopy (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep echoing Hannes Röst, not satisfying NPOL is not an indicator of a lack of notability. Multi-year sigcov in reliable sources already available in the article, passes the GNG/ANYBIO. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Beard (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)

In this entry's third AfD nomination, the intuitive votes would appear to be Keep or Delete, rather than Merge/redirect. The first nomination in December 2007 — WP:Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard, with three votes — resulted in deletion. It was recreated in 2012 and nominated — WP:Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard (2nd nomination) — in November 2018. There were three Delete votes, one Delete/redirect vote and three Merge/redirect votes, resulting in Mathew Beard redirecting to either List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest known Americans or List of the verified oldest people#100 verified oldest men (currently redirecting to the latter). However, his name does not appear on either list, nor anywhere else in English Wikipedia, thus making the Mathew Beard redirect that appears among similarly-named men on the Mat Beard disambiguation page completely unhelpful. If the Mathew Beard page is deleted, Talk:Mathew Beard, which has a number of postings as well as links to the two deletion discussions should be probably deleted as well. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous nominations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nom there is no notability as he wasn't even the oldest living person https://longeviquest.com/2023/03/mathew-beard-status-reclassification/ Scooby453w (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with any redirects that point to this guy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm a little confused though thus article had alreahd been deleted years ago only for the nominater to engage in an edit war by removing the re direct only to nominate the page for afd. What is the point? Scooby453w (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mathew Beard entry was not actually deleted but merely unhelpfully redirected, with the article itself still fully accessible via its history. As for the purported "edit war", this simple edit, which only served to append the AfD template, was mistakenly assumed to represent aggressive editing. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But then you could've just nominated the re direct for deletion then? Scooby453w (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon entering the link Mathew Beard via its history, users are able to determine that it is not a standalone redirect that could be handled at WP:RfD, but a still-existing, albeit redirected, article, with an active Talk:Mathew Beard, that needed to be treated as an article, via submission to WP:AfD. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]