Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Mexico

Border bridges

Excluded from this AfD

• East Richford–Glen Sutton Border Crossing
• Three Nations Crossing
• Thousand Islands Border Crossing

I propose merging each "port of entry" article into the corresponding "bridge" article for the following reasons:

• In every single case (except the 3 I excluded) the "port of entry" article is a stub and has been since creation.
• In most cases the "bridge" article is also a stub and has been since creation, and both articles contain basically the same topic.
• In most cases (with maybe 2 or 3 exceptions) the bridge in question is only notable because it crosses an international border.
• Hence, with the exception of the three cases above in which the port of entry buildings and the bridge have separate architectural histories worth documenting the port of entry is fundamentally about the same topic as the bridge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:32, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Canada, United States of America, Maine, New Mexico, and Texas. Zeibgeist (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Minnesota and New York. Zeibgeist (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related AfD discussions. Zeibgeist (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I support this idea. But each article should be assessed individually. Could you make a list or table with the matching articles? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  The two lists in this AfD are in the same order, so the 1st "port of entry" article matches the first "bridge" article and so on. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:37, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I took the liberty of putting this into a table for usability. WidgetKid ^Converse 22:06, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support: This approach makes sense to me - not sure why 2 articles would be better than one for each of these. If agreed upon, should this approach be documented somewhere for go-forward? WidgetKid ^Converse 22:06, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support - I merged a few myself several months ago for the El Paso-Juarez area, but never got to the rest. The only one that I think has gotten some standalone coverage is the Marcelino Serna Port of Entry, which has its own detention center facility that has been named separately to the bridge. But either way it could be merged into the bridge article and then we can see if it makes sense to separate. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 16:09, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  Question - Would it be possible to save the sources? Some of them are archived sources that wouldn't be available through online searches unless we have savvy users going through archive.org. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 16:11, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  Even on that one Marcelino Serna Port of Entry still contains very little information not at Tornillo–Guadalupe International Bridge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:31, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

All Pueblo Council

All Pueblo Council (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 clearly a fork (correct term?) of the now-deleted Pueblo republic page and has the exact same problems: WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims unsubstantiated by sources. Part of a WP:GARDEN that was formed around the Pueblo republic page. wound theology◈ 02:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of History-related AfD discussions. wound theology◈ 02:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close per WP:GNG, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, and WP:Gaming the system. This page is not a fork, as the 1680-1692 period is just a small part of the article, which covers content from the 1300s-2013. Information on the deleted Pueblo republic page contained information not in the 1680-1692 section here. This nomination cannot be supported by any WP:Reliable sources (which is why the nominator cited no WP:RS) as one of the oldest inter-governmental organizations in the world clearly meets WP:GNG. The nominator has cited no sources to support their WP:FRINGE WP:OR claims. Nominator previously blanked All Pueblo Council of Governors, and suggested the page be split. So I followed their advice and created this article. Now they are trying to get the article they proposed get deleted. This is a clear example of WP:Gaming the system by the nominator, who seems determined to remove as much Pueblo history as possible from Wikipedia without citing any reliable sources. Plumber (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Nominator previously blanked All Pueblo Council of Governors, and suggested the page be split. So I followed their advice and created this article. Now they are trying to get the article they proposed get deleted. Surely you can link, right here, where I suggested the page be split? Because the discussion at Talk:All Pueblo Council of Governors says no such thing. wound theology◈ 03:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    Oh, I thought you wanted the page split. Where exactly do you think this information supported by 84 WP:RS belongs on Wikipedia if you think it does not fit this page nor All Pueblo Council of Governors? Please use direct quotations from reliable sources to back up any claims. Plumber (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    The fact that you jokingly tell me to use direct quotations from reliable sources to back up any claims shows that you are capable of understanding that request and yet you still refuse to do so. wound theology◈ 07:16, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    Again you refuse to answer the question about where the information backed up by 84 citations should go since you oppose their existence on both articles. I am not joking about the fact that you cannot provide a single source to demonstrate your WP:FRINGE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims that this page does not meet WP:GNG. Plumber (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nominations rationale. This is getting tiresome. 296cherry (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Plumber's above comment made me realize this is actually quite plainly a fork of this revision of All Pueblo Council of Governors, which I rolled back as part of the WP:BRD cycle. It is, quite literally, the definition of a WP:BADFORK. wound theology◈
  • After you blanked 90% of that page and suggested it should only cover the contemporary All Pueblo Council of Governors, I created this page as a compromise according to your suggestions. Now you want the information removed from the page you suggested we split from All Pueblo Council of Governors. You clearly do not want the information on any page in Wikipedia which is why this should be closed speedily per WP:Gaming the system. Plumber (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  I did not suggest you split anything. wound theology◈ 05:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. Back to the topic at hand, which is about this page: do you have any direct quotations from WP:RS to prove this article does not meet WP:GNG? Since there are 84 citations on the page, 85 direct quotations from reliable sources would be a good start. Plumber (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  You cannot prove a negative and the fact remains that you cannot demonstrate the sources say what you claim they do. wound theology◈ 06:20, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  So zero citations versus 84, then. A Google Ngram viewer also shows the All Pueblo Council clearly exists. None of these unsourced arguments relate to WP:GNG. Plumber (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think you understand WP:GNG or what is actually being discussed here. The problem is you making a WP:BADFORK with WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. wound theology◈ 07:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  The only WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim here is the one that an organization from the 1300s-2013 is equivalent to a deleted article covering the historical period of 1680-1692. You still cannot provide a single source for this claim, and none of your unsourced claims relate to WP:GNG. Plumber (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm no longer going to respond to you. But thank you for showing precisely how difficult it is to collaborate with you, and how unwilling you are to substantiate claims. You've made my point better than I or anyone else can. wound theology◈ 07:24, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  The nominator has now given up on backing up their WP:FRINGE WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims unsupported by a single source that this article does not meet WP:GNG. I reaffirm my previous move for a speedy close given the 84 citations on this page and Google Ngram viewer. Plumber (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete - No establishment of notability despite repeated explicit requests, instead there's allusions to evidence and consensus without demonstration nor quotes and requests for an editor to prove a negative. Also there is history of similar activity on a related page, see Articles for deletion/Pueblo republic. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The nominator gave up their argument as they could not cite a single WP:RS to show this article fails to meet WP:GNG. There are 84 citations on the page currently, compared to zero by proponents of deletion. If the nominator had provided 85 direct quotations from reliable sources to show this article fails to meet WP:GNG, that would be another matter. But this is impossible because there are none to back up their WP:FRINGE attempt to remove Pueblo history as attested by reliable sources as well as the Google Ngram viewer. I repeat my move for a speedy close. Plumber (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete: as this is another article which had the same problems as the last one. The author is trying to make the sources say things they are clearly not. I agree that this is a case of WP:EXCEPTIONAL but I’d also argue it’s WP:POVFORK as well. Plumber’s recalcitrance towards anyone trying to look into these issues is also a very bad look. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete but make the term a redirect to the All Pueblo Council of Governors, which is an existing, notable organization, whose name was appropriated for this article. Yuchitown (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Leanne Trapedo Sims

Leanne Trapedo Sims (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)

The subject of the article asked me, the creator of the article, to request deletion because Wikipedia articles are looked upon with disfavor in her professional field. On 13 August, I proposed the article for deletion. User:Bearian wrote that the article was eligible for speedy deletion. User:Pburka commented that the person is notable and the request needs to go through AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarnon (talk • contribs) 16:12, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• keep a tenured prof and department chair, along with critical book reviews . Easy pass at academic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think she has a meaty enough publication to pass WP:NPROF or WP:NACADEMIC anyway. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - (1) The subject requested the deletion, which I take seriously and in good faith; she hasn't sought fame such as a reality TV show star, Internet content creator, or Ted Talk speaker. (2) The article's creator requested the deletion, which would lead normally to speedy deletion. (3) A named chair at a college is presumed to be notable, but outside of political leaders, or Nobel Prize or EGOT winners, nobody is automatically granted an article here. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  First one - Makes no difference

  Second one - Other editors made enough contributions that I do not think we would have speedy deleted this

  Third - She certainly seems to me to meet WP:academic, and you yourself have provided no actual deletion rational.

  For whoever closes this, I would disregard the above, as AFD isn't a vote. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Speedy Keep as there is no valid provided deletion rational. Keep otherwise for the reasons above.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see how a Wikipedia article that is positive could be bad for anyone. We don't delete articles of public figures just by them asking about it, unless it also meets the regular criteria for deletion. A university chair is notable.Renoflower (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2026 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 16:46, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Staticspector (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No grounds for a speedy keep; WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is a valid rationale for deletion. Right now, the rest of the editors are split on whether the subject's notability, if she has it, is sufficiently clear to outweigh the recommendation under the BLP policy that such deletion requests be honored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

The president of Knox College and Knox department chairs with endowed professorships don't have Wikipedia pages. Peace & Justice Studies is a very small program at Knox. Jarnon (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, South Africa, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete named full professorships are generally taken as evidence of notability, but not named associate professorships. Also Knox College may not be prestigious enough of an institution to meet the criterion. Being the chair of a department is not evidence of notability as department chairs are often administrative posts that are more of a burden than an honor and often are not even held by full professors as in this case. Additionally, doesn't meet usual criterion for author notability with only one book. If someone really wants to, they could write an article about the book, but the professor herself isn't yet notable. If she publishes another book that ends up with reviews, we could revisit. Jahaza (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  We recently deleted a named associate professor on an engineering department as well as a named associate professor from Keene State College. Jahaza (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLPREQUEST. I'd probably argue to keep otherwise, but NPROF notability is marginal, and she's not a public figure. pburka (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This is borderline at best and therefore we should honor the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE but I might have gone with a delete opinion regardless. "A tenured prof and department chair" is definitely not enough for WP:PROF (#C5 and #C6), and neither is a named associate professor position at a non-research institution. I can only find the one book review linked above of the one book, also not enough for WP:AUTHOR. BLPREQUESTDELETE is indeed a "valid provided deletion rational" [sic]. And despite the WP:VAGUEWAVE by Staticspector, no actual evidence of passing GNG (for which we need in-depth independent sources and have none except the one book review) nor PROF has been provided. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Insignificant as a scholar. Athel cb (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per BLPREQUESTDELETE -- I am with @Oaktree b today and not @David Eppstein in my judgment of academic notability -- on that alone I would vote Keep on the basis of the named chair (rare at Knox, if I recall from other AfDs and knowledge), but it's not a "must have/public figure" article, so I tend to respect BLPREQUESTDELETE highly. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, and independently on notability. On the chair: Duke University Press's author listing for Reckoning with Restorative Justice (2023) gives the title as Daniel J. Logan Assistant Professor of Peace and Justice. WP:NPROF C5 is about a named or distinguished chair at a major institution, which is not what a named assistant professorship at a liberal arts college is, so that criterion isn't reached. It's definitely worth noting since it has been treated as decisive by more than one voter in this discussion. This puts her exactly where blprequestdelete is meant to operate: a low-profile academic of marginal notability who does not want the article.Cowabungaturtles! (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Knox College is a highly respected undergraduate college, which normally would make me lean towards keeping, but as per David Eppstein, it's not a clear case. I feel I must remind Kingsmasher678 that "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors." Bearian (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  Every word I said was right, minus point 1, which you did not cite to policy. That left me to assume it was vibe-based or IAR. With the policy linked to, I could see a valid argument for deleting or keeping. As such, I will vote neutral. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2026 (UTC)