 | Points of interest related to
Illinois on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Illinois. 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 {{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.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Illinois|~~~~}} 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 Illinois. 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:| watch |
Nolan McGuire
- Nolan McGuire ( | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion would be a redirect, but I'm not sure what would be the best target. toweli ( talk) 07:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Illinois. toweli ( talk) 07:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Association for Business Communication
- Association for Business Communication ( | 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)
No indication of notability, cannot find sources besides routine press releases. Fails WP:NORG Jay Jay What did I do? 21:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Organizations, Business, Illinois, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Frank Ori
- Frank Ori ( | 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 am unable to find enough coverage of this American football player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. The most I did find was a few sentences here, which is not totally unsurprising considering he was a replacement player who played three NFL games. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I can't find mentions of his playing career in newspapers or a Gnews search. I don't see notability based on a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I couldn't find anything either on Newspapers.com. NewsLibrary used to have a lot stuff that wasn't on Newspapers.com but you have to pay now to even search for stuff. Hopefully, someone else has better luck but I'm not hopeful since he's an offensive lineman. Pre 2022, I would normally just vote Keep since Ori is someone who played in real games, not just preseason or practice squad. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk) 01:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm thinking that this guy may have been a replacement player who played as a result of the 1987 NFL player's strike? If so, that could explain the lack of coverage for him. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 11:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG. The three games he played in were the three games during the strike. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 21:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Cbl62 ( talk) 12:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- A number of passing mentions and brief things of course – I could probably write a decent start-class article but I'd likely be wasting my time... An article on the 1987 Minnesota Vikings replacement players, with biographies of everyone (and the same for all teams) we deem non-notable would probably work. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Rob DePaola
- Rob DePaola ( | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I'm not sure what would be the better redirect target of the two bands mentioned in the article. toweli ( talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Illinois. toweli ( talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Honor System (band), as that band seemed to accomplish a little more. I'm not sure if his other band ( The Broadways) is notable either. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Loch Lomond (Illinois)
- Loch Lomond (Illinois) ( | 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:GNG. Small reservoir without significant, independent coverage to justify an article. SeymourHolcomb ( talk) 16:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Geography, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: If editors of this article wish to keep it, they may want to cite some secondary sources, as the article's only current source is a primary source from the lake's website. Mjks28 ( talk) 05:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete There's a million of these sorts of rentention ponds and suburban subdivisions, but there's no indication this is notable. Reywas92 Talk 01:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck
- Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck ( | 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:NOTA AND WP:GNG BryceM2001 ( talk) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The article could have a better career section, but I have heard about Dr Vandyck outside of WP for her academic career, and believe from this that she is notable. Probably meets WP:NACADEMIC at least if someone can collect sources on her publications. Kingsif ( talk) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: There are a number of sources about the subject, but all centre around (what they see as) her unusual name. Vandyck's research has not yet made significant impact in her discipline to meet
WP:NACADEMIC. All in all
WP:TOOSOON. –
Ploni
💬
00:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed that most articles focus on her name in some way, but there are other Wikipedia articles with that kind of focus, like Place names considered unusual. Not sure why coverage for that aspect would be necessarily less legitimate. Benny White ( talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Meets WP:BASIC and I don't think the exclusions apply. There are many reliable sources. Most are from the same timeframe (2019), but not all. One that is currently included in the article is from 2009. Benny White ( talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. No pass of WP:Prof with zero cites of GS. Not enough achievement yet for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC).
- Redirect and lightly merge to Naming in the United States. I'm seeing a single source from 2009, and a flurry of sources from 2019, all human interest stories about the unusual name. This looks like a WP:BLP1E to me. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Per WP:BLP1E, all coverage is a single point in time about her getting a PhD. No pass of WP:Prof and no pass of GNG. -- hroest 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Article is notable in my opinion, but could benefit from more sources. Mjks28 ( talk) 05:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like many good sources with significant coverage from 2019-2020. There is also a in-depth article from 2009. I think this establishes enough notability to keep the article. – notwally ( talk) 23:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge. BLP1E strongly applies here, and the subject does not meet any NPROF criteria. However, there is significant coverage in 2009, surrounding her name, that could be merged. Considering how often two sources with 3–4 sentences of routine, often non-independent or non-RS, [1] [2] transfer coverage each, or even merely the unevidenced presumption that such sources exist, [3] [4] pass as "GNG" for athletes, [5] it's only fair that the far more extensive biographical coverage here would count for something. JoelleJay ( talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Carl Faingold
- Carl Faingold ( | 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've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1.
Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --
hroest
10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's a pretty gross misreading of
WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability.
HyperAccelerated (
talk)
02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account."
Qflib (
talk)
16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I also look at the bio side of it as well. It's great if someone is a highly cited writer, but if we don't have any reliable sources to form even a very basic biography (age, education, work history) then is it worth what would ostensibly be a list of journals they've contributed to? (and even in that case, we can't necessarily be sure to what extent they contributed). Lindsey40186 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- This metric is arbitrary and self-serving. If this person has 12 publications with 100+ citations and is notable, what if they only had 11? Are they still notable? What if they had 12 publications that had exactly 99 citations? Are they suddenly no longer notable? What if there are lots of self-citations? This is why reliable sourcing matters. Citation counts alone are deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, if the subject's citation counts are sky high, then finding reliable sourcing shouldn't be a issue. Someone would have written a reliable piece about their discoveries. The fact that several people haven't found reliable sources is evidence that the subject hasn't achieved the impact that WP:NPROF demands. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account."
Qflib (
talk)
16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's a pretty gross misreading of
WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability.
HyperAccelerated (
talk)
02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)- Delete: Fails WP: N. I can't find any sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:NPROF#1, as explained by hroast; meeting one element of
WP:NPROF is enough to establish notability.
Qflib (
talk)
17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies to hroest for the spelling error. Qflib ( talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
I would usually consider an opinion to Draftify an article but with no one offering to work on this article, I think it would just be G13'd down the road. As a Soft Delete, it can be restored to main or Draft space should an editor be interested in developing it further. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Duncan Turnbull
- Duncan Turnbull ( | 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)
Can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player beyond basic coverage either from the clubs, his college, or transfer notes. It appears as though he never actually played a professional match, which might be a failure of WP:SPORTBASIC. The only thing of basic substance I found was this, which is local and behind a paywall. Anwegmann ( talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann ( talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, England, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
Giant
Snowman
16:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Transfermrkt has him playing in one professional match in the EFL Trophy for Portsmouth vs Peterborough (
source). Same matched that was referenced in the paywalled article.
Tpd13 (
talk)
11:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Transfermarkt is not a reliable source, but one EFL Cup match still doesn't make up for the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann ( talk) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Transfermrkt has him playing in one professional match in the EFL Trophy for Portsmouth vs Peterborough (
source). Same matched that was referenced in the paywalled article.
Tpd13 (
talk)
11:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman and
Anwegmann: Some coverage:
Shaw Network,
Daily Herald (
2),
Portsmouth News (
2). Thoughts?
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting these. I saw the first three when I was initially nominating the article. The problem with these is that they are focused almost entirely on his signing a professional contract and are very much local coverage—his hometown newspaper(s). This is hardly sustained coverage or, in my view at least, significant, meaningful coverage. The fact that the event these article cover happened, but then he went on to have a very brief career with no league appearances and no coverage at all makes me feel like it doesn’t/shouldn’t suffice for
WP:SIGCOV. That said, I’m certainly open to other opinions on this. Thanks, again.
Anwegmann (
talk)
03:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- No issues with 'local' news per se - but to analyse the sources: Shaw Network is paywalled but what is available is a bit routine; DH 1 looks OK; DH2 is routine; Portsmouth News 1 and 2 routine. It's essentially all 'look at this American who signed for an English soccer team'. Giant Snowman 17:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting these. I saw the first three when I was initially nominating the article. The problem with these is that they are focused almost entirely on his signing a professional contract and are very much local coverage—his hometown newspaper(s). This is hardly sustained coverage or, in my view at least, significant, meaningful coverage. The fact that the event these article cover happened, but then he went on to have a very brief career with no league appearances and no coverage at all makes me feel like it doesn’t/shouldn’t suffice for
WP:SIGCOV. That said, I’m certainly open to other opinions on this. Thanks, again.
Anwegmann (
talk)
03:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify: Since article isn't a WP:STUB, and isn't completely lacking sources, I suggest turning the article into a draft, so that it can be updated, and later apply to be published again. - Mjks28 ( talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Andruzzi
New White Sox Stadium
- New White Sox Stadium ( | 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 good example of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This is one proposal, but it is so early in the process that this article is not warranted. Angryapathy ( talk) 15:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Illinois. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep They are still in negotiations with the state of
Illinois on the proposal along with the new
Chicago Bears stadium. That's why they are categorized under Category:Proposed stadiums in the United States. If nothing becomes of this proposal, then the category on the page changes to Category:Unbuilt stadiums in the United States. That's the whole purpose of these categories...
Roberto221 (
talk)
18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The existence of a category doesn't mean any subject that falls under that category gets its own Wikipedia page. WP:N is paramount, not categories. Angryapathy ( talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Draftify per nom. The proposal has not yet been approved for a stadium that may or may not be built. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Frank Anchor 19:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
As I stated before, then it gets moved to [8] and in the case of arenas, [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto221 ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Pointing out other articles is not a valid argument in AFDs. Each article must stand or fall on its own merits. Frank Anchor 22:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Proposed deletions ( WP:PROD)
| Points of interest related to
Illinois on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Illinois. 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 {{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.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Illinois|~~~~}} 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 Illinois. 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:| watch |
Nolan McGuire
- Nolan McGuire ( | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion would be a redirect, but I'm not sure what would be the best target. toweli ( talk) 07:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Illinois. toweli ( talk) 07:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Association for Business Communication
- Association for Business Communication ( | 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)
No indication of notability, cannot find sources besides routine press releases. Fails WP:NORG Jay Jay What did I do? 21:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Organizations, Business, Illinois, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Frank Ori
- Frank Ori ( | 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 am unable to find enough coverage of this American football player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. The most I did find was a few sentences here, which is not totally unsurprising considering he was a replacement player who played three NFL games. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I can't find mentions of his playing career in newspapers or a Gnews search. I don't see notability based on a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I couldn't find anything either on Newspapers.com. NewsLibrary used to have a lot stuff that wasn't on Newspapers.com but you have to pay now to even search for stuff. Hopefully, someone else has better luck but I'm not hopeful since he's an offensive lineman. Pre 2022, I would normally just vote Keep since Ori is someone who played in real games, not just preseason or practice squad. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk) 01:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm thinking that this guy may have been a replacement player who played as a result of the 1987 NFL player's strike? If so, that could explain the lack of coverage for him. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 11:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG. The three games he played in were the three games during the strike. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 21:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Cbl62 ( talk) 12:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- A number of passing mentions and brief things of course – I could probably write a decent start-class article but I'd likely be wasting my time... An article on the 1987 Minnesota Vikings replacement players, with biographies of everyone (and the same for all teams) we deem non-notable would probably work. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Rob DePaola
- Rob DePaola ( | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I'm not sure what would be the better redirect target of the two bands mentioned in the article. toweli ( talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Illinois. toweli ( talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Honor System (band), as that band seemed to accomplish a little more. I'm not sure if his other band ( The Broadways) is notable either. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Loch Lomond (Illinois)
- Loch Lomond (Illinois) ( | 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:GNG. Small reservoir without significant, independent coverage to justify an article. SeymourHolcomb ( talk) 16:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Geography, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: If editors of this article wish to keep it, they may want to cite some secondary sources, as the article's only current source is a primary source from the lake's website. Mjks28 ( talk) 05:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete There's a million of these sorts of rentention ponds and suburban subdivisions, but there's no indication this is notable. Reywas92 Talk 01:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck
- Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck ( | 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:NOTA AND WP:GNG BryceM2001 ( talk) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The article could have a better career section, but I have heard about Dr Vandyck outside of WP for her academic career, and believe from this that she is notable. Probably meets WP:NACADEMIC at least if someone can collect sources on her publications. Kingsif ( talk) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: There are a number of sources about the subject, but all centre around (what they see as) her unusual name. Vandyck's research has not yet made significant impact in her discipline to meet
WP:NACADEMIC. All in all
WP:TOOSOON. –
Ploni
💬
00:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed that most articles focus on her name in some way, but there are other Wikipedia articles with that kind of focus, like Place names considered unusual. Not sure why coverage for that aspect would be necessarily less legitimate. Benny White ( talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Meets WP:BASIC and I don't think the exclusions apply. There are many reliable sources. Most are from the same timeframe (2019), but not all. One that is currently included in the article is from 2009. Benny White ( talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. No pass of WP:Prof with zero cites of GS. Not enough achievement yet for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC).
- Redirect and lightly merge to Naming in the United States. I'm seeing a single source from 2009, and a flurry of sources from 2019, all human interest stories about the unusual name. This looks like a WP:BLP1E to me. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Per WP:BLP1E, all coverage is a single point in time about her getting a PhD. No pass of WP:Prof and no pass of GNG. -- hroest 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Article is notable in my opinion, but could benefit from more sources. Mjks28 ( talk) 05:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like many good sources with significant coverage from 2019-2020. There is also a in-depth article from 2009. I think this establishes enough notability to keep the article. – notwally ( talk) 23:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge. BLP1E strongly applies here, and the subject does not meet any NPROF criteria. However, there is significant coverage in 2009, surrounding her name, that could be merged. Considering how often two sources with 3–4 sentences of routine, often non-independent or non-RS, [1] [2] transfer coverage each, or even merely the unevidenced presumption that such sources exist, [3] [4] pass as "GNG" for athletes, [5] it's only fair that the far more extensive biographical coverage here would count for something. JoelleJay ( talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Carl Faingold
- Carl Faingold ( | 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've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1.
Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --
hroest
10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's a pretty gross misreading of
WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability.
HyperAccelerated (
talk)
02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account."
Qflib (
talk)
16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I also look at the bio side of it as well. It's great if someone is a highly cited writer, but if we don't have any reliable sources to form even a very basic biography (age, education, work history) then is it worth what would ostensibly be a list of journals they've contributed to? (and even in that case, we can't necessarily be sure to what extent they contributed). Lindsey40186 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- This metric is arbitrary and self-serving. If this person has 12 publications with 100+ citations and is notable, what if they only had 11? Are they still notable? What if they had 12 publications that had exactly 99 citations? Are they suddenly no longer notable? What if there are lots of self-citations? This is why reliable sourcing matters. Citation counts alone are deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, if the subject's citation counts are sky high, then finding reliable sourcing shouldn't be a issue. Someone would have written a reliable piece about their discoveries. The fact that several people haven't found reliable sources is evidence that the subject hasn't achieved the impact that WP:NPROF demands. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account."
Qflib (
talk)
16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's a pretty gross misreading of
WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability.
HyperAccelerated (
talk)
02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)- Delete: Fails WP: N. I can't find any sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:NPROF#1, as explained by hroast; meeting one element of
WP:NPROF is enough to establish notability.
Qflib (
talk)
17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies to hroest for the spelling error. Qflib ( talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
I would usually consider an opinion to Draftify an article but with no one offering to work on this article, I think it would just be G13'd down the road. As a Soft Delete, it can be restored to main or Draft space should an editor be interested in developing it further. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Duncan Turnbull
- Duncan Turnbull ( | 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)
Can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player beyond basic coverage either from the clubs, his college, or transfer notes. It appears as though he never actually played a professional match, which might be a failure of WP:SPORTBASIC. The only thing of basic substance I found was this, which is local and behind a paywall. Anwegmann ( talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann ( talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, England, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
Giant
Snowman
16:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Transfermrkt has him playing in one professional match in the EFL Trophy for Portsmouth vs Peterborough (
source). Same matched that was referenced in the paywalled article.
Tpd13 (
talk)
11:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Transfermarkt is not a reliable source, but one EFL Cup match still doesn't make up for the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann ( talk) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Transfermrkt has him playing in one professional match in the EFL Trophy for Portsmouth vs Peterborough (
source). Same matched that was referenced in the paywalled article.
Tpd13 (
talk)
11:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman and
Anwegmann: Some coverage:
Shaw Network,
Daily Herald (
2),
Portsmouth News (
2). Thoughts?
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting these. I saw the first three when I was initially nominating the article. The problem with these is that they are focused almost entirely on his signing a professional contract and are very much local coverage—his hometown newspaper(s). This is hardly sustained coverage or, in my view at least, significant, meaningful coverage. The fact that the event these article cover happened, but then he went on to have a very brief career with no league appearances and no coverage at all makes me feel like it doesn’t/shouldn’t suffice for
WP:SIGCOV. That said, I’m certainly open to other opinions on this. Thanks, again.
Anwegmann (
talk)
03:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- No issues with 'local' news per se - but to analyse the sources: Shaw Network is paywalled but what is available is a bit routine; DH 1 looks OK; DH2 is routine; Portsmouth News 1 and 2 routine. It's essentially all 'look at this American who signed for an English soccer team'. Giant Snowman 17:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting these. I saw the first three when I was initially nominating the article. The problem with these is that they are focused almost entirely on his signing a professional contract and are very much local coverage—his hometown newspaper(s). This is hardly sustained coverage or, in my view at least, significant, meaningful coverage. The fact that the event these article cover happened, but then he went on to have a very brief career with no league appearances and no coverage at all makes me feel like it doesn’t/shouldn’t suffice for
WP:SIGCOV. That said, I’m certainly open to other opinions on this. Thanks, again.
Anwegmann (
talk)
03:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify: Since article isn't a WP:STUB, and isn't completely lacking sources, I suggest turning the article into a draft, so that it can be updated, and later apply to be published again. - Mjks28 ( talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Andruzzi
New White Sox Stadium
- New White Sox Stadium ( | 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 good example of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This is one proposal, but it is so early in the process that this article is not warranted. Angryapathy ( talk) 15:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Illinois. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep They are still in negotiations with the state of
Illinois on the proposal along with the new
Chicago Bears stadium. That's why they are categorized under Category:Proposed stadiums in the United States. If nothing becomes of this proposal, then the category on the page changes to Category:Unbuilt stadiums in the United States. That's the whole purpose of these categories...
Roberto221 (
talk)
18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The existence of a category doesn't mean any subject that falls under that category gets its own Wikipedia page. WP:N is paramount, not categories. Angryapathy ( talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Draftify per nom. The proposal has not yet been approved for a stadium that may or may not be built. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Frank Anchor 19:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
As I stated before, then it gets moved to [8] and in the case of arenas, [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto221 ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Pointing out other articles is not a valid argument in AFDs. Each article must stand or fall on its own merits. Frank Anchor 22:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)