This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Michigan. 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|Michigan|~~~~}} 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.
- Note that 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 links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Michigan.
- 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:
-
Danialle Karmanos (
|
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)
Routine coverage and awards; no reliable sources. Likely not meeting ANYBIO
BoraVoro (
talk) 12:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: Some coverage of her philanthropy
[1],
[2],
[3]. Sources 2 and 3 I've listed are more about a yoga program she founded, perhaps create the article and redirect there or to the Children's Hospital in Detroit?
Oaktree b (
talk) 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Businesspeople,
Women,
Journalism,
Health and fitness,
Education, and
Michigan.
WCQuidditch
☎
✎ 19:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Jalen Schlachter (
|
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)
Non-notable football player. Sources are all standard run-of-the-mill sources so failed GNG, never played in the NFL, pedestrian college football carer.
Wizardman 13:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of American football-related deletion discussions.
Wizardman 13:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Sportspeople and
Michigan.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider) 13:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: No coverage found for this person; playing college football alone isn't notable. Not meeting notability requirements.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Unable to find any
WP:SIGCOV for the subject to meet the
WP:GNG, only some routine mentions in articles about other players. This [
[4]] may be
WP:SIGCOV but it is paywalled.
Let'srun (
talk) 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. Some coverage is available
here,
here,
here,
here, and
here.
Ejgreen77 (
talk) 02:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I saw that coverage but it all fails
WP:YOUNGATH in my opinion. Other minds may differ.
Let'srun (
talk) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Martha O'Kennon (
|
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)
Retired professor with single-digit number of publications, one with 24 citations on Google Scholar and all the rest less than 10, far from enough for
WP:PROF. All sources are by her or from her employer, inadequate for
WP:GNG. This was already draftified and restored to article space (by copy & paste) without any significant improvement; for draft history see
[5]. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Women,
Mathematics,
Computing,
China,
Michigan,
New York, and
Virginia.
WCQuidditch
☎
✎ 08:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Record looks far short of
WP:NPROF, and no other notability is apparent.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk) 09:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. She also does not meet
WP:BASIC. I found one news article talking about art pieces she makes, and nothing more.
DaffodilOcean (
talk) 10:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Search turned up nothing to meet notability on any standard.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 13:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Nothing came up in a search that would indicate any sort of notability. Also of note, the article creator
Davidpgca (
talk ·
contribs) appears to be a
WP:SPA dedicated to writing articles on
Albion College related people and topics, including a number that may or may not meet notability standards.
nf utvol (
talk) 15:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Comment that, looking through images contributed by
Davidpgca
[6], all the images appear to be tagged as "own work". That appears to be true for very few of them (in particular, not for the ones that are 80 years old). Anyone know how to report at Commons?
Russ Woodroofe (
talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I noticed that myself. I have gone in and tagged the items that are not clearly in the public domain for removal on the basis that this user is not the owner of the works.
nf utvol (
talk) 01:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. She seems to have led a neat life, but not one that rises quite to the level of encyclopedic notability.
BD2412
T 16:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Mr. Chain (
|
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)
Company fails
WP:NCORP. While several articles cited here provide significant coverage beyond trivial mentions, they are all in highly local publications (the Manistee News and the Traverse City Record-Eagle). Under NCORP, "Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town)... is not an indication of notability." A BEFORE search turns up no additional qualifying sources.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 16:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Companies and
Michigan.
Shellwood (
talk) 16:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep meets
WP:GNG. I think there should be more in newspaper archives - this company is very notable in its particular niche and most of the innovative things done by this company were in pre-internet era (it was founded in 1960).
Nienders (
talk) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The
WP:BURDEN is on the editor proposing material to prove notability; can you supply the newspaper citations? I searched archive sites in my BEFORE search but I only found local media coverage.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 12:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (
|
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)
Most likely fails
WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find
WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability
|
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Alaska-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Delaware-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Florida-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Idaho-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Indiana-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Iowa-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Kansas-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Maine-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Montana-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New York-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Texas-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Utah-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Vermont-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 14:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 14:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
|
- Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them.
Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of
WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which
Wikipedia isn't. --
Metropolitan90
(talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.
- 2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list.
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets
WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers,
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Even if hypothetically NLIST was not met (which I believe it is),
WP:LISTPURP suggests that there would still be other grounds to keep.
- As prodder and nom, you have not shown any evidence of having demonstrated
WP:BEFORE due diligence. The plethora of Google results for searches like "stamp clubs in America" suggests that this was not done. It isn’t really the most GF behavior to simply, since the burden of proof generally lies with the “keep” side once process has begun, make a prod or AfD nomination without actually determining if there’s a prima facie case for a notability or verifiability challenge.
- Sorry for the sharpness, but sometimes it’s necessary.
-
RadioactiveBoulevardier (
talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- delete I'm just not seeing this. The NY society's building is historic, but when you look at sources about these places, even the few with articles really don't seem notable. And anyway, what are the sources for this list? I'm looking at
the listing from Linn's Stamp News, and it's far more complete and is up-to-date; it's also clear that most of the listings would never garner an article. I don't see the point of duplicating a not-very-useful subset of thei info (just the names), and once we go past that, we're in
WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory.
Mangoe (
talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Thumb Cellular (
|
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 GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. Found name mentions, promotional, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. //
Timothy ::
talk 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Why not try to add on to the article rather than delete it? I worked on it for literally 2 1/2 hours trying to find the most information I could on the subject. I did it right before I had to go to work too. Plus, there are many local cellular providers and local radio stations listed on Wikipedia that have been up for years, meaning that there is an interest in them. What makes Thumb Cellular different?
Demondude182 (
talk) 07:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Unfortunately, the current rule is supposed to be that we can't trust what companies have to say about themselves. This includes pres releases, and most of the regular business announcements that you see, which are mostly just copy-and-pasted press releases. It used to be less strict, and the articles on those other local cellular providers were probably created back then, and nobody has gotten around to reviewing if they need to be deleted since then.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 13:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting because there is an unbolded Keep here from the article creator, preventing a Soft Deletion closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 02:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Jon Forshee (
|
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)
Bio of a composer/academic fails GNG, NBIO, NACADEMIC, NMUSIC. The independent sources do not show
WP:SIGCOV;
WP:BEFORE search turns up no other reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage or evidence of notability under any of the other SNG guidelines that might apply.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 23:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Academics and educators,
Bands and musicians,
France,
California,
Colorado,
Michigan,
New York, and
Ohio.
WCQuidditch
☎
✎ 00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete -- composer/researcher doing good things to advance his career that are pretty typical for composers at this stage. Significantly TOOSOON at this point. On the non-academic side, lacking the awards or major ensembles (those not dedicated to producing student work) to pass notability; on the WP:PROF side, does not have academic appointments or the sort of extensive influence to pass there. (Some of the journals are important in the field, but book/CD reviews are not articles.) --
Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert
(talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- These are mostly fair points. Not sure what the "TOOSOON" means--too soon to have a wiki article? Regarding academic appointment, a Google search shows that Forshee was a visiting professor and now instructor. As to the ensembles performing Forshee's compositions, the Callithumpian Consort and Trio Kobayashi are, according to their own websites, not dedicated to performing student works (they list Elliott Carter, Schuittke, Huber, Scelsi, Cage, Lachenmann, Richard Barrett, Jürg Frey, Larry Polansky, James Tenney, basically all widely known composers on the international scene). The articles by Forshee don't appear to be book reviews or CD reviews, but neither do they appear to be rigorous scholarly research articles; they seem to be somewhere in between: interpretive analytical essays? The one in Computer Music Journal is an early review of software by the pioneering computer music composer Trevor Wishart. Part of the motivation for this article is that Forshee is one of the few notable (or borderline notable) students of composer Anthony Davis, who just had his Met Opera premiere of his Malcolm X this season.
Dolemites (
talk) 18:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Notability cannot
WP:INHERITED from Anthony Davis or anyone else; for each subject it must be established independently according to the criteria. No articles by Forshee can be used establish his notability, only what independent and reliable sources have to say about him with "significant coverage."
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions) 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Discussion currently leans toward deletion, but a clearer consensus would be appreciated given that there has been an objection to deletion and thus soft-deletion seems inappropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
Proposed deletions