Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Illinois

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  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|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:
Purge page cache watch


Illinois

[edit]

Adam Kotsko

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Adam Kotsko (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)

Last AfD was 7 years ago and closed with no consensus. Since then, there have been no secondary sources written that indicate this person's notability. While he is an author, his books aren't really notable either. Please discuss. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotsko has not gained in relevance in the years since the first AfD; back then, some editors argued for keeping the article b/c its subject might become notable. It was a weird argument, and it hasn't panned out. Note how self-referential and promotional the references are. I count around 10 references to Kotsko's blog, e.g. him writing about himself. I suspect some serious lack of NPOV among the editors @Mothomsen03 and @Jtkingsley. Delete. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess, for the following reasons. (I have been called to this discussion due to having started the article in 2013, although in the meantime I've pretty much come around to "let's just not have any BLPs at all if we can help it". Anyway.) Kotsko is notable, if at all, for his writing. And indeed he has authored multiple books that meet the first criterion of WP:NBOOK, namely that they have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Specifically: Awkwardness was reviewed in The New Inquiry and discussed in depth in Critical Studies in Television (Sage); Creepiness has been reviewed in Critical Inquiry (U of C) and analyzed in depth in Consumption Markets & Culture (T&F); The Prince of This World has reviewed in Theory & Event (JHU Press) and Philosophy in Review; Zizek and Theology has been reviewed in New Blackfriars (Cambridge University Press) and in the International Journal of Systematic Theology (Cambridge University Press); Neoliberalism's Demons has been reviewed in Political Theology (T&F) and is the subject of at least five pages of close examination in Maxwell Kennel's Postsecular History (Springer Nature); The Politics of Redemption has been the subject of reviews in Anglican Theological Review and Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. (For most of these there are certainly more, but I'm stopping at two.) Now you may argue that notability is not transitive and therefore this significant coverage of Kotsko's various works does not constitute significant coverage of him for GNG purposes. That's a plausible argument and if it carries the day, we will presumably want to split the existing article into stubs on each of his individual books, and dabbify the page to point to those book-specific articles. Of course each of those new articles will need to have some information about the book's author, so we will have actually just multiplied our BLP and maintenance issues. And since notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, and the resulting stubs are unlikely to be built into substantial articles in the near term, we will likely soon find that the reader and the project would be better served by merging these stubs into a single article on Adam Kotsko, as NBOOK itself suggests. Given that such an outcome leaves us back exactly where we started, WP:NOTBURO suggests that we should just keep the article now and save ourselves the hassle. -- Visviva (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reviews brought by Visviva (which I have AGF'd). Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except none of the article is actually based on any of the book reviews mentioned, just citations of the subject's personal blog. 2404:4408:476B:4500:A5FF:76BD:1588:2591 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the subject is notable then the article can be improved using the sources that have been brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that hasn't happened even since the first AfD in 2017 because the subject isn't actually notable (reviews in specialist journals carry very little weight, as noted in the previous AfD) and as a result no one cares to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. It just continues to exist for the subject's benefit, written by the subject and/or people close to them (i.e., at Shimer/North Central) using sources from the subject's personal blog and other completely unreliable citations. I predict that if the article passes this second AfD it will just be nominated again in the future when someone else notices that it is entirely based on unreliable sources. 2404:4408:476B:4500:E867:645B:3954:A301 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons

[edit]
List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons (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)

Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete other articles First, note on the reason this article was created. The material in this article was transferred from MeTV Toons, which made the article as noted "too long to comfortably read the main article". This article/list is not any different from others on Wikipedia. It contains references provided by other editors for verification. This article is directly the same as others under the category: Lists_of_television_series_by_network. Please visit this category to confirm. If we limit articles/lists to original programming and not list rerun programs, we will need to delete a lot of articles/lists such as ION or Antenna TV for example. Thus, what do we consider as "notable"?. This is not the only channel that is currently listed on Wikipedia as per quote "Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability." Msw1002 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I do say about this list article, it does need some cleanup. However, deletion doesn't sound correct. Rivertown (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every television channel that exist doesn't get to list every single program they show. These are shows someone else created for different channels. Only one original program, so no need for a list for just that. Dream Focus 15:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As someone mentioned above, where does it say a list qualifies as notable when it only lists original programs specifically? I can see the concern over a list, especially not referenced. I did not create this list, just moved it out of the main article, which was becoming too long with this list included. The lists such as List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV and others have been on Wikipedia for over a decade with no issues at this point. Just mentioning....
    Msw1002 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avivah Wittenberg-Cox

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Avivah Wittenberg-Cox (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)

Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Ref-bombed and Dishonestly sourced largely with primary sources. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Comments from her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially considering the lack of good sources (and the fact that the article is an orphan) SirBrahms (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is quoted in brief statements quite frequently, but I can find no other reviews of her books. I did some tidying up and removed references to promotional websites. The three news articles with the most extensive coverage that I can find are [1], the articles written by Carolyn Flynn for the Albuquerque Journal (newspaper.com clippings are in the article), and the 2018 article where she discusses her book Late Love [2]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article now lists three reviews of her book Why Women Mean Business, a promising start. But I didn't find any reviews of her other books listed in the selected works section. They appear self-published but it's the reviews more than the publisher that concerns me. One more reliably published review of a different book (not in Chautauquan Daily, her go-to publicity outlet) would push me over to a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR, but I don't think we should pass that criterion based on only one book. I don't think the other sources provide in-depth and independent coverage of her suitable for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are multiple WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. A number of these have been added since the AfD was initiated. Nnev66 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- book reviewed by the NYTimes, cited as an expert in the field by Washington Post, and published as author by Harvard Business Review and Financial Times. There's promotion and fluff in the article, but I am happy to put the standard of external notability at a single book reviewed in the Times. It's not a slam dunk, but I think it's a keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil JoJo

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lil JoJo (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)

Recreation of previously deleted article, lacks WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BASIC and WP:NOTABILITY. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 08:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Article has dozens and dozens of independent sources and a variety of such. Proves notability by showing how his death and influence caused major effects in the gang war in Chicago. RowanJ LP (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm personally undecided but will point out that the article might be viable if reconstructed around his murder and his status as the victim, because that received a lot of reliable coverage in Chicago news as a symptom of gang violence. That might require re-titling the article as Murder of Joseph J. Coleman or something similar. His musicial achievements as Lil JoJo are minimal and not notable enough for a musician-based article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename - I am a major contributor to this article. I think there is definitely a justified argument for keeping the article because his murder was a significant event that received major coverage and discussion. His music is foundational to the Chicago drill subgenre, but there is an argument that that alone may not justify designating an entire article for it (given the lack of references about it). I agree with Doomsdayer520's comment above that the page should be re-titled as Murder of Joseph J. Coleman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerebrality (talk • contribs) 24 October 2024 (UTC)

natemup (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get more support for the move?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, how can it be moved without keeping? I have seen AfDs closed with a "Move" consensus in the past. I assume Admins can see the forest for the trees. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athletico Physical Therapy

[edit]
Athletico Physical Therapy (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)

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Sourcing mainly consists of press releases, WP:CORPTRIV routine announcements, and non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE search wasn't of much help, mostly directory listings and passing mentions. Left guide (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Sports, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cant find any coverage to speak of. Gave up a few pages after the yelp reviews. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if you search on "Althletico" quite a lot comes up (not the football team). While it is not the world's largest PT, it is a well established one; I have in fact twice been a customer. I wonder if a detailed WP:BEFORE was done using all permutations. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ldm1954, I don't think I've seen you on CORP AFDs much, just wanted to quickly confirm if you're aware normally a lot of the search results we normally see are press releases, which are excluded under WP:ORGIND. For example, of the first 15 google results on my end for Athletico -paranaense about the company instead of the football club ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7][8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]) only one (number 6 on the list) is not a press release, and even that is local coverage of the type of charity activities companies often do for publicity and composed of mostly quotes from the organisations involved. This is quite a common situation for NCORP because most companies interested in that kind of thing will put out press releases very regularly but it does mean that the number of times it comes up in search results (ghits) even when confirmed to be about the subject is quite often less useful for establishing notability than many other subjects. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alpha3031 I am not that familiar with CORP AfDs, although I have come across quite a few startups described in academic BLPs as part of claims for notability. I am also familiar with churnalism as that occurs with too many science blogs. Three points first:
    1. I did not know much about PT, but over the last few years I have learned. I would not class the PT employees the same as nurses, but they are certainly grossly underpaid and their role is not that different.
    2. It is a pretty bad page, clearly it was written by a novice as it does not hit the appropriate topics.
    3. As an educated guess, each location sees 40 patients per day which, with repeat visits comes to about 100 per week. When the numbers are combined I think this is a significant health care effort.
    Beyond that, the sources you quote in fact have material which I think should have been used:
    • ([1] quotes the Big10 VP which could be used
    • [3] is an award from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services which can perhaps be found.
    • [7] is from another company so is independent.
    • [10] has quotes from the Chicago Bears which could be used.
    There might be more. There is a YouTube channel here which at a minimum goes as an external link Ldm1954 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in theory, some of these sources could plausibly provide information in an article, but the main point is we need sources establishing notability in the first place in accordance with WP:NORG. The three numbered points don't address Wikipedia notability. As to those sources, the Chicago Bears are a football team who appear to be one of the PT company's clients, so not an independent source, that's a WP:COISOURCE. The YouTube video is published by the company's account, so clearly not an independent source either. PRNewswire (or at least the link you provided) simply regurgitates press releases by the company, so obviously not independent either. The material published by another company that you claim to be independent is actually a WP:COISOURCE because it says NextGen Healthcare, Inc…announced its extended agreement with Athletico Physical Therapy. The article hosted on the Malaysian Reserve states that it's copied from PRNewswire which means it's another regurgitated press release. Left guide (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Illinois&oldid=1255205791"