Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Alabama

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Alabama. 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|Alabama|~~~~}} 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 Alabama. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Alabama/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Alabama

Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Jeff Connaughton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposing draftify; the sourcing in this article is extremely poor for a BLP. Only one source for a really long article. Possible LLM generated; this user has admitted to LLM use before. [1] grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Law, United States of America, and Alabama. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I have never seen a single case where a person photographed by Platon (photographer)—specifically for a Time magazine cover or an in-depth media feature after 2010—was considered non-notable by Wikipedia standards. check this link [2]. Why did you request deletion on Jeff Connaughton and attempt to have me indefinitely blocked without even conducting a basic search? Is this what you consider a sincere and constructive approach to discussion? Is it fair? Packer25 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you made a WP:BLP without adding any references except a book by the subject, yes, it's very fair to start a deletion discussion. You haven't done your work as article creator. If you try again, see WP:BACKWARD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is important to respectfully but clearly address the assertion that Jeff Connaughton does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Upon even a brief examination of the public record, it becomes evident that this claim is not only inaccurate but fundamentally misinformed. Mr. Connaughton has been the subject of extensive coverage in a wide range of reliable, independent publications, and his professional activities have intersected with the highest levels of American politics, law, and finance. As a former aide to then-Senator Joe Biden, a White House lawyer during the Clinton administration, a chief of staff to Senator Ted Kaufman, and a co-founder of one of Washington’s most prominent bipartisan lobbying firms, Connaughton has had a demonstrably significant career in public service and political advocacy. These roles alone, given their national scope and policy impact, would place him well within the bounds of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia of record. However, his public visibility does not end there. In 2012, Connaughton authored "The Payoff: Why Wall Street Always Wins", a critically acclaimed exposé on financial regulation and systemic corruption in Washington. The book received wide attention and was reviewed or discussed in major outlets including The New Yorker, Forbes, Politico, Business Insider, Truthout, and numerous national radio and television programs. These were not mere passing references; they were extensive articles and reviews that treated Connaughton as a credible, authoritative voice on matters of political reform and Wall Street influence. The New Yorker published a full-length profile, Politico ran a dedicated review and commentary, and Business Insider repeatedly featured his insights. Truthout published op-eds by Connaughton himself, which indicates not only sustained attention but also the platforming of his views as part of a broader public discourse. These sources are independent of one another, editorially reliable, and collectively reflect enduring public interest in his work and ideas. In light of this, the suggestion that Jeff Connaughton does not meet notability standards simply cannot be supported by evidence. If Wikipedia’s notability criteria are meant to ensure that included subjects have received significant attention from reliable, independent sources, then Connaughton’s record not only satisfies these criteria but arguably exceeds them. It is fully appropriate to invite community discussion on these matters, and differing interpretations of policy are expected in any collaborative environment. But it is essential that such interpretations be grounded in the facts. In this case, the factual record clearly supports the conclusion that Jeff Connaughton qualifies for a standalone article under Wikipedia’s guidelines. Any position to the contrary would appear to overlook the substantive and well-documented public footprint of his career. Packer25 (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please write this response in your own words; do not use an LLM for it. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to respectfully emphasize that Wikipedia's policies, including WP:LLM and WP:LLMDISCLOSE, do not prohibit the use of large language models in editing; rather, they encourage transparency and accuracy when such tools are employed. It is entirely acceptable to use these tools, provided that one clearly discloses their use and manually verifies all facts and sources. What truly matters in any contribution is not whether the words were typed by hand or assisted by a model, but whether the information is neutral, verifiable, and supported by reliable references. In today’s digital environment, where AI tools are already deeply integrated into search engines, research platforms, and writing software, drawing an ethical line between LLM-assisted editing and traditional methods is no longer meaningful or useful. Moreover, I must express that making my comment invisible to other editors is deeply inappropriate. Such an action is not only a violation of good faith collaboration, but also runs counter to the principles of fairness, openness, and moral decency that we as a community strive to uphold. Silencing an editor's properly argued and policy-compliant viewpoint in this way undermines the integrity of our collective work and discourages respectful discourse, which is essential to the spirit of Wikipedia. Packer25 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also wish to suggest draftifying; article subject seems notable, however, the article absolutely seems LLM-generated to me (there are some major giveaways), and therefore needs almost a complete rewrite in order to meet our standards. Patient Zero^talk 23:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Jeff Connaughton, whose life has been thoroughly examined by The Guardian, The New Yorker, and George Packer(The Unwinding), Forbes, is deemed non-notable, then that would amount to a highly subjective interpretation of Wikipedia's notability policy. I present the following links as evidence. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

Packer25 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using LLMs. -- asilvering (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm proposing draftifying because of poor sourcing on a BLP. WP:ATD-I, WP:DRAFTIFY. See WP:DRAFTREASON reason number 2. I did not comment on the subject's notability; I think it is possible they are notable, but that's not the reason I'm nominating for draftification. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand - just including it amongst my (many…!) thoughts on the situation, and I certainly didn’t mean to imply you were questioning the subject’s notability. Patient Zero^talk 02:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article creator has been indeffed. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would normally be happy enough with draftify as an ATD, but it seems a little pointless in this case as the creating editor has now been blocked (so the draft will likely be {{db-g13}} in six months), there are now no sources cited at all, and, as the probable unchecked output of an LLM, the content cannot be trusted. Better to start from scratch. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks to the sterling rewrite by Dcpoliticaljunkie. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. If I were even slightly more cynical today, I would just be saying delete per SunloungerFrog, but the possibility that someone could decide to fix up the draft - however unlikely - has me preferring draftify. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone wants to try to recreate this later while paying attention to WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:BACKWARD, they can do so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the positions he held indicate likely notability and his book was published via presses that appear to be either vanity or pay-to-publish. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per all of the above. Keivan.f^Talk 14:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify this unsourced BLP, assuming good faith. Miniapolis 22:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources, although I'm concerned about WP:WORLDVIEW. Miniapolis 21:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = use of AI + unsourced BLP - the editor who has "worked" on it. Start a new draft. Bearian (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have re-written the article so it is no longer AI-written or unsourced. With the sources added including 1/4 of George Packer's book and accompanying New Yorker article, Politico, Roll Call, The New Republic, and pieces in a couple of local papers, I think notability is established and the article is in good enough shape to retain. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I change my vote to keep. I had suspected notability, and think the added sources prove it. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging prior participants: @Bearian @Miniapolis @Keivan.f, @GPL93, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, @Weirdguyz, @SunloungerFrog, @Patient Zero, @Grapesurgeon Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely leaning keep now that the article has been completely rewritten. Sources have been introduced into the article, which were previously lacking. Keivan.f^Talk 20:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iacovos Hadjiconstantinou

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. The 3 google news hits are all 1 line mentions. LibStar (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Cyprus. LibStar (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found a bit of coverage in [[9]]. There is additional coverage in [[10]], but it is not independent, and [[11]], but it is not significant. Let'srun (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Let's run sources. Looks enough for WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner , Let'srun actually votes keep below. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now or draftify. The nature of the first source LetsRun provided I do have concerns about its brevity. Seems like a radio update just like how maybe the local news in Linkoping Sweden would cover one of their villagers making the Olympics, and doesn't go into as much detail. The second and third sources so far could be used for statistics while Iacovos was swimming for the Crimson Tide. I think if there is one more source which could provide significant coverage, I would back it, but for now, I'm going to say either draftify or delete, and the closer may use whichever of my preferences forms the most consensus in favor of it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond the one decent independent source I found earlier, I'm just not seeing the in depth, significant coverage needed for the WP:GNG to be met here. Please ping me if more/better coverage can be found. Let'srun (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Potential sources— Don't know if these are independent [12][13][14], probably too short: [15][16][17] Ike Lek (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources appear to originate from the Olympic Committee and aren't independent. Let'srun (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I can't read Greek, so I can only do so much with Google translate. I thought #6 (3rd I listed) had a decent shot at being independent. Ike Lek (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany for deletion (WP:MFD)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Birmingham Grasshoppers (via WP:PROD on 12 May 2025)