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]
[edit]
List of tornado-related deaths at schools (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)

Fails WP:NLIST, as much as I love tornado-related lists. EF5 21:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Scott Johnson

[edit]
Daniel Scott Johnson (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 be edited by UPE recently. None of the cited sources are in-depth enough to pass WP:GNG. For example, among the most cited references, Yahoo Finance article is a press release [1], Malibu Times article is tagged as "13StarsManager" ([2]), "On the Move" articles like this are usually paid, see ([3]). Gheus (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and is WP:COI and WP:PROMO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2025 (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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Magnolia677 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FBG Duck

[edit]

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:VICTIM. No indication of awards or charted songs.

FBG Duck was shot to death August 4, 2020, and his article was deleted two weeks later, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FBG Duck. None of his posthumous releases were notable. This is mostly a recreation of a murdered rapper's tribute article. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – FBG Duck meets notability criteria as follows:

  • WP:ANYBIO – FBG Duck’s career is established by his achievements notably earning an RIAA Gold Award for his hit song "Slide" and is not defined solely by his death.
  • WP:MUSICBIO – Extensive coverage from multiple reliable , including XXL Magazine, AllMusic, HotNewHipHop, The Fader, and Hypebeast as well as his RIAA Gold Award for "Slide"—confirms his significance as a rapper, songwriter.
  • WP:VICTIM does not apply – The article focuses on his music career, achievements, long before his death.

I believe this AfD has been made again because of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT bias rather than genuine notability concerns.

and also "None of his posthumous releases were notable." hahahaha go check this for me HotNewHipHop. Momentoftrue (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Momentoftrue: As a former five-year-old, I can appreciate your "hahahaha" comment. Had you included the RIAA Gold in the article, I wouldn't have nominated this for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2025 (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.

Nyomi Banxxx

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nyomi Banxxx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NENTERTAINER. It's super promotional but that could be fixed if the subject was notable, which doesn't seem to be the case. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2025 (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 keep‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Abughazaleh

[edit]
Kat Abughazaleh (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)

I have never seen a random House candidate be considered to pass WP:NOTABLE prior to an election, let alone the primary. Jesus, we've had primary winners in D/R+25 districts who are all but guaranteed victory in the general not get articles published until they're officially members-elect. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A journalist having two articles about her prior to a campaign does not meet GNG imo, let alone using that very thin standing to crack the door open and prop up essentially a promotional piece article dedicated to her primary campaign. We don't have articles for the abysmal primary campaigns by Matt Lieberman for GA Senate in 2010 or Levi Sanders for NH-01 in 2018 that both got fairly ample press coverage. Mondaire Jones didn't have an article in main space at least until after the 2020 primary with a ton of press in the lead up. Diana Harshbarger didn't move into mainspace until after the 2020 general in a district who's primary she won with an R+30 Cook PVI. I can't think of any other "insurgent challenger" or "progressive/MAGA in a crowded primary" candidate getting an article this early in recent memory, let alone on their first campaign and before they even win the nomination. Marie Newman/Cori Bush had at least run before; Ayanna Pressly/Ilhan Omar/Rashida Tlaib and Jake LaTurner/Katie Arrington were elected officials already. AOC was a totally unique bombshell campaign that I'm 95% sure didn't have an article until after she'd won the primary. I don't think Lauren Boebert had an article until she succeeded in primarying Tipton, Bob Good didn't after primarying Riggleman with a ton of press coverage until after the general. This reeks so much of WP:RECENTISM to me. She wouldn't have had an article on the standing of just those two articles alone before this campaign, and the coverage of her launch like 18months before the election does not uniquely distinguish her to merit an article compared to all these others to me. Nothing personal to you here, to be clear, it is just boggling to me what makes this candidate so different. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All this to say, I think this does fall under WP:BLP1E, and we should wait until the primary to see if she wins before considering an article at that point. Not to go too far down that road, but think in general that if she beats Schakowsky, a very lontime and notable incumbent, in the primary with this wealth of news coverage that it would merit an article. But if Schakowsky announces a retirement, based on past first time candidates winning in heavily partisan districts (like Harshbarger or Brandon Gill this cycle, who was himself a cuspy semi-notable online person based on his father-in-law) that we've held off until the general to move them into the mainspace. In the former scenario, the primary win over the incumbent is the notable event regardless of eventual victory in the general. In the latter, even if the chances of her losing are extremely small, I would agree with those other past editors in viewing it as still under WP:CRYSTAL because life/politics does happen and she could lose; and I can't see a case for a failed one-time nominee who vied for a retiring member's seat meriting an article. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went into this discussion expecting to !vote delete and was surprised to find what I decided was GNG-qualifying coverage. Both articles pre-date the campaign by years, so they're not the same event. What happened to other article subjects is irrelevant as WP:OTHERSTUFF; in this case we should look at the sources in front of us. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, and fundamentally disagree that an article based on those two pieces would pass muster either. I would support deleting any article with just those two events. And while I hear you about OTHERSTUFF and frequently think the "rules"/"guidelines" of wikipedia are over enforced by some users here like they're international law over using WP:COMMONSENSE, I think the very strong history of practice has been wise. Again raising RECENTISM and CRYSTAL, I strongly feel the primary at a minimum should be the determining factor moving from draftspace to mainspace. The campaign was launched one week ago with a flood of (much of it likely planned) media attention; that's smart campaign tactics! There's no evidence as to the efficacy of her campaign maintaining this level of momentum and attention beyond week one. I just can't see the encyclopedic/editorial case for it at this stage. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: TOOSOON. I've gone back as far as Gnews will allow, and you can only find articles about the run for office (in Rolling Stone, the Washington Post and others), but these are all in the last week, some going back as far as last fall. All entirely related to the political run. Outside of that, doesn't appear to have been known enough for being an "influencer" or any of the other things listed. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I spent some time today with paywalled sources and found commentary on the prominence and influence of her media work in 2023 and mid-2024, significantly before she ran for office. I also found some coverage of her social media influence in 2022. I've added these to the article accordingly. Sumana Harihareswara 02:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see articles going back "years" mostly from late in 2023. "Online person does stuff and people talked about it/didn't like it" is about the extent of the two sources used. Had this person not been running for office, they wouldn't be notable as an influencer due to a lack of sourcing. Running for office doesn't put them over the hump for notability. Could always revisit in six months, if they win. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting, the primary will be between in March to June 2026 next year, and not in six months. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I very extensively elaborate in the discussion and support moving it back into draftspace, so the accusation that it's just IDONTLIKEIT is off base. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect someone voting in this nom to know your full backstory with this article and you should've disclosed that in your rationale to begin with and just neutrally commented about why you're seeking an AfD decision. That said, the article has been expanded and WP:HEYed with good sourcing, so I'm now a keep vote. Nathannah • 📮 21:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel like I can expect them to read the preceding discussion. But... hey. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: at least a half of the article is based on (authoritative) material written in 2023-2024, prior to her campaign, and describes her as an influencer/internet personality Opostylov (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In 2023, The New Yorker and Buzzfeed were covering her work, in detail. In 2024, Politico and The New Republic named her a political commentator/influencer to watch, and she was influential enough that the Democratic National Convention wanted her there in person. (I've improved the article to include those -- as well as 2022 coverage of her social media influence, which also speaks to WP:SUSTAINED.) Those periodical articles, and regard demonstrated for her media criticism work, indicate that the subject fulfills WP:JOURNALIST. Sumana Harihareswara 02:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wth the improvements by Sumanah, we're in WP:HEY territory for this article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2025 (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.

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Illinois&oldid=1284651568"