Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Michigan

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.

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 Michigan. 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/Michigan/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Michigan

Saurabh Sethi

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

The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most references are press releases, affiliated sites, or trivial mentions. No evidence of sustained notability. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Delhi, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the references are non-reliable (please read WP:RS), and I don't think the subject passes WP:GNG in any way. Baqi:) (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Taabii (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The majority of the sourcing is made up of variations on "Harvard doctor reveals..." in unreliable and marginally reliable sources. I couldn't find anything better that could indicate a GNG pass. He seems to have a few decently cited papers, but is clearly not primarily known for being a scholar and is well short of meeting any of the NPROF criteria. MCE89 (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Grams

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

Prod removed without rationale or improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing notable, this might be about him [1] briefly touching on the Ford lawsuit. Still a long way from notability. This reads like a resume instead of an article about a notable person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "This article is associated with the extended Louton, Hughes, Oster, Rettinger, Ernst and Grams family involved in ministry, business and academia." Seems to be some attempt at creating a walled garden here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Military, South Africa, Michigan, Nebraska, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Onel. Filled to the brim with original research, unreliable sources... it looks like a resume or family ancestry entry. A successful but non-notable (by our threshold) lawyer with no widespread coverage in independent secondary sources. GuardianH 12:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DocNetwork

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I cannot find significant coverage of this health IT company in reliable sources. An online search of this company produces press releases and this article covering the dancing baby meme which does not appear to be relevant. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Software, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find sources either. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looked through g-news, g-books, newspapers.com, and PressReader- I don't see anything that checks all the boxes for WP:SIRS. There are a few g-scholar hits related to people using their CampDoc software to study summer camp disaster preparedness etc., but founder is a co-author so they are non-independent. Zzz plant (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M-157 (Michigan highway)

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

Arguments were made in this discussion that this article subject is not notable because all sourcing are maps or similar. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Transportation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's not just sourced to maps, and we generally keep articles about state highways. I'd be a merge, because we shouldn't lose this information even if it's not notable enough for a stand-alone page, but I'm not sure what a good merge target is. If there is no good merge target, it should be an WP:IAR keep, as there's nothing wrong with this article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it lacks independent sigcov then there is something wrong with it. We don't actually generally keep articles about state highways, at least not in the last few years. They aren't presumed notable and there really isn't any information in there that would be missed. In terms of whats wrong with it... It also runs afoul of WP:NOT, specifically 2.6 and 2.10 Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It could be merged into List of state trunkline highways in Michigan — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to be more specific with those WP:NOTs... SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to apply to you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's a completely factual, decently referenced little stub. It's just not referenced well enough for notability reasons. The important thing here is not to lose some of the important content, including year it was opened and designated, and the brief history. If there's no good merge target that lets us retain that information, then there's no real problem with keeping it as it is. SportingFlyer T·C 19:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not decently referenced, that would be the main problem. That isn't important content, its not even clear that it would be due for inclusion on another page... Nothing indicates that the dates and history should be on wikipedia beyond what is already at List of state trunkline highways in Michigan... And the history can't be merged because its OR, we'd actually need a source for that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge, the lack of independent sigcov besides the passing mention in the compilation of short roads article means that we don't have any policy grounds besides IAR to keep this article and IAR only applies to improvements of the encyclopedia and the encyclopedia would be improved by deleting or merging this article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan. Ref. 6 looks fine, but the others are primary and trivial, and for such a short rural road I doubt better sourcing can be found. But should appear somewhere on WP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:5P1 says: ikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers (emphasis added). Lists of major state highways are part of gazetteers. As long as WP:V is satisfied, then major state highways have traditionally been kept. The continual tightening of "but notability" is a problem. The encyclopedia would most certainly not be improved by deleting or merging this article - this is not about the 9001th species of Pokemon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: this is not a deletion discussion for a list of state highways or a major state highway. This is a discussion about a single minor state highway. Can you make an argument that fits this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan. Combining features of gazetteers does not mean notability and significant coverage is thrown in the trash for concepts that may be part of gazetteers. Our lists can also include the features of gazetteers. I do not believe there is enough coverage of this topic for there to be a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 15:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan: It does seem (and I admittedly say this reluctantly) that this is yet another instance where a topic area's longtime/prior inclusion standards (and, more specifically, its stances on the type of sourcing that confers standalone notability) appears to be out of alignment with Wikipedia's sitewide standards. (Concerns about these notability and sourcing issues led a number of editors in this topic area to fork a few years back, providing an alternative outlet for any articles in the topic area that might not make the cut here anymore.) I'm not sure there's anything within that list's scope that isn't already there to be merged in, but that obviously does not preclude redirecting as an alternative to deletion. (As for the prior assertion that we generally keep articles about state highways, a non-exhaustive look at the delsort archives for transportation indicates that they have not come to AfD that often in the first place, and the most recent US one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio State Route 778, was a "merge" to a list that quickly turned into a simple BLAR because there wasn't really anything to merge; as has already been suggested, I also can't imagine that a one-mile short trunkline highway falls under any major state highway definition.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the merge is that we'd lose information based on that other page - we used to have lists of state highways that weren't just functional spreadsheets which went into more detail for routes which weren't notable enough for their own pages. What happened to those? SportingFlyer T·C 09:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But why is that a problem? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, just because information exists doesn't mean that its due for inclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my searches for sources, I found only one source that provided significant coverage of M-157:
1. Gilchrist, Tom (1990-02-03). "Some Michigan roads are only for the lonely, statistics reveal" (pages 1 and 2). The Saginaw News. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-07-21. Retrieved 2025-07-21 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "It's lonely along M-157 east of Prudenville. In fact, it's the loneliest stretch of highway in Michigan. ... But M-157 in Roscommon County, a 1-mile highway connecting M-18 and M-55, is just as remote. Prior to the construction of Interstate 75, motorists traveled M- 157 on the way north to Roscommon but now it has relatively no use, said William E. Buckrop, supervisor of Denton Township in Roscommon County. ... The few people traveling regularly on M-157 live on Lake James and use the highway when driving north to Roscommon, Buckrop said. State highway department statistics surveying thousands of spots along state and federal highways in Michigan show that an average of about 300 vehicles a day traveled M-157 in 1988, about the same average number of vehicles traveling on M-48 near Goetzville."
If a second source that provided significant coverage could be found, M-157 would meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions