Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wisconsin

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Wisconsin. 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|Wisconsin|~~~~}} 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 Wisconsin. 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/Wisconsin/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Wisconsin

Jasmine Kondrakiewicz

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG as a former college basketball player and now assistant coach. References are mostly passing with other players or statistical in nature. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, and Wisconsin. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:GNG. SIGCOV can be found in her Google News search, especially [1]. – Ike Lek (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject appears to have WP:SIGCOV in [[2]], [[3]], and [[4]]. I'd say the WP:GNG is met here. Let'srun (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per these [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Walter

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

Insufficient SIGCOV found in the searches I made. An obituary is insufficient for SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, Canada, and Wisconsin. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of coverage, e.g. this, this, this, this, this, this and this ("gained international fame as a long-distance runner"), among hundreds of other mentions of him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Although the first and last are a bit obituary-esque, they go above what is standard for an obituary and the first doesn't seem to be categorized in the paper as an obituary. While some of the the examples provided are quite short, they give confidence for the existence of ample coverage.
Ike Lek (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source number three through the clipping you provided doesn't mention him at all unless my eyes have been failing me. Source 5 is routine coverage. Source 4 looks okay for a blurb. Source one looks definitely okay for an obiturary, which regardless i would still not consider GNG but sufficient for sourcing facts. Source 6 looks like routine coverage. Source 7, still not convinced by as it's just the bar memorializing two deceased lawyers. We might have enough to consider a Draftification, but I'm still not completely convinced of a clear GNG pass. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per BeanieFan11. RossEvans19 (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I'd like to see more independent and significant coverage from before the subject died, but there's just enough independent prose in the sources provided by BeanieFan11 to meet the GNG. Independent obits can most certainly help a subject meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How are The Toronto Star, The Sheboygan Press and The Saint John Times Globe affiliated with Jack Walter and non-independent @Let'srun? KatoKungLee (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that they were affiliated with the subject. Let'srun (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources found and detailed above. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 60 Yard Line

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

I believe this film fails WP:NFILM. It has not been widely reviewed outside of local sources and hasn't shown any sustained coverage or notable reviews. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Literally ALL the sources are from the Wisconsin area, where the Packers play. I can't find anything to suggest any sort of critical notice from outside the area. It was on Hulu apparently, but it would appear it didn't get much critical notice. Rotten Tomatoes has no ratings from critics, I just don't see much beyond the local area. I'd be willing to change my !vote if we had some... anything... that wasn't from the area. Oaktree b (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per sources shown in the article. NFILM doesn't say anything about coverage being local. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiOriginal-9 all of the included sources are from small town Wisconsin newspapers, with 3 written by the same author, all written in the same year in the lead-up to and around the time of release. It lacks sustained coverage and doesn't meet any of the criteria in WP:NFO. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was an article written about the director in Omaha since he went to school there. It features some coverage of the film pg 1, pg 2. Perhaps not enough and no real critical coverage of the movie. Skynxnex (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not necessarily at zero here, but the sources are all written by the same writer as part of the same network of articles (so one source), a student newspaper, or are the Omaha article directly about the director. It's not quite enough to show notability. I didn't find anything else that would get it over the line. SportingFlyer T·C 21:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few more sources [12][13] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if the sources were from the Wisconsin area, the article would still pass WP:GNG. It would just need WP:SIGCOV. NotJamestack (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think WP:ROUTINE is very applicable here NotJamestack. Small independent film premiering that covers a topic of local interest is hardly significant coverage. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't vote here because I'm more skeptical about WP:SIGCOV affecting notability, and since WP:ROUTINE does not disqualify notability in sports, that's what I'm more focused on. NotJamestack (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Ihn

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. PROD was previously removed so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Iowa, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable football player. Surayeproject3 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sourcing to establish notability; the current references are primarily primary or affiliated sources. --Killviconiborki (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]