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

2024 Chicago White Sox's 121st loss

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

Declined PROD. Fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. One of the record 121 (so far) losses, nothing about the record-breaking loss itself has lasting notability. The game itself was routine and WP:ROTM. Many comments such as "represented a crucial point" in the rivalry and the announcer calls are WP:FANCRUFT. What needs to be covered of the 121-loss (or more) season can be covered at 2024 Chicago White Sox season – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, what we have here is one of the most historical baseball games of the 21st century, the breaking of a record only surpassed by the 1899 Cleveland Spiders (you should have seen them play!). When this game went into the record books it literally went into the record books. The 2024 White Sox season is historic for, yes, its 121 losses. This was the 121st, and that's what makes it notable and, despite the contents of two essays while actually meeting the only policy mentioned in the nom ("A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved"), well deserving of a stand-alone article.. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
one of the most historical baseball games of the 21st century Hardly. This isn't going to be analyzed in the future like, say, Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game. It was one loss out of 121 (or 122). History never analyzed the 1962 Mets' record breaking loss (whatever number that was), just the 1962 New York Mets season as a whole, as they will with the 2024 White Sox. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A historic loss that officially clinched the White Sox as the worst team in MLB history. In addition, the Tigers also ended their ten year playoff drought with this win following a historic resurgence not seen since the 1973 Mets, so between the two events, there is plenty of coverage. This game will be talked about for a long time. 69.118.230.235 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just because a record is set doesn't make the game noteworthy. The game itself is a nothingburger, and the bulk of the article is cruft. The "Aftermath" section, mere days after the event, is ridiculous, and includes an entire passage about the Tigers clinching a playoff berth, with zero mention of the White Sox at all. The event can be summarized in a single paragraph at 2024 Chicago White Sox season. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The game itself is not notable... the article spends as much time talking about the Tigers clinching a playoff spot as it does the White Sox setting a record. There was no article on the Cleveland Spiders setting the previous record. Nothing about the game was "historical". The White Sox set a season record for losses, not a game record.. making the season itself notable for that and the 2024 Chicago White Sox season article is the place for information about this record. Spanneraol (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The game was internationally covered by major news sources. Anything but mundane. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every MLB game is covered by major news sources. Even spring training games. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Internationally? Ah, no. This one was. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every game that Shohei Ohtani plays gets more international coverage than this game did. Spanneraol (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (oppose merge/redirect) per WP:NOPAGE. A game receiving a bit more coverage than a normal late-season baseball game does not mean it needs its own article. This game can be summarized in a few sentences at 2024 Chicago White Sox season. I oppose a redirect due to this particular title being an unlikely search term. The fact that this game also ended the Tigers’ nine-year postseason drought is not relevant. There have been postseason droughts of significantly longer duration across the four major American sports, and those clinching games do not have articles, or receive any WP:LASTING coverage (likewise the specific game in which the 1962 Mets set the record did not receive lasting coverage). Frank Anchor 14:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the game itself isn't what's important. The game as a part of a larger whole, the season, is what's important. And that already has an article. All discussion of this game should be merged into that article as that is the important and notable topic. --Torsodog^Talk 15:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: records are broken every single year but we don't have articles for every game in which one happens to be broken. It would be ridiculous to have an article for Aaron Judge's 62nd home run, or Oakland Athletics' 20th consecutive win; those records are the result of season-long play and one particular game out of 162 isn't somehow notable because the record was broken on that night. I cannot articulate strongly enough how much this article is not needed and how the content should be merged to the season article instead. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe we have a similar page named "1962 New York Mets' 120th loss". GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, from what I'm seeing so far there's almost no chance this survives as an article, so let's merge this into the main season article so the history is preserved. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 19:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only one rebutted my point about the Tigers. And to Frank, while it’s not a historic drought, it is abnormal for this timeframe, plus, as I said, the comeback on the Tigers season is historic.69.118.230.235 (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Tigers’ nine year drought is not abnormal for this time frame, considering the Angels have an active drought now at ten years, and the Mariners recently ended a drought of over twenty years. Frank Anchor 03:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles for every game where a team clinched a playoff berth. The Tigers also have a season article. Spanneraol (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is (supposedly) about the White Sox' record loss, not the Tigers' playoff clinch. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing noteworthy about the game itself. Rift (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, even though the number of editors asking for deletion grows by the hour, the article meets GNG and WP:NSPORTSEVENT, and now all that can be done is wait for a few weeks to see if the game is still notable and discussed. As an update, the White Sox won their last two games to finish at 41-121, so the 121st game is the record holder for maybe the next 62 years (unless the Sox beat it in 2025). Another notability of the game is that the Sox lost this 121st in their 160th game of the season, the number of games played by the 1962 New York Mets, who lost 120, thus setting the modern day single-season loss record in the same amount of games played by the former record-holding team. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You stand in the minority in saying that it meets notability, as the majority have detailed why this ROTM loss does not meet GNG or NSPORTSEVENT. That the White Sox won their last two games has no bearing on this discussion one way or the other. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That it was the last loss of the record-breaking season should count in favor of keeping the page. It's early yet, so awhile to go for other editors to catch onto its notability and to read WP:NSPORTSEVENT to ascertain if this game meets its exception standards. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This game has no meaning without the other 120 losses that preceded it. That's why it's not notable. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the White Sox had lost a 122nd, it would have had no bearing on this AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean wait. The long-term notability of this "record" is suspect. But in the near term, there has been lots of coverage. Per WP:RAPID, let's wait until this story is a little less fresh. Then we can really assess whether there is secondary sources to support this article. That being said, I'm not entirely oppossed to a merge to 2024 Chicago White Sox season, that at least preserves the history of this page. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree with a redirect and merge, even if it turns out that it's not worthy of keeping the page history is nice to have and redirects are harmless! Especially if there's more commentary on this next year and future years. I created a redirect of the Double doink football play never expecting it to become anything but when another double doink happened it was suddenly notable enough to expand to an article! Though the article didn't use my capitalization, someone started a better one with Doink not doink. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 04:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: This event occurred a mere three days ago so it's impossible to determine whether there will be enough secondary coverage, because right now there is none; it's all essentially primary sources. As per WP:PRIMARY:
For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.
This AfD is best being relisted a few times, so we can wait and see if there's WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE over the next few weeks (which the event hasn't even had a chance to accumulate yet), and make a better judgment call then. Left guide (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not disagree more. In the unlikely event SIGCOV specifically related to this game comes out in the next several weeks, then the article can be refunded. Historically, SIGCOV for single games either comes out almost immediately or not at all. Frank Anchor 10:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or redirect to 2024 Chicago White Sox season. Cbl62 (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Partial Merge to 2024 Chicago White Sox season. This game is no more notable than any of the White Sox other losses in 2024, but it may be worth some extra attention within the 2024 season article. Rlendog (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tailored Truth

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

Fails the notability guideline for artists. The sources in the article that go into the subject in any detail look like paid promotion or press release copying; others have only passing mentions or no mentions at all. A quick look for more sources turned up nothing. It's also worth noting that the article was very possibly created for undisclosed payments. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Michigan. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11. I was also about to nominate this for deletion (I didn't think G11 would be accepted since this went through AfC) with substantially the same rationale. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Briefly mentioned here [1], in one line. That's all I can find for coverage. Long way from our notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was one of the first pages I reviewed for AFC and I didn’t do as thorough of a check as I should have or would have done now. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage consists of interviews (primary sources that do not establish notability), blogs, brief mentions, and hyper-local coverage. Does not meet WP:NARTIST criteria for a notable artist. Netherzone (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Barrett (entrepreneur)

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

Coverage mostly about the company; likely fails WP BIO Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the Little Caesars Arena

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the Little Caesars Arena (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Stated inclusion criteria does not match title. mikeblas (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Michigan. Skynxnex (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions