This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Massachusetts. 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|Massachusetts|~~~~}} 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Massachusetts.
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:
Delete: A few obituaries (not about this person) are all I find; this reads like a Linkedin biography. Nothing notable, simply a working lawyer.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Most likely fails
WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find
WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them.
DreamFocus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of
WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which
Wikipedia isn't. --
Metropolitan90(talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.
2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list.
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets
WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers,
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NPERSON. Lack of quality independent
WP:SIGCOV, some cited awards don't seem to check out. Previously PRODded, no indication that the subject is notable or outstanding in their field. Content is
WP:NOTRESUME. Likely
WP:COI, possibly undisclosed
WP:PAID, the creator appears to work only on topic closely related to the commercial entity that the subject has an interest in.
Melmann 20:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: This is a paid contribution. Please see the user talk page of the creating editor, where they have disclosed the details, albeit imperfectly 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Further to above, the paid disclosure only happened after this nomination and more importantly, after the
WP:PAID edits were made.
Melmann 08:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply