Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Michigan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  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|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:
Purge page cache watch


Michigan

[edit]

Anant J Talaulicar

[edit]
Anant J Talaulicar (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 GNG in the sense that the sourcing presented is either not indepdenent or not significant coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a chairman (only for India) of a company does not signify that the individual is notable. Let's talk about citations: Economic Times - WP:RS-No, Secondary-Yes; Motor India Magazine- Not a reliable source; Secondary-No; MoneyControl- This is an announcement by the company, WP:RS-No, This is an appointment of MD; Hindu Business Line- WP:RS-No, This is the resignation from MD post; Business Standard (Interview)- This is an interview, WP:RS-No; LiveMint- WP:RS-No, Independent-No, Secondary-No; Economic Times Auto- This is again an interview fails WP:SIGCOV; Motown India- Not a reliable source. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakhtar40 Giving some merit to your points, I disagree as well! The WP:NBUSINESSPERSON clearly cites Corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable. Cummins is listed in the Fortune 500 (US), you can verify that with the link mentioned above and also, Cummins India is indeed a part of the global Cummins brand, not a subsidiary or a separate entity under the same founder, it’s the same company operating in India. Thats said, passes the criteria straightway. Additionally, other sources, though not primary, provide valuable supplementary coverages, with the strongest being from the Times-Union. GNG is met!! — MimsMENTOR talk 17:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The rationale for deletion is "fails GNG in the sense that the sourcing presented is either not indepdenent or not significant coverage". But that's not how it works. Please read WP:ARTN. You should always do a WP:BEFORE search before proposing deletion.
  • @Bakhtar40 On what are you basing your assertions that none of these publications are reliable sources? I just reread WP:RS to see if I had missed anything, and I'm now rather confident that under WP:NEWSORG that most of these very clearly are reliable sources. Economic Times is a publication of the 180-year-old Times of India, the country's most respected newspaper, for example. Could you please provide more evaluation of each publication's reliability than just a "WP:RS-no".
  • The MoneyControl piece is not an announcement by the company. If you read the text, it's a small article by MoneyControl publishing the company's announcement. While a press release itself doesn't help establish notability because it isn't independent, a newspaper's act of writing a story around a company's announcement does suggest notability.
  • Interviews are not about establishing reliability. On the contrary, the fact that a fifty-year-old business journal performs and publishes an interview DOES help establish the interviewee's notability. Davemc0 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to WP:TOI, Times of India and its subsidiaries are not considered as reliable. Moneycontrol is also not a reliable resource. The article is a paid placement. And Interviews generally not count as independent and secondary. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This nominator fails to prove the rationale to the deletion discussion. According to WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, the subject automatically meets notability guidelines. Additionally, the sources provided offer supplementary support that further strengthens the subject’s case for retention. — MimsMENTOR talk 16:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vision of God Records

[edit]
Vision of God Records (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)

WP:NCORP failure. Signs of public relations editing also noted in edit history. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Chicago Bears–Detroit Lions Thanksgiving game

[edit]
2024 Chicago Bears–Detroit Lions Thanksgiving game (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'm a die hard Lions fan and that's a big part of my editing, but this game isn't particular special or deserving of a standalone article. The only "remarkable" part about it was a mishap regarding taking a timeout at the end, which is a mishap that happens several times a season. Does not warrant a standalone article and should be deleted.

I obviously understand there was bad clock management, there's no doubt about that, but this is barely more than what routinely happens every single season several times. Games are always cost this way, by miscommunications. There's always going to be sensationalized reporting that happens immediately after a game, that's frankly expected. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable enough game. Definite recency bias in this articles creation. This is not one of those games that will be mentioned as an all-timer. The Hail Mary game versus the Commanders, sure, but not this. Maybe it deserves a special mention in the Bears' and Lions' season pages, but nothing more than that. Eg224 (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather keep this page. 2601:40A:8400:1820:5D10:B5A6:B02:CF3D (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • leading to the firing of a Bears coach midseason for the first time – It's certainly not the only reason for the firing, but it is an obvious contributing factor. Let's not act like this was the only reason it was.
  • Getting the Lions to their best start in franchise history – This took a number of games to accomplish, this game is not special in that regard, and, simply based on team strengths of schedules and records, this game was not expected to go any other way than a Lions win by most pundits.
  • ...as well as one of the most baffling endings to a game ever... — That's certainly subjective. I'd counter by saying it's not even top 10 for the wild and wacky things that have happened to the Lions.
  • I don't think that recency is the only reason why this was created. – The game will only ever really be mentioned in the context of Matt Eberflus, it'd be fairly unexpected to have long term coverage.
To be honest, the rational provided feels more like WP:ILIKEIT than anything. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While clock management situations, and disastrous ones at that, are common place in the NFL, theres none quite like this one. 26 seconds to get a play off or call a timeout and they do neither until theres 5 seconds left, in which that is the final play of the game. Add on to that the first mid-season head coach firing in the 105 year history of the Bears and the best start in the Detroit Lions 95 year history makes for a pretty historic game. The Butt Fumble was notoriously memed and ridiculed into oblivion so much that the Wikipedia page for said play still exists, so if you take down this game, the butt fumble would deserve to be taken off this site as well. Not to mention the fact that Chicago also faced off in 2 brutal games against divison rivals Green Bay and Minnesota previous to this game, so the Bears were already known for stuff like this, but this was just absolutely mind boggling and set a precedent on how low it could go. The game was also broadcast on CBS to a nationally televised audience, with all time quotes from Nantz and Romo. With all that being said, theres no way that this play would soon be forgot like other mismanaged clock situations and i believe that this page should be kept IBeFlyin (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was deemed a miscommunication by both the QB and the coach for what it's worth, and those are fairly common, especially by inexperienced coaches and rookie quarterbacks. I don't think the standing of Detroit as a team is particularly relevant, or who Chicago played directly before the game. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this game gets memed and ridiculed over time the way the butt fumble has, then there would be a good case for creating a page about this game at that time. But for now that is WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Bears–Lions rivalry, where a special mention as a notable game can be included. As the nomination noted, there is nothing especially unique about this game. 2024 Chicago Bears season is a much better place to discuss the impact of various games over the season, while Bears–Lions rivalry is a good place to speak directly to this game and what happened. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments related to the Butt Fumble don't hold water, for obvious reasons, but also because, as the nominator noted, poor clock management and miscommunication happens all the time in the NFL. The Butt Fumble was a singularly unique play with few, if any, appropriate comparisons. Although WP:RECENT makes this difficult to judge right now, it is important to put this game in the context of what is being claimed that makes it notable. Eberflus was historically a bad coach who was likely getting fired at the end of the season either way. Although bad, this game was the straw that broke the camel's back, not the only reason for his firing. The fact that the Bears haven't fired a coach mid-season is more of a flukely TV factoid that doesn't really mean much is the grand scheme of things. And lastly, in the grand scheme of crazy endings, this was definitely absurd clock management, but otherwise was a fairly routine end to the game. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not redirect. Non-notable regular season game. Teams miscommunicate and run out of time at the end of games multiple times a season. Likewise, midseason coaching changes are common. I doubt "2024 Chicago Bears–Detroit Lions Thanksgiving game" or anything similar would be a reasonable search term so a WP:COSTLY redirect serves no purpose. Some content can be moved to Eberflus' article or the Bears' current season article. Frank Anchor 14:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that there has been no WP:LASTING coverage of this game in the 13 days since it was played (as of 11 December). Frank Anchor 13:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly the most damning part of all of this Frank Anchor is that we are 2 weeks out and no one is talking about this game anymore. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It’s both a historic game for the Lions (being their first Thanksgiving win in 7 years), but also a historic game for the Bears as well (for obvious reasons) and given how coaching mishaps of this magnitude are so rare, along with how widely talked about this game (and the near-unanimous calls for the firing of Eberflus after said game) about the game is, I don’t see how you can delete it at this point, though I do understand the arguments for deletion. :KDoppenheimer (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a historic game for both teams. For the Lions, this gave them their best ever start to a season, not to mention their first Thanksgiving win in 7 years. As for the Bears, this caused Matt Eberflus to become the first Head Coach in Bears History to be fired mid season. I see no reason we should delete this. Carson004 (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention I do not see anywhere in that article that would meet deletion criteria for any WP essays, like WP:G12 for example. This never broke any copyright rules Carson004 (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It took more than this game for the Lions to have a "historic" start and it took more than one game to get Eberflus fired. Your argument doesn't really hold water. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it is still historic, so YOUR argument cannot hold air Carson004 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree that if this WERE to become noteworthy and talked about like the Buttfumble in the future, then this article can be recreated and should stand. As it stands, however, this definitely feels completely reactionary. Definitely can be mentioned on the Eberflus page, but that's as far as it goes imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.135.55 (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I want this page to stay since this game was historic. 2601:40A:8400:1820:5D10:B5A6:B02:CF3D (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Maybe over time this game will get memed like the butt fumble due to the clock management at the end of the game, at which point an article about the game would be appropriate (and at such a time the game may have accumulated a more useful nickname than the title being used here). But until then there is nothing special about it. The notion that the game is historic because its Detroit's first Thanksgiving win in 7 years is not a remotely appropriate standard. And the fact that the win gave Detroit its best start ever is not a reason for keeping either. Lots of games have given a team their best start in franchise history, and we don't have articles on them and there would be no reason to. I went to Miami for an example since that one is probably the easiest, given that they had a perfect season in their 7th year as a franchise. In 1966 they won for the first time in their 6th game, so that made for their best start ever. As the franchise's first win, that may well be notable, separate from their best start. They then won 2 more games that season so each of those wins marked the Dolphins' best start too. Then in 1967, they won their opening game, so obviously that represented their best start. Wins in weeks 9 and 10 also gave them their best start ever, so in 1967 the Dolphins had 3 wins that represented their best start ever. Then in 1968, in week 5 they earned a tie putting them at 1-5-1, which was their best start ever. Their remaining 4 wins that season also produced their best start ever, so in 1968 the Dolphins played 5 games that produced their best start ever. In 1969 they never had their best start ever. But that changed in 1970. Their win in week 3 put them at 2-1 for the season, their best start ever, and each of their remaining 8 wins for that season represented their best start ever. So they had 9 games in 1970 that represented their best start ever. In 1971 their win in week 2 put them at 1-0-1, their best start ever, and 7 of their remaining wins represented their best start ever, so they had 8 games that produced their best start ever. Then we get to 1972. They of course started 2-0, which was then their best start ever and each of their remaining 12 wins also represented their best start ever. So 13 games in 1972 produced their best start ever (now some of those games that represented the best start ever for any NFL team and especially the final game that clinched a perfect regular season may well have a claim to notability). So after their initial season, the Dolphins had 38 games where a win or tie produced their best start ever, and no one cares about or remembers most of them. And that's pretty easy one to go through since they won't have another best start ever until they start 15-0. Other teams probably have more than 38 games representing their best start ever, but even at 38, we hardly need articles about games that almost no one cares about or remembers just because they happen to represent a teams best start ever. Rlendog (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WALLOFTEXT 38.122.245.52 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More like a well thought out and explained vote that addresses the silly and non-policy based WP:ILIKEIT keep votes. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Perhaps a bit of a weak one. But there is evidence of WP:IMPACT, whether or not Eberflus was an awful coach, a 105-year first and historic season for the Lions is something. Plus sometimes the wider impact is not felt until end-of-season recaps (yes, yes, WP:CRYSTAL and all), but this is just borderline enough in terms of wider significance for me. See the AFD for Hail Murray for a similar article that editors were in a rush to delete and wound up being kept. This was nominated a day or two after its creation, seems like a bit of a rush to me. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Etzedek24: Why are you putting so much weight regarding a "historic season for the Lions" on just this one game? There were 10 other wins besides this one. If anything that sounds like information that doesn't belong in its own article. If the Lions win again next week, does that mean that should also be its own article? Hey man im josh (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All things considered together satisfy WP:IMPACT for me. I don't particularly think one is more important than the other, it's the confluence of them that takes this over the threshold for me. I even did say that I think it is a weaker keep. No need to be hyperbolic. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 04:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to be hyperbolic @Etzedek24, I'm focused on the fact that a number of people have mentioned the Lions' season as a reason for keeping, when from my perspective, it's entirely irrelevant. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The game was impactful, but only really to the franchises themselves, not to the broader culture of the NFL, as all of the other games with dedicated pages are. Nothing particularly distinctive happened this game, it was memorable but poor clock management resulting in you getting less plays off than intended isn't exactly unique. Dak in the 2022 NFC Wildcard stands out in my memory; that game doesn't have it's own page, it is just described on the season pages and 2022 playoffs page. I feel like the Hail Murray is a particularly misguided equivalency because the play itself was notably distinctive; it was a highlight and a signature play with a unique name. It fits in with the other entries on Category:National Football League games, this one just does not, it stands out as the least significant unnamed event on the page. The game was primarily just impactful on the franchises. Thus, talk about the significance to the Lions' season on the Lions' season page, the significance to the Bears' season on the Bears' season page. Talk about that on the Bears–Lions rivalry page. In my opinion, this game does not warrant it's own page. TheHaft (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Delete This article is completely useless and should be deleted as soon as possible. If this article stays, why don't we have articles about other NFL games in which teams set their records?! And also, this article literally makes no sense, because it has no historical significance, Detroit set its record not only because of this match, and the fact that Detroit lifted the curse of Thanksgiving is absolutely insignificant information. According to this logic, Wikipedia should have articles about Damar Hamlin's collapse in the 2022 Bills—Benglas game and Christian Eriksen's collapse in the 2020 UEFA Denmark—Finland match. Obviously, those articles would have been much more important, since it almost took the lives of two people. 212.164.65.158 (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Delete, on hold (see below the relist) pending below discussion, is this notable as the worse NFL clock management of all time?), have been watching the discussion and am surprised at it having so many keep comments. Hey man im josh is a Lions fan so there is no bias involved, just a commonsense appraisal of this page from a standpoint of notability. Probably a redirect to the fired coach and maybe a sentence or two mention on his page should be added to cover the topic but keeping the page would lower the bar for stand-alone pages for individual NFL games. The only NFL game I ever attended was the game in which Jim McMahon took over the Bears quarterback position. I missed the first quarter and the only touchdown of this Bears-New Orleans game, a game that George Halas said was the worse football game that he ever saw in his life. I consider it a notable game for Halas' comment alone, and McMahon's beginning his reign, which I knew was significant as I watched it happen, led to a couple of great years for the Bears and was icing on the cake. I haven't attended another NFL game because I saw the worse and that's enough for me. But Wikipedia probably wouldn't accept a page about it. The clock mistakes in this 2024 game are similar, and the bottom of the barrel is sometimes only notable to those who remember being there (for three-quarters). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is one of the most significant games of the 2024 season. The history of it being the root cause of the Bears firing a head coach mid-season for the first time in nearly 80 years is notable in itself. Cramerwiki (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cause of Eberflus being firing is more than just this game. It is due to his ineffective 14–32 record overall and 4–7 record this season. In addition, the game immediately before other teams' first mid-season firing of a head coach do not have articles. Frank Anchor 16:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eberflus was directly fired as a result of the ending of the game. Had they won, sure, he'd be gone after the season anyways, but this is what directly led to it. This will be a significant piece of NFL History. Cramerwiki (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's pure unsubstantiated speculation. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor You are correct. If a coach getting fired in mid-season after a game makes the game notable then we need an article about this game (and many more), since Robert Saleh was fired after the game. Maybe there is a scenario where clearly something in that game all by itself got the coach fired, and the game thus became notable - maybe they won the Super Bowl the prior year and in the first game of the season they did something so stupid that they got fired - but even then, discussion of the game and the stupid decision would belong in the coach's article, not a separate article for the game, unless the game itself gets persistent coverage.Rlendog (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cramerwiki If the game actually does become "a significant piece of NFL History" then there will be ongoing coverage of the game to establish that, and at that time I don't think there would be much objection to recreating this article. Until then that is merely WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to 4 of the 10 keeps, and to a reply someone made on a keep vote, that's certainly not replying to every keep vote as you've stated.
If you read the WP:BLUDGEON essay I believe it's clear that my behaviour does not fit said mold. Feel free to take me to WP:ANI, but I do feel comfortable in stating I have not been bludgeoning the discussion and I resent said accusation, which in of itself, is an attempt to invalidate discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh, to bludgeon the accused bludgeoner as well as DrewieStewie who says the play is "monumental", a question. Is this being called the "worse time management in NFL history" in reliable sources? I know it was a time management misplay, but has bad use of the clock and time outs occurred on this scale before? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll check the sources after work since I’m about to clock back in, but as a quick clarification, I stated that the consequences of the play have shown to be monumental, in the positive for the lions and in the negative for the Bears/Eberflus. Clock management has never been this poor at the top level of gridiron football, and the criticism has been extensive and widespread, resulting in these consequences. DrewieStewie (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What I'm looking for is not relevance to the teams or the coach, those are of minor notability and no reason to keep, but to possible worse NFL clock management of all time. That would be a reason to keep. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: I'm not finding an individual incident discussed, in of itself, as being the worst of all time. I'm finding games discussed as such, particularly pointed towards YouTube, but I'm finding a difficulty in finding said coverage because, as I'm sure you know, recent stories typically end up popping up more prominently and there's always sensationalism after games to bait in the clicks. Strange because you would think there'd be lists of the worst individual clock management decisions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh, there have been mentions and comments about this being one of the worse, and yes, there should be a list or Hall of Shame somewhere. This RM has been wrongly contested on the basis of team and coach history, when it seems to me it should all hang all fall on the 'worse time management' notability (where it is probably at least a contender). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: Oh I'm sure it's a contender, but anecdotally speaking, I feel like we hear about this sort of thing all the time. Personally I think there have been worse mishaps than miscommunications and misunderstandings between a head coach and his rookie QB (after all, no reason Williams couldn't have called a time out). Never the less, I'll give it more of a shot again later, but a lot of the focus seemed to be on games as a whole, as opposed to an individual decision. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBC Sports says it was one of the worst incidents of clock management of all time. 38.122.245.52 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your NBCsports find adds the notability to this being possibly the worse clock management in history (and yes, Williams could have called a time out but didn't, a major part of the topic). With this source I'll probably change to 'keep' below. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contested (pending discussions, previously Delete): While I do understand that this can be labeled "historic", I'm pretty sure that this is more of WP:RECENTISM than actually making it historic. However, the context that has seriously built up on this article made it pretty solid and put on some valid contention whether it stands to keep or not. (Plus it can be considered a significance among the rivalry as well) Regardless though, I think that a game that has the significance of an example of having bad clock management, which the coach then getting fired the day after, is not enough to warrant a standalone creation. (Plus most of the context that happened in the final drive would most likely won't be talked about in much detail or mostly remembered other than the fact Detroit has the best start in franchise history and finally won a Thanksgiving game in 7 years)
Unlike what I said, Madhouse in Maryland and Miracle in Miami are good examples of something that is significant to the point where it can be talked about in detail. (Since the context in the final drives would something that can be remembered and look back into)
If this does get deleted however, I do want to see some split merges of some information to both team's appropriate articles and their rivalry page.
Edit: After looking back in this proposal with some of the recent replies here, I decided to just put this on the contested state under the grounds of some pending discussions above this reply. Due to this, I decided to temporarily invalidate some of my sayings here. Kirbix12 (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Bears-Lions rivalry. This article is strongly built on WP:RECENTISM with information people may forget within a few months. It certainly does not warrant a standalone article, and should be merged or redirected.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would help me if some of the keeps could provide links showing the long-term notability of this game. Just a cursory search on Google right now, and I don't see much more than blog posts and other fan pages popping up that are still discussing this game. It's possible that some season recaps will touch on this in a month, but even then I am not sure that meets the notability requirements. That said, I would have no prejudice if this article is deleted/merged that it could be recreated in a year or so if long term coverage continues. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sense in keeping this article due to WP:RECENTISM. Bad plays happen all the time and coaches get fired from them. As its own article, the WP:ILIKEIT votes do not explain the "historic" aspect of this game. Any kind of historic moment could just be covered in the rivalry article, season articles, and maybe even Eberflus's article. Conyo14 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the notability of this possibly being the worse use of clock management in NFL history. An editor above brought this NBC Sports source. The topic's notability comes from 'worse in history' and not what teams played or what streak was broken. The firing of the coach fits the topic as an aftermath (in an "Aftermath" section). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy Kryn, the article you brought forward states It was one of the worst examples of clock management in NFL history. (emphasis mine). Notwithstanding your misquote, the article is also written by Mike Florio as a commentary article, and surely states the author's opinion on the matter (note the colloquial nature of his writing, like "No, Matt. You didn’t. And everybody knows it."). I dont mind your opnion on the matter, but want to be clear that you are definitively misquoting the article and likely misrepresenting the source as justification. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you notice the word 'possibly'? 'One of the worse' means it's in a very small class, with the author also saying 'and that is no exaggeration'. The worse clock management in history is among that small class, and could very possibly be this one. There are no other "candidates" being mentioned or found in sources, this one may be unique, and the descriptor "possibly" is accurate. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your quote was The topic's notability comes from 'worse in history'. Just pointing out the source you attribute this to does not say this, as somebody could be led to believe. Again though, this source is an opinion piece, written just a few hours after the game and does not purport to make any definitive claims. Mike Florio is an entertainer who is well known for making exaggerated or dramatic claims about football. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how you'd misinterpret my statement by reacting to just a portion of it, once again missing the word 'possibly'. I don't know Mike Florio's work, and you may be right, but I think NBC is seen as a reliable source, and their management made the decision to publish Florio's comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not disregarding your first sentence in your comment. It's just that you made a definitive statement that the notability of this article is inherent due to it being the worst of something ever. That said, that source was produced hours after the event, provides no historical context, is written as a blog post and is authored by someone well known for making reactionary hot takes in American football. This commentary here is primarily for the closer, to help them to understand the source in question and whether it establishes anything. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking for Randy, I can confirm that he said possibly prior to being the worse use of clock management, therefore is not misquoting. It's only his opinion that the NBC Sports source, along with other sources, qualify the GNG standard for this article's longevity. No need to read too deep into it. He's at least done a more generous job at eeking out a reasonable !keep. Conyo14 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying otherwise. But Randy did say The topic's notability comes from 'worse in history', and I am pointing out that 'worse in history', as he stated earlier in his comment, is not what the source says. It says "one of the worst" without listing any other examples. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure he is not quoting that either. He's just quoting what others are trying to say in this AfD. Conyo14 (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's been two weeks and the game's already basically forgotten - it can be discussed elsewhere, including in the season pages for the teams and league, but I don't think it's notable enough for a stand-alone article. If additional coverage exists in the future it might be able to be restored, but that seems unlikely to me. SportingFlyer T·C 00:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT at this time. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 17:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Walker

[edit]
Brock Walker (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)

The press releases and similar do not pass GNG, and the Bru Times News appears to be paid / vanity press. I do not see citations for WP:NPROF. Little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the sources are thin and commercial, but for one (primary source) article by Brock, and I agree with nom about the "Bru Times News". This doesn't constitute reliable sourcing, so notability is not established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there’s not a single reliable source about this living person. I don’t count what he’s written, the patents that mention him, or any of the other sources that are on this page. He’s literally unverified. Bearian (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran McNulty

[edit]
Kieran McNulty (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)

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be around the average professor in this area. Here are the Scopus stats for McNulty and his 80 coauthors with ≥15 papers:
Total citations: average: 3110, median: 1975, McNulty: 1121.
Total papers: 70, 53, 46.
h-index: 26, 23, 19.
Top 5 papers: 1st: 399, 245, 142. 2nd: 258, 197, 85. 3rd: 186, 144, 68. 4th: 150, 121, 62. 5th: 128, 100, 58.
JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I don't think he meets academic notability, seems to be knowledgeable, but this reads more as a career retrospective than something showing notability. I'm certain he's a good professor, but I don't quite see notability.Does importance philanthropy as well, just wanted to make sure that was acknowledged. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Tried to find sources in .ke websites about the educational foundation, no luck. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Michigan&oldid=1262467719"