Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Illinois

Points of interest related to Illinois on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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

2017 United Express passenger removal (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)

No WP:LASTING effects apart of Wikipedia mirrors, thus fails WP:NOTNEWS. Protoeus (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think this very easily passes the WP:LASTING test. It led to changes to USDOT rules, new legislation, and impacted United's financials and reputation into at least the medium term. Looking it up in Google Books and Google Scholar, it's an incident that continues to be very widely discussed in the fields of public relations and aviation law. I don't think this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS at all. MCE89 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Police, Aviation, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This is not the article's first nomination; a 2022 renaming makes this less obvious. The earlier discussions were not too long after the incident, attracted many comments, and were quickly closed — Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 was a SNOW closure, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 incident (2nd nomination) came too quickly after the first nomination and was a speedy keep. I'd expect a more reasonable discussion eight years later, though I myself have no opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and strongly so. This was a major news story that clearly had a WP:LASTING effect just by looking at the sources in the article. The clearest one is the NY Times article which led with the incident four years later. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the above. Far more significance than, for example, a video game article, or even an article about a notorious crime that attracts morbid interest, but has no lasting effect. DonFB (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems pretty clear per the above votes and the impact of DOT legislation per MCE89. Also worth noting that WP:LASTING is only one guideline for establishing notability, and articles can still be notable without having inherently lasting effects (but I would argue this one has had them). - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT – Continued, significant, and in-depth coverage in secondary sources is present with lasting effects and changes existing as a result of this incident.^[1] The incident is also the subject of numerous case studies. [1] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes the WP: LASTING. HeMahon (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per above. Has coverage and has lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:NEVENT. The entire "Responses" section has more than enough of the evidence needed. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there was significant coverage for weeks and months and years. There are people 8 years later who won't take United for any reason. Bearian (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial roll call at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (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)

Trivial event with only routine coverage. I T B F 📢 17:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I T B F 📢 17:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was not a trivial event. It was well-covered beyond routine coverage, in large part because it diverted from the standard roll call practices by featuring a DJ and even a cameo performance mid-roll call. Before this, in-person conventions had roll calls that looked like this. It was an innovation in convention production having the 2024 DNC bring out a DJ to play a theme song for each state.

It was also unique from all major party convention roll calls except the 2020 DNC roll call in being ceremonial rather than official. The article can be usefully expanded to explain the circumstances of why Harris was nominated in advance of the convention (initially was brought the threat of certain states to deny the Democratic nominee ballot access if they waited until the convention to nominate her, due to refusal to extend ballot deadlines). (The official roll can in advance of the convention was also unique as this was the first nomination in generations where nearly all delegates unbound. Biden's withdrawal meant that delegates were free to vote however they wished. Ultimately, Harris sewed up enough support in advance of the convention quick enough to dissuade any other candidates from seeking the nom) SecretName101 (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds like it can be included in the main DNC 2024 article in about three sentences. I T B F 📢 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not without erasing and easy way for readers to (without going off-side) answer the question of "what states chose what songs" and other info. SecretName101 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, United States of America, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The list of songs falls under WP:NOTDB and the rest of it can go in 2024 Democratic National Convention. Astaire (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2024 Democratic National Convention. Trivial and can be sufficiently covered there. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the overall DNC article, doesn't have notability of its own. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2024 Democratic National Convention per WP:MERGEREASON#4. BilletsMauves^€500 20:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2024 Democratic National Convention and redirect to this section as a viable ATD per WP:NOPAGE and WP:DUP. Sal2100 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Gupta (software developer) (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)

Non-notable businessman; fails WP:NBIO/WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to:

• WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in coverage of other subjects ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10])
• WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interview ([11])
• His own writings ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17])
• WP:PRIMARYSOURCE patent docs ([18], [19], [20])

A couple sources here don't even mention him ([21], [22]); perhaps they were included by mistake. I didn't find any other qualifying coverage in my WP:BEFORE search, and I checked for an WP:NAUTHOR pass but didn't find any independent reviews for his books. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, India, and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I suppose there could be an argument under WP:NPROF#C4 based on being a contributor/editor for multiple textbooks and reference works, but I don't buy it at all — none of the works seem to be in wide enough use. I would also have to assume based on his bio that he has published in journals, but the name is too common for me to work out what he's actually published (Google Scholar says that the 'Deepak Gupta' listed as an author on one of his books has an h-index of 70, but it's clearly pulling together publications from multiple people with the same name). Agree that there's no indication of passing WP:GNG as a businessman or WP:NAUTHOR as an author, and I'm very, very sceptical that his research work could be enough for an WP:NPROF pass. MCE89 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Software, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chico (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)

As a city councilman, fails WP:NPOL. The sourcing does not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Chicago city councilors are assumed notable under longstanding consensus. Chicago is literally the example of notable city councilors at WP:POLOUTCOMES. R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:R. G. Checkers' point regarding WP:POLOUTCOMES. I do share some reservations about the article at present not including more third-party sourcing and content in general.--Mpen320 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: POLOUTCOMES is not a community endorsed guideline or policy. It is instead a recording of what has happened. But when challenged an article should be shown to be notable and not by relying on the OUTCOMES page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Mostly this is an argument that WP:POLOUTCOMES is, like many such notability tests, largely bad where it is invoked. There is no explicit claim of notability, and Mr. Chico is not claimed to have done anything that anyone outside of the city limits might care about; I have to suspect that even in Chicago he is a relatively anonymous figure to those who don't have to deal with him on a work basis. There are a very few cases where city councilmembers have come to notoriety, but considering for example Marion Barry, most of his infamy came about while he was mayor, and his second go-'round on the council was largely notable simply because he was elected at all after the drug bust. There is no claim that this person even vaguely approaches that. Mangoe (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if the article sees improvement, delete if it doesn't. While it's true that Chicago is a large, internationally prominent city whose city councillors would commonly be accepted as passing WP:NPOL #2, that still requires the article to contain substantive content about his political impact (specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his work had on the city, and on and so forth), supported by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it in reliable sources.
  We would almost certainly keep an article about a Chicago city councillor that had substantive content about his political career in it and was well-sourced — but even in the global megacity tier, we still do not keep articles about city councillors that basically amount to "he exists, the end" and are supported entirely by primary sources and run of the mill candidate questionnaires of the type that even the non-winning candidates who lost the election would still be able to show.
  I don't know enough about Chicago politics to know whether the necessary depth of improvement is possible here or not, but it would require significantly more substance and sourcing than this to become keepable. POLOUTCOMES means that substantive articles about big-city councillors are permissible, not that just writing and sourcing the bare minimum necessary to verify that the person exists would be enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Mupo (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 am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this American lacrosse player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The most I found was this, which isn't much at all. There's also some quotes from her here. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Andruzzi