Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Massachusetts

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Massachusetts/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Massachusetts

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Bay Tower

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

The article hasn't had any substantial updates since 2016 and I can't find any news about the tower after 2011-ish, so I think it can assumed this project was scrapped, and in that case, it's probably not notable enough to remain. LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Massachusetts. LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with your assessment Sgroey (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any further news (or anything) about this proposed tower that I think was never built. The small one paragraph now hardly seems worth keeping. Nothing has appeared since the two sources used, and I don't think anything will at this point... Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and others. I'm not convinced work for this tower was ever even started based on an apparent lack of news coverage. Bsoyka (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa Partners

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

All sources are non-independent except #3, which describes the director of the org and #6, which describes a co-founder. (Note #15 features one of the directors of the org as a guest). Search reveals no more sources. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, South Africa, and United States of America. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full of primary sources and the lists of non notable people suggest this is WP:PROMO. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). Daniel (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Washington Bridge closure

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

The bridge was temporarily closed ahead of a major incident, and reopened sooner than expected. Neither of these factors seem to convey notability. Explicitly not in favor of a redirect to Interstate_195_(Rhode_Island–Massachusetts)#Washington_Bridge_closure as I don't think it even merits long term mention there, but am fine with it if consensus emerges. Star Mississippi 22:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Star Mississippi 22:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect - This just doesn't seem notable. A bridge being closed due to maintenance issues is pretty routine and run of the mill. Unless something unexpected happens, like the bridge outright collapsing, I can't see this passing either WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). Closure of a major bridge on an interstate highway tends to make the national news. (Note that the closure is ongoing - traffic has been diverted to the parallel span, but it looks like a few months til the north span opens.) While I don't see it as having ensuring enough notability for an independent article, a redirect is useful for categorization in Category:2023 in Rhode Island and so on. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This major road closure was caused by a junior engineer reporting rod failures, and was extremely sudden. The closure caused five hour traffic delays in Providence County, which have caused press conferences to happen every single day since the incident. Assuming that the page cannot be kept, it should be merged with Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). desmay (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). Disclaimer: I was asked by Sideswipe9th about this article's notability a few days prior to this AfD, and found myself agreeing that it wasn't worth its own article. The Hernando de Soto Bridge has no separate failure article despite being probably more notable of a closure, so I don't see why this one should have an article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). We don't need an article on relatively routine infrastructure maintenance. Partofthemachine (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no redirect. Traffic jams are not notable. Laughable that editors are voting to keep articles on bridge maintenance and traffic jams in the United States when we're deleting articles about traffic accidents in other countries that killed two or three dozen people. Clear case of WP:SYSTEMIC. What's the point of a redirect? Who's going to search on this title? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Per WP:CHEAP, why should the page history not be kept for a legitimate search term? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island) per others. Fails WP:NEVENT and mentioned at the target. Seems obvious. And if we merge, then of course we redirect because we preserve attribution and redirects are cheap. If nobody searches for it, it won't get used (who cares). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). The section in the article is about as long and well referenced. Should be redirected and someone who feels that something is still missing can look in the history. gidonb (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island) as it doesn't meet a separate GNG. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there's sufficient coverage at Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island) already (if anything a bit excessive). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. One of the few cases where editors have persuasively argued that the current article is non-compliant with policy to the degree that it should be deleted with no prejudice against future recreation with sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Baker (Baker Brook)

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

entirely unsourced article about a person. fails general notability guideline. quick preliminary search finds nothing. ltb d l (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. ltb d l (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this source that confirms that Baker Brook was named after Baker. However, there's so little information that it should just be merged into the history section of the Baker Brook article. I also found this website, which has a whole lot more information. That is just some random website - it does, however, cite two news articles. I don't have time to search for those, and since they are from 200 years ago, we'd have to dig through archives of old Canadian news articles to find them, and then determine how much information they have. Generally, however, I tend towards a merge with the history section of the Baker Brook article, as Baker really only seems to be notable as the guy after whom the place was named. Cortador (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP John Baker was not simply a person who gave a name to Baker Brook. He was a driving force in an independence effort for the putative Republic of Madawaska. He was a perennial thorn in the side of the British authorities in New Brunswick, leading several altercations against them, helping to instigate the Aroostook War. Accused of crimes against King George IV, Baker caused several international incidents between the U.S. and Great Britain. It is partially because of his provocations that the 1842 Webster–Ashburton Treaty was enacted, which settled the northeastern U.S. boundary between Britain (Canada) and the U.S., which had been in dispute since 1783. In fact, one of the articles of that international treaty applied only to John Baker and his neighbor. The state of Maine later constructed a "Memorial commemorating the Patriotism of John Baker". See also ^[1], ^[2], and ^[3] and its 132 footnotes, including:

Two thorough treatments of John Baker are important for understanding the man and his role in Maine's history between 1820 and 1842. The first is an article by Roger Paradis, "John Baker and the Republic of Madawaska: An Episode in the Northeast Boundary Controversy," The Dalhousie Review 52 (Spring 1972): 78-95. The article deals with Baker's actions during those difficult years. Paradis is a skilled story teller, and Baker's story is gripping reading. Moreover, he stays close to his sources, which range from original documents like the Maine Resolves to an article in the short-lived newspaper, Journal de Madawaska (1902-1906). If readers want only one article to read about Baker, this is the one. The second thorough treatment is a book by Geraldine Tidd Scott, Ties of Common Blood: A History of Maine's Northeast Boundary Dispute with Great Britain, 1783-1842 (Bowie, MD: Heritage Books, 1992). Her focus is on the story of the border controversy, but she does not shy away from describing in detail John Baker's role as it comes up. Her treatment of Baker is neutral and solidly anchored to original documents. Readers wanting to read a recently done history of the Northeast border conflict will find no better than Tidd Scott's book. A briefer treatment of John Baker actions described in this article is available in "John Baker's Rebellion and the Subsequent Deadlock," Chapter VII of Charlotte Lenentine Melvin, Madawaska: a Chapter in Maine-New Brunswick Relations (Madawaska, ME: Saint John Valley Publ. Co., 1975). Originally a thesis done at the University of Rochester, NY, in 1956, it has been republished by the Madawaska Historical Society. Her work focuses on Baker's impact on the relationship between Maine and New Brunswick and between the US and Great Britain.

^ Paradis, Roger (1972). "John Baker and the Republic of Madawaska" (PDF). The Dalhousie Review. 52 (1): 78–95. Retrieved 2017-05-04.
^ Day, Clarence A. "Aroostook, the first sixty years: a history of Maine's largest county, from its earliest beginning up through the bloodless Aroostook War". first published serially in the Fort Fairfield Review from December 26, 1951, to February 27, 1957.
^ Findlen, George L., "Under His Own Flag: John Baker's Gravestone Memorial in Retrospect", English translation of an article published in Le Revue de la Société historique du Madawaska (French language), issue 30, January/March 2002, 5-55.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff in CA (talk • contribs) 05:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can write and source a new article properly. This is completely unreferenced, and has deep problems in its writing tone as I don't think I've ever seen this many "dubious" tags in one article at one time — and no matter how notable a person may have been in theory, we simply can't keep an article that's written and sourced this badly in fact. This calls for the blow it up and start over plan. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation as a proper article per Bearcat. One would expect this sort of article to be a magnet for Revolutionary War cruft, and so it proves. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Follett Corporation#Acquisitions. Consensus established not to retain, argument against merging presented, but redirect option seems best. Daniel (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valore (company)

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Nikolaih^☎️📖 19:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Education, Websites, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content as appropriate to wiki pages of acquiring companies. Frigyes06 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All but one source are primary and/or not independent of the company. A single secondary sources does not constitute significant coverage. Nothing to merge except one source. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cited sources include press releases and no WP:RS that demonstrate SIGCOV. Formatting is poor.

PD Slessor (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Follett Corporation#Acquisitions, the company which now owns Valore and where it's already mentioned, if notability cannot be established. Sources in the article don't show notability under WP:SIRS criteria. There's a bit on the company here:[1] but otherwise I've found only press releases etc. Rupples (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] Paradis, Roger (1972). "John Baker and the Republic of Madawaska" (PDF). The Dalhousie Review. 52 (1): 78–95. Retrieved 2017-05-04.

[2] Day, Clarence A. "Aroostook, the first sixty years: a history of Maine's largest county, from its earliest beginning up through the bloodless Aroostook War". first published serially in the Fort Fairfield Review from December 26, 1951, to February 27, 1957.

[3] Findlen, George L., "Under His Own Flag: John Baker's Gravestone Memorial in Retrospect", English translation of an article published in Le Revue de la Société historique du Madawaska (French language), issue 30, January/March 2002, 5-55.

[1]

[2]

[3]