Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Connecticut

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

Purge page cache

watch

Connecticut

Ryan Cordeiro

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG - coverage seems trivial, brief career, spell in DC United only yielded 205 minutes of playing time. May be redirected to All-time D.C. United roster. Geschichte (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Rose Papandrea

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

WP:BLP of a lawyer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for lawyers.
As always, lawyers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to be the subject of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their careers in third-party sources independent of their own personal control -- but this cites no GNG-building sources at all, and instead is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources self-published by directly-affiliated non-media organizations (e.g. staff profiles and press releases self-published by her own employers), and media hits that briefly namecheck her as a provider of soundbite in an article whose principal subject is something or somebody else, none of which constitutes support for notability: the stuff that's about her isn't reliable, and the stuff that's reliable isn't about her.
Note that this has already been speedy-deleted at least once as a G11, and has gone through more than one round of move-warring as it was sequestered in draftspace by established editors before being moved back into mainspace by its creator without substantive improvement to address the reasons why it was getting draftspaced.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Illinois. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The named chairs (one of which is explicitly labeled as a distinguished professorship) make this a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. She also has good citations for law (often a low-citation field) [1] making a case for #C1 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even a PROF pass still has to be supported by reliable sources, not staff profiles and press releases. Bearcat (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPROF#C5 states "publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source". [2], [3] are exactly this. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 06:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 0162739p (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein. It seems rather odd to refer to "criteria for lawyers" for a person whose basis of notability is clearly their professorship and academic output. BD2412 T 02:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. 0162739p (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the person who approved this submission at AfC per WP:NPROF #5 because she has distinguished professorship positions cited in the article. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 04:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also a note on the alleged "move warring" in this AfD nom that the creator of this article, User:0162739p and the person who submitted it to AfC, User:Psquintero, have not moved the page once.

I'm a reviewer at AfC who accepted it initially per NPROF #5, then it was "draftified" without reason from a user who says they are part of WP:NPP but doesn't have the perm and only has less than 140 edits and a history of reversed bad draftifications (Gratefulking).

It came back up on the AfC feed because it was re-submitted. I accepted this submission again because the criteria was met, leaving a nice comment on Gratefulking's and the article's talk page explaining about WP:NPROF in case they weren't familiar with it.

If this was a WP:INVOLVED action as I previously reviewed it or if it counts as move warring, I am sorry. Please let me know if this is the case (courtesy ping Bearcat) and I will never re-review submissions I have reviewed in the past. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 05:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! 0162739p (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe we need to focus on academics on Wikipedia and work on creating their articles. As for this subject, it clearly meets the criteria of WP:NPROF. Even the authority control databases indicate the same. Baqi:) (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein et al. and the PROF test. This creates a presumption of notability that I think isn’t rebutted. While not a rule, she easily passes my standards for attorneys: named professor at a major law school and a clerkship at SCOTUS. Bearian (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]