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.

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 Massachusetts. 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/Massachusetts/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Massachusetts

Sharks near Cape Cod

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

Not sure this warrants a standalone article. If it were used as a precedent, we could end up with many thousands of articles with titles such as "Bats near Murmansk" or "Mice near Tierra del Fuego". Were we to keep the article, it would certainly want a better title. Eric ^talk 19:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reply: potential for "thousands of articles" like Bats near Murmansk is a slippery slope fallacy that should be dismissed. The topic meets GNG via significant coverage in reliable sources. A better title could be "Great White Sharks off Cape Cod," pinpointing the key species (great whites) and their offshore activity, improving precision over the vague near. However, there has been broader coverage of sharks off the Cape, and the broader topic is just as notable. there have been scientific and media sources, including studies on 800 white sharks visiting from 2015–2018, tagging by the Atlantic White Shark Conservancy, and human impacts like rare attacks (e.g., 2018 fatality). Cultural ties to Jaws (film), its resulting depopulation, and conservation efforts further justify a standalone article over a merge or deletion. Some similar articles are List of animals of Long Island Sound and List of animals of Yellowstone. Although the Yellowstone article is titled as a list, it is written more in prose. Also, an article about the animals of the long island sound did not result in thousands of lists or articles about different animals. Also, interestingly, there is a well-sourced article on Beavers in Southern Patagonia, (including merged content from Beaver eradication in Tierra del Fuego) although there is not one on Mice in Tierra del Fuego, likely related to the coverage in media and journals. Jumplike23 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... was this written by AI? SecretSpectre (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are all my reasons. I do use AI in my research and writing, which is allowed. If something is not supported by reliable source, please let me know. Jumplike23 (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute! "If something is not supported by reliable source, please let me know" You're supposed to do this, not us. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did do that, every sentence is supported by reliable sources in the article Jumplike23 (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Eric ^talk 19:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like LLM output as well SecretSpectre (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as AI slop which is inherently unreliable. See WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS. I have no confidence in this article based on its author's insouciant comment about refs. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will withdraw the article or concede the deletion of the article. I respect the feedback. I did spend a lot of time researching and reviewing this article. I had good intentions here. Thank you. Jumplike23 (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jumplike23, don't get too discouraged. Once editors get a whiff of AI we react strongly. AI slop is an existential threat to Wikipedia because of its unreliability and its tendency to produce nice-looking articles with bogus assertions and lots of references -- references some of which turn out to be made-up. Nobody has time to check all 10 or 20 refs in someone else's article to determine if they're all legitimate.

AI models also train off our content; if we put one model's hallucination in an article, it'll be amplified by some other AI, starting an exponential spiral of misinformation.

Our biggest obligation is to our readers -- we have to give them reliable information. Readers use Wikipedia for all sorts of purposes (such as, "do I really want to go in the water at Cape Cod this year?")

I'm sorry for you about what happened here -- it sounds like you put your heart into this. Next time, skip the AI. Do it yourself. Your articles will be better. If you're a little unsure of your writing skills, write a draft and invite others to polish it up; we are, after all, a collaborative project. (Personally, I can never get punctuation right.)

Thanks for being a part of our project. Keep writing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, appreciate the feedback and kindness, I will do better in the future. I promise there are no hallucinated sources. But I understand and respect the concern and seriousness of wiki's role. Jumplike23 (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camilo Ponce (soccer)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only references currently are primary to clubs the subject has played for and a search elsewhere only came up with mentions like [[1]] and [[2]]. Let'srun (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Let'srun (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond E. Fowler

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

This BLP has had unresolved sourcing tags on it for the last 15 years. It's currently sourced entirely to the website of the UFO club MUFON, the non-indexed Journal of Abduction Research, and something called "Fiddlehead Focus" that my browser is warning me against opening.

Fails GNG: A WP:BEFORE on JSTOR returns nothing. A BEFORE on Google Books finds numerous instances of him being quoted and profiled in non-RS UFO cruft. A BEFORE on Google News and newspapers.com wasn't efficiently possible to how common his name is and the number of false positives. A handful of references could be gleaned by adding the modifier "UFO" but these are generally incidental mentions that don't crest WP:SIGCOV.
Fails NAUTHOR: He does not meet the standards of WP:NAUTHOR on the basis of review of his books. WP:NAUTHOR affirms the multiple review test is the second of a two-part requirement: "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and "In addition", such work must have been "the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". We do not have an RS that establishes he has created a "well-known work", ergo, it doesn't pass the first part of the two-part NAUTHOR test, and no quantity of book reviews will remedy that.

Chetsford (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Paranormal, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent way today to source this to WP:GNG, the prime supreme metric for all articles regardless of topic. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only namedrop I could find in a reliable source was from a Portland Press-Herald article where the people he talked about in one of his books debunked the whole thing. Nothing in the subject article but primary sources or interviews of the subject by suspect sources. Ravenswing 04:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly sourced BLP. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Rockefeller Junior

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

This was previously redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rockefeller Jr., and little to nothing has changed over the past 8 years regarding notability. The only trustworthy sources that mention him in much detail seem to be interviews (or at least pieces that heavily rely on the subject's own commentary) when they aren't from corporations he's affiliated with. These things don't count as independent coverage. Anything that could be considered independent is probably just minor name drops in things more focused on other Rockefeller family members. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are actually not directly affiliated to the Rockefeller's (except maybe the Asia Society). He also seems to have more coverage than many of his siblings (so if we apply rules consistently, either their articles have to be deleted or his has to be included). FT also called him the "new patriarch" of the Rockefeller's after his fathers' death (See: https://www.ft.com/content/5fa4777a-10ec-11e8-940e-08320fc2a277). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afus199620 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure InfluenceWatch is credible (especially when the layout's formatting makes me suspect it mirrored a past version of his Wikipedia article) or what the point of adding "directly" here was when one cannot be "indirectly" affiliated with anyone or anything, but let's not downplay how he's a trustee for National Center for family Philanthropy while the We Are Family Foundation is an institution his wife co-founded. FYI, a spousal connection does count as an affiliation, which also definitely means Asia Society is one when his uncle started that up (the "grandnephew" part it gives is an obvious mistake when David Sr. was actually a brother of John III instead of a nephew). Palace of Versailles just gives a one-sentence mention, which doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV and neither would obituaries of family members that merely list him among surviving relatives. As for siblings, whether they warrant their own pages is a separate matter, so using the existence of those as a rationale to keep this would be a WP:WAX fallacy when their notability (or lack thereof) has no bearing on David Jr.'s personal merits. You're free to start other AFDs for any of them. The Financial Times piece you linked isn't by any means independent of the subject when containing lots of his commentary, and same for things like CNBC. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IViz Security

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

Contains unreferenced/promotional content Schtiapht (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Schtiapht (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, Karnataka, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being acquired seems to be the only noteworthy event in the company history. Brandon (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temple US Records

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

Article with no sources. Not able to find much coverage independent of Robin Morton - fails WP:GNG. Asteramellus (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if it means anything (e.g., if someone proposes a redirect; I have no opinion), the nominator is referring to Robin Morton (musician) (Robin Morton is a disambiguation page). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a straightforward merge candidate and doesn't need to be handled at AfD. Chubbles (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Temple Records (1978 UK label). Temple is a significant record label in UK folk/trad, and I think the US arm is less important. The article history suggests there was a merger some time ago into the U.S. record label although I think that was just a copypaste since similar text remains in the proposed merger target.
Morton is not the right merge target as the congruence between Morton and Temple is not perfect -- Temple has a number of other artists, and it's not as if Battlefield Band was his alter-ego.
There are sources for the target article. It gets a paragraph here[3], somewhat lengthier treatment here[4]. Oblivy (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tulip Interfaces

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

Fails WP:NCORP – Sources are routine and do not provide in-depth, independent coverage, so notability is not established. AlanRider78 (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. AlanRider78 (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Why must we jump to the deletion of an article so quickly? The company has significant coverage in reliable sources WP:GNG: The article demonstrates notability under Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) through considerable coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, such as MIT News, TechCrunch, and Automation World. The citations provide in-depth coverage of Tulip Interfaces’ operations, technological innovations, and industry impact. These sources are independent of the subject, meet Wikipedia’s reliable source criteria (WP:RS), and go beyond trivial mentions, establishing Tulip’s significance in the industrial software and IIoT sectors. Also, there are little to no promotional issues (WP:V, WP:NPOV): The article contains verifiable information supported by a range of credible sources. Give this article time and let people work on making it better. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing any good sources to meet WP:NCORP; most of them are just routine business reporting such as fundraising and partnership announcements. The MIT News source is not independent since the business originated at MIT. It is possible that both the creator and deletion nominator are UPEs per this comment. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Helpful Raccoon. I've sent private evidence to COIVRT - this one is definitely UPE and AI-generated. Fails WP:NCORP as well. Gheus (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is very little coverage outside of funding announcements. Two pages of Gnews, this is about the best one [5], this [6] isn't about funding, but it appears to be a primary source. What's in the article now isn't helpful, potentially LLM slop doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Heywood (entrepreneur)

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

Lacking sufficient coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO - The9Man ^Talk 10:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 10:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Technology, Internet, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment There is an article at Benjamin Heywood about an older and notable subject and there is no concern I see regarding article title evasion or hijacking, and this is properly disambiguated. Nathannah • 📮 15:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any concerns raised about that. What made you think there might be an issue? - The9Man ^Talk 07:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's very common for promotional editors who want to brute force their articles here to use different titles with parentheticals to do so (especially after being salted); just commenting that this is not the case here for those on AfD so they know in advance and this is just a regular BLP. Nathannah • 📮 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added a little more detail in personal life includign citations that may help with that PaulWicks (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Counting the author's comment as an unbolded Keep, this is no longer eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks, I was fuzzy on AFD procedures so apologies for earlier confusion. I've now added references where these were needed; not all are perfect, e.g. Health 2.0 doesn't archive its talks so the best I can do is PLM's own blog. I've fleshed out the references from the New York Times. In terms of notability, I suppose the pitch I'd make would be:

1.) Significant coverage in reliable sources; multiple features in the New York Times & NYT Magazine interview Heywood about his work and family, subject of a documentary premiered at Sundance, subject of a book by a pulitzer prize winning author

2.) Significant award: Within the space of ALS research and advocacy, the Humanitarian award is the highest honour a non-medic can receive. (https://www.als.net/news/jamie-and-benjamin-heywood-receive-humanitarian-award/ / https://www.als.org/blog/hopeful-highlights-recent-als-mnd-symposium) - the International Alliance represents the many global ALS non profits around the world - it's even rarer for the award to go to someone who is not a medical professional.

3.) Founder of a significant company in the health space (PatientsLikeMe) that has been influential in multiple spheres PaulWicks (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]