Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Minnesota

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

Purge page cache

watch

Minnesota

Marshaun Jones

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

Fails GNG. Not enough significant coverage. Best I found was this. He played at the lowest level of college football (NAIA). I also suspect the author is using AI to write articles. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maineartists (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cornelious

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

Fails GNG. No significant coverage. He played at the lowest level of college football (NAIA). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maineartists (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV for this BLP to meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will Stancil

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

Sources are entirely about losing a local political campaign and being the victim of a harassment campaign. Fails WP:NPOL, and per WP:AVOIDVICTIM we should not make articles like this. Also usage of several sources disallowed on politics, e.g. Rolling Stone. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Minnesota. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Person appears to have detailed (i.e. significant) coverage in multiple reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. He has more coverage than simply the harassment issue - I think it just slides by the victim thing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the author of the page, Stancil has received notable coverage about his takes, as shown in the references. More could be added, but he has had significant coverage in reputable sources before his political campaign. Examples:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/why-is-the-public-down-on-the-economy-ft-will-stancil/id1390384827?i=1000637921316

https://www.businessinsider.com/recession-outlook-economy-good-inflation-jobs-wages-2023-12

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/18/democrats-less-boring-emotional-reaction-00033382

https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/will-stancil-repetitive-and-annoying-and-influential-player-american-politics

I think he gets enough notability as a public intellectual, and I have tried to avoid undue weight on the recent AI generated show. The article is a stub, and could be improved, but he meets notability criteria. Calwatch (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all opinion pieces, him being quoted with no sourcing about him (so not sigcov) or local news. Every piece of sigcov is about him being bullied on Twitter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References #2 and #3 already in the article (Intelligencer and Slate) sufficient for passing the WP:GNG. WP:AVOIDVICTIM is just a further explanation of WP:BLP1E which doesn't apply here for a multitude of reasons. Katzrockso (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AVOIDVICTIM is not that, it is the rule that "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization", and so we should not include detail that is of that nature. Stancil has only ever received coverage for being bullied on Twitter (as both of the sources you note are about). This entire article is a WP:BLP issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that someone has received abuse in no way "participat[es] in or prolong[s]" victimization. It is quite simple to reduce the proportion of material focused on the abuse he has received in the article and this would suffice in assuaging any concern you might have (even if we accept the proposition that AV applies here). Am I to understand your position that bullying/harassment shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia because it reproduces the victimization? Katzrockso (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an entire article about someone being a harassment victim does contribute to their harassment.

Yes, if it involves specific BLPs of people solely covered for being harassment victims. For example we do not even mention the name of the person Kiwi Farms is named after, because that is contributing to that person's harassment, even though it is noted in RS, because WP:AVOIDVICTIM. People like this who have received coverage solely for being harassed by the internet have regularly had their articles deleted/draftified. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But Stancil is a public intellectual who has had his opinions both published by major publications like Politico and examined by other RS like Slate and New York Magazine. The harassment (such as it is) is mostly related to his public positions, and not some immutable characteristic like his race or sexual orientation. Calwatch (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call him an intellectual and the sources that examine his views are within the context of the campaign against him. The Slate article title begins "The Most Harassed Guy on X", and the rest of it is an interview. What the harassment is because of is irrelevant, nothing in AVOIDVICTIM says it should only be about identity-based harassment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stancil is obviously an intellectual — of the liberal-pundit type. I also think it's misguided to try to justify disappearing him from WP as something implicit for 'his own good' (you keep citing, unconvincingly, WP:AVOIDVICTIM)...joepa^T 19:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Intellectual", I do not see how he obviously matches the definition (unless everyone with a masters degree is an intellectual, which I do not believe to be the case). It is not for anyone's good or ill, I have no personal feelings on the man, it is for compliance with WP:BLP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An intellectual of the liberal-pundit type, like Will, is a public performer who packages ideas for political impact and media consumption, while someone with a master’s degree is usually just a private professional with specialized training and no obligation (or platform) to translate that knowledge into partisan narrative. Despite his own substantial academic training, Will as the pundit-intellectual is defined by visibility, rhetorical packaging, and tribal signaling rather than pure scholarly depth.joepa^T 19:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...according to who? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources in the article says "the region's most prolific public intellectual on social media". https://mspmag.com/arts-and-culture/in-conversation-with-will-stancil/ Calwatch (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking about what the rest of that whole statement was from (saying he is "defined by visibility, rhetorical packaging, and tribal signaling rather than pure scholarly depth" what?). Intellectual just means 'intelligent person', so yes, I am not surprised that you can find a source that calls him one, but that's something of an opinionated statement. And we likely aren't going to convince each other, so it's best not going in circles. I stand by my opinion and you stand by yours and it is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? According to Intellectual#Public_intellectual! joepa^T 21:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking how you came to conclude that Stancil as an individual is "defined by visibility, rhetorical packaging, and tribal signaling rather than pure scholarly depth". PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I mean, just read the quote I reference below, where Stancil is quite clearly described as a liberal pundit comparable to Chris Hayes in influence. joepa^T 21:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously. Stancil, despite being considered a "lolcow"^[1] in some spaces, is clearly notable in his own right for his work in government and public affairs and his endeavours in electoral politics.joepa^T 10:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. While the subject admittedly fails WP:NPOL, this is clearly a WP:GNG pass per the sourcing. Sal2100 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He isn't notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. There are other wikis. Raync (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Would you please explain, citing the appropriate WP policies/parameters, why the subject "isn't notable." Thank you! joepa^T 05:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You expect too much quality. Irregardless, I am concurring with PARAKANYAA. Not every failed politician is worthy of being on Wikipedia. Raync (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The comparison to the person Kiwi Farms was named after is ridiculous. That person is a low-profile individual notable only for being harassed, whereas this person has documentation by RS outside of that context per above. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Stancil is almost the textbook definition of a high-profile individual based on the standard linked above. Calwatch (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage of both his campaign and other activities. 🄻 🄰 14:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Minnesota Reformer 2024 profile Minnesota House election		appears to be a nonprofit newsroom	The profile is significant coverage	✔ Yes
Intelligencer (New York Magazine) 2024			profile, lots of biographical information	✔ Yes
Minnesota Racket		says its an alt-weekly	This is an interview, but the preview and the interview questions, I believe, show notability and independent coverage. (See essay WP:INTERVIEWS)	✔ Yes
Slate		Slate doesn't have a strong consensus in reliable sources noticeboard, but seems OK to me	First two paragraphs before the interview are significant coverage, as well as some of the questions.	✔ Yes
The Atlantic			~ Three sentences about subject, but most of it is about the AI-generated show	~ Partial
News from the States	Same author as the Minnesota Reformer profile	Seems reliable?	~ Yes things that happened, but not very in-depth	✘ No
KARE on Grok			This seems like passing coverage and not very much in-depth discussion of the subject	✘ No
Renewal			Purely an interview	✘ No
The Spectator		WP:SPECTATOR	Mostly about Grok and the AI show.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep: Being notable for trolling Twitter is a dubious honor (says I, writing online at AfD). Nevertheless, I believe it meets WP:GNG. Source assessment table is above. A couple of facts emerge: noted for popularizing "vibecession" (US economy) in 2022, being a Twitter warrior, running for office, and being a target of harassment. That's more points for notability than any one thing in WP:BLP1E. WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't say articles should be removed; instead, it says to be judicious and not necessarily include every detail. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ MacDougald, Park (6 November 2024). "JD Vance: prince of the MAGA movement". UnHerd. Paul Marshall. Archived from the original on 6 November 2025. Retrieved 3 December 2025. A handful of liberal pundits, including MSNBC's Chris Hayes and the newly minted lolcow Will Stancil, have pointed to these connections as evidence that Vance himself is a budding authoritarian, or that his brain has simply been "pickled", in Hayes's words.

Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas

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

Fails WP:BRANCH of WP:NORG. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE of press releases and local activities expected of an advocacy organization. Longhornsg (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and Minnesota. Longhornsg (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main article on the Jewish Federations of North America does not list the various branches of the Federation. If this is to be merged, let's make sure we list the branches in the main article. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If a justification for deletion is that JCRC is a local branch of Jewish Federation, that is incorrect. JCRC is an autonomous organization from Federation. Ked0102 (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Oops, sorry. I meant to say a branch of the Jewish Community Relations Council. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but in reality redirect. I am not convinced that this needs a separate article User:Easternsahara_{review this} 01:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - outright deletion will feed the nanobs. Please don't make me verklempt. Bearian (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Proposed deletions

[1] MacDougald, Park (6 November 2024). "JD Vance: prince of the MAGA movement". UnHerd. Paul Marshall. Archived from the original on 6 November 2025. Retrieved 3 December 2025. A handful of liberal pundits, including MSNBC's Chris Hayes and the newly minted lolcow Will Stancil, have pointed to these connections as evidence that Vance himself is a budding authoritarian, or that his brain has simply been "pickled", in Hayes's words.

[1]