Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ohio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Project page
Talk
Townships taskforce
Talk
Assessment Review Newsletter Participants
New articles DYK articles Deletions Popular pages Recent Changes Portal

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Ohio. 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|Ohio|~~~~}} 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 Ohio. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Ohio

[edit]
Abdisalam Aato (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)

The WP:BIO of this article does not meet notability guidelines due to a lack of WP:N coverage in independent, WP:RS. QalasQalas (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xandra Pohl (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)

Subject does not meet basic criteria for WP:N; extremely minor celebrity with no significant contribution to their field. References include subject’s own social media accounts that do not meet WP:RS. Subject has not won critical attention for their work or been honored with any significant industry awards. Volcom95 (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep (Article creator) She meets the basic criteria for notability through sources like this solid Cincinnati Enquirer profile. None of the nominator's reasons are based in deletion policy. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A single article does not meet the definition of "significant coverage" as detailed in WP:GNG. Volcom95 (talk) Volcom95 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence "sources like". Also not what sigcov means. Plenty of other solid articles including E! profile and a chunk of this Rolling Stone piece ("does not need to be the main topic of the source material"), Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The author had reliable sources in the article, but given the fact that there are other, even more reliable sources out there on the subject, it seems to me that this is a case of an article simply needing to be further developed. I will spend some time tomorrow on strengthening it. This article was hastily nominated by a user who resorted to false accusations & threats against users who were doing their due diligence in order to provide a genuine opinion about whether or not the article should remain on Wikipedia. It is clear that the subject has satisfied the notability requirement. None of the nominators reasons for nominating are valid.
    Brickto (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong Keep - She made the Forbes 30 under 30 list for music. That is no small feat. —— Comment: Reason Keep to Strong Keep change: nominator isn’t paying enough attention to the things they are arguing, and likely didn’t attempt to research the subject before initiating an AfD.
Brickto (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it that you and user:Hameltion both have edits on the Peter Mangione article? Seems like an odd coincidence. Care to explain here or should I just file a WP:SPI?? Volcom95 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Volcom95 I am switching my vote to Strong Keep, because clearly the nominator isn’t observant enough to notice that I edited the Peter Mangione article because I nominated it for deletion, and instead resorts to threats and accusing me and the author of sockpuppetry. Brickto (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is also not a thing we use to recognize notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P5, Wikipedia has no firm rules. A selection by Forbes, a reliable and prestigious outlet, for their 30 under 30 list is notable. On top of that, the subject is mentioned plenty in other reliable sources as more than just a passing mention. Did anyone bother to search the woman up or are you just trying to get this persons article deleted for no reason? Brickto (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it shows some notability, but it's not a RS alone. I still don't see enough RS. I looked below for sourcing as explained, please read my comments further down. Why would I want to delete this for no reason? I have better things to do with my time than waste it on wikipedia for no reason; I'm here with a purpose. My comment below says she might be notable in the future, we just don't have enough at this time to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mortar (organization) (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)

This article fails WP:GNG. It does not talk about why MORTAR is a significant or noteworthy organization. It also lacks high-quality sources. It has only been mentioned a couple of times in some relatively obscure articles from CNN, Politico, and other news. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Proposed deletions

[edit]

Automated notices

[edit]

Articles for deletion

  • 04 Mar 2025 – Xandra Pohl (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Volcom95 (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
  • 21 Feb 2025 – Mortar (organization) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Mast303 (t · c); see discussion (2 participants; relisted)

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion