Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ohio
Project page Talk |
Townships taskforce Talk |
Assessment | Review | Newsletter | Participants |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
New articles | DYK articles | Deletions | Popular pages | Recent Changes | Portal |
![]() | Points of interest related to Ohio on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
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:
- 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|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.

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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bibliographies, Film, and Somalia. QalasQalas (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Georgia (U.S. state), and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - Subject doesn't pass notability guidelines. I was unable to find reliable sources on the subject. Yolandagonzales (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- Hence "sources like". Also not what sigcov means. Plenty of other solid articles including E! profile and a chunk of this Rolling Stone piece ("
- 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)
- 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)
KeepStrong 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- That is also not a thing we use to recognize notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete: TOOSOON, the Cincinnati Inquirer piece is fine. The Sports Illustrated seems to be from the Swimsuit edition of the website, I'm wondering if it's as notable as the main SI site. We'd need a few more RS to cover this person before we could consider an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Otherwise, coverage is about a swimsuit line, Dancing with the Stars and her relationships. They could help fill in an article, but aren't indications of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- The SI piece is reliable but not really independent, but the other sources I linked above are sound. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b Are you aware that the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated is one of the most prestigious covers that a model can be featured on? Because it seems like you think that is somehow less notable in some way. On the contrary, it makes it more notable. She was named the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Rookie of 2024 for her debut in the 60th Anniversary Edition of the swimsuit issue. 60 years that specific issue of the magazine has been being printed.
Brickto (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Regardless of where you stand on the topic, there is no overstating the importance and prestige that’s associated with being featured as the cover model for Sports Illustrated’s annual swimsuit edition. Indeed, there are magazines and websites dedicated to covering the topic. What began as a short photo spread featuring women in bathing suits in the early 1960s has since grown into one of the most prestigious fashion shoots in the world today, one that has is seen as THE fashion issue which the world’s top models and celebrities turn to for beachwear.
- AS USA- I know what the swimsuit edition is, this appears to be a "lifestyle" website, feels more promotional. The website is actually titles SI Lifestyle, of which this swimsuit tab seems to be a small section at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Otherwise, coverage is about a swimsuit line, Dancing with the Stars and her relationships. They could help fill in an article, but aren't indications of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: So we have a Cincinnati Inquirer article, a 30 under 30 list and an SI swimsuit article, that's what we're using for notability? These are hardly enough. We usually need three decent sources for AfD; I've count these as maybe 1 1/2 sources. The Under 30 list is rather short. The SI swimsuit thing is iffy per the discussion above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b
- Cincinnati Enquirer, People, New York Post, Rolling Stone, Sports Illustrated, The US Sun, Page Six, Forbes, Her Campus, E!, OutKick, MSN, TMZ, TheWrap, Times of India, WLWT, EssentiallySports
- https://www.cincinnati.com/story/entertainment/music/2025/02/11/xandra-cincinnati-kid-now-taking-over-dj-industry/77260013007/
- https://www.hercampus.com/culture/xandra-pohl-tiktok-being-comfortable-alone-interview/
- https://www.forbes.com/profile/xandra-pohl/
- https://www.eonline.com/news/1407776/dancing-with-the-stars-danny-amendola-sets-record-straight-on-xandra-pohl-dating-rumors
- https://www.eonline.com/news/1407492/xandra-pohl-fuels-danny-amendola-dating-rumors-at-dancing-with-the-stars-taping
- https://www.outkick.com/culture/si-swimsuit-model-xandra-pohl-still-supports-o-3-bengals-jj-squat-ladies
- https://www.outkick.com/culture/xandra-pohl-comes-out-jungle-2025-si-swimsuit-issue-clay-has-flu-275-gallon-firebox
- https://people.com/all-about-danny-amendola-xandra-pohl-relationship-8714665
- https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/recaps/are-danny-amendola-and-xandra-pohl-dating-a-dwts-backstage-video-spills-the-tea/ar-AA1uTaAV
- https://amp.tmz.com/2024/09/18/xandra-pohl-supports-danny-amendola-dwts/
- https://www.thewrap.com/xandra-fandom-new-york-comic-con-party/
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2024/12/03/forbes-announces-30-under-30-class-of-2025-spotlighting-young-entrepreneurs-and-innovators-who-are-disrupting-industries-and-making-an-impact-globally/
- https://lifestyle.si.com/fashion-beauty/our-favorite-pieces-from-xandra-pohl-s-new-jewelry-collab-with-electric-picks-01j18r6b77j7
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/nfl/danny-amendola-shuts-down-dating-rumors-no-xandra-is-a-great-friend-of-mine/amp_articleshow/113773972.cms
- https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/tiktok-influencer-dj-1235133233/
- https://www.wlwt.com/article/forbes-30-under-30-list-xandra-cincinnati/63084262
- https://www.essentiallysports.com/nfl-active-news-has-louis-rees-zammit-broken-up-with-girlfriend-xandra-pohl-si-models-danny-amendola-move-sparks-speculation/
- https://lifestyle.si.com/news/xandra-pohl-makes-her-debut-in-the-60th-anniversary-issue-of-si-swimsuit-01hw5kjxjbmc
- https://nypost.com/2024/06/20/sports/dave-portnoy-throws-fuel-on-xandra-pohl-danny-amendola-dating-rumors/
- https://nypost.com/2024/05/17/sports/si-swimsuit-model-xandra-pohl-stirs-dating-buzz-with-chiefs-player-after-public-breakup/
- https://www.the-sun.com/sport/11652416/xandra-pohl-sports-illustrated-model-olivia-dunne-danny-amendola/
- https://people.com/tiktoker-xandra-pohl-named-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-2024-rookie-see-the-debut-photos-8638269
- https://pagesix.com/video/model-and-dj-alexandra-pohl-answers-burning-questions-in-confession-cube/
- I don’t know about your love life, but I’d imagine it’s not the topic of any articles at the New York Post. If you can’t be bothered to even Google someone, why are you taking the time to argue for the deletion of their article? That’s careless & destructive to the encyclopedia. Hameltion has shown on other AfD discussions regarding articles that they have written that they are more than willing to admit when the nomination has merit. Because they are a good editor & they care about the encyclopedia. That being said, their speedy keep vote was 100% valid, and this nomination is a joke. The nominator is threatening people in the discussion, and the only other delete vote can’t take the time to Google the subject. Do better. Brickto (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I think what we have ourselves here is a perfect example of a situation where a Wikipedia article is not a commodity but rather a necessity. If people are having trouble finding these, very obviously notable and prestigious, articles about the subject — then that is where Wikipedia comes in and consolidates them. This makes the information much more accessible to the general public, and it is the very reason this website was started in the first place.
- Brickto (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Brickto, I know you mean to help, but no need to call others names even if their arguments are flawed. Assuming good faith always helps. Also, a big wall of links of varying quality is not the most effective way to demonstrate notability. I'll just point Oaktree b again to the three sources I linked earlier (Inquirer, E!, and Rolling Stone). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Rolling Stone is a photo caption as barely two paragraphs about Pohl. E isn't much better. You need extensive coverage in reliable sources, not trivial coverage is a few articles. We don't have enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hameltion I called nobody any name. So I’d appreciate you striking that. Frankly, you don’t fight hard enough for your articles. This subject actually is well beyond what is considered notable by Wikipedia’s standards. Also, Oaktree b doesn’t need to be shown anything. They are capable of researching the subject themselves (take a look at the top of every AfD as it instructs you to do so) which they refuse to do. The Post isn’t notable by whose standards? Is this because they recently posted about how Wikipedia has a censorship problem. Well case in point. Good luck with the AfD. The people who behave like the nominative and oak are the people that killed this project. Don’t try to appease people who have problems with doing what they are supposed to, or the bare minimum at that. Be well. Brickto (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Please review our list of reliable sources [1]. The NY Post has been deems not reliable since around 2020. I'm asking you to please review the list before throwing around accusations. Please and thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Brickto, I know you mean to help, but no need to call others names even if their arguments are flawed. Assuming good faith always helps. Also, a big wall of links of varying quality is not the most effective way to demonstrate notability. I'll just point Oaktree b again to the three sources I linked earlier (Inquirer, E!, and Rolling Stone). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- The Sun and the Post don't prove notability and aren't RS (reliable sources). Frankly, I'm not going through a list that long if you can't provide us with examples that are what we qualify as reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b If you can’t take the time to click some links, then don’t take the time to write out a response. Your passive aggressive behavior drives editors away and no I am not going to assume good faith when someone isn’t acting in good faith to begin with. You have a job to do, stop making everyone do it for you. WP:NEXIST: “Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.” The burden of proof is on you. The guidelines don’t say “nominate baselessly and then make the author desperately try to get you to take a look at sources” You aren’t supposed to nominate or participate in AfD until you have already conducted a thorough search. Which you have absolutely not. You need to go do that and then come back and discuss. Brickto (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've said more than enough in this discussion and I'm tired of arguing about the issues. I have nothing further to add. Oaktree b (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b If you can’t take the time to click some links, then don’t take the time to write out a response. Your passive aggressive behavior drives editors away and no I am not going to assume good faith when someone isn’t acting in good faith to begin with. You have a job to do, stop making everyone do it for you. WP:NEXIST: “Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.” The burden of proof is on you. The guidelines don’t say “nominate baselessly and then make the author desperately try to get you to take a look at sources” You aren’t supposed to nominate or participate in AfD until you have already conducted a thorough search. Which you have absolutely not. You need to go do that and then come back and discuss. Brickto (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment per these two sources yahoo news and EDM.com, the subject has three nominations in the 2025 Electronic Dance Music Awards. That meets WP:MUSICBIO#8, demonstrating significant contribution in her field. I'll have a look at further sourcing when I get time. ResonantDistortion 22:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not finding significant sourcing beyond those referenced above - but with 3 nominations for a notable award, coupled with the Cincinnati and SI coverage, there's just enough to (a) show compliance with WP:MUSICBIO and (b) build an article, so leaning towards Keep. ResonantDistortion 10:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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) - 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)
- Delete per nominator. The subject of the article fails to meet WP:NORG. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
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
- 28 Feb 2025 – Montgomery County, Ohio elections (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Rocfan275 (t · c) was deleted
Redirects for discussion