Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Washington

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

Purge page cache

watch

Washington

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There seems to be an agreement that this page is promotional or has been promotional in the past, but there is no consensus on the question of whether it is so bad that the article should be deleted as opposed to just cleaned up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Vivace

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

Just advertising. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. There are plenty of source for expanding and improving this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides the sources already shared, founder David Schomer is a regular speaker on the coffee conference circuit. I have seen him a couple of times in New York at conferences speaking on behalf of Vivace and Seattle coffee culture. Conference listings and presentations are not the usual reliable sources but the fact of these presentations establishes that Vivace is more than a local coffeehouse. They do consulting and advising for other coffeehouses. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is really promotional. Even if notable it needs a thorough rewrite, otherwise we might as well delete it as G11. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They might be notable, in which case an article could be written. But the first step is to remove this. If an erticle is fundamentally promotional to the point it would take a rewrite, it should be deleted. That's the only way we can make an impression of the promotional editors.Otherwise, any attempt to help them is doing their work for them, while they get paid for it. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the reason we can’t clean it up is you want to punish the article’s creator? Per WP:DENY or something? Even though they haven’t edited since 2008? And were’t blocked? Or are you accusing one of us of something? Who are the “promotional editors” you want to send a message to? —Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not punish, but to deter similar editing. I agree that's not ideal, but we have no other effective method, as long as we remain committed to "Anyone can edit". DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fully support that if I thought that would genuinely deter COI editing. I just don't believe that a PR flack working for Home Depot is going to notice that an article about a Seattle coffee shop was created in 2008 and deleted in 2017, and therefore they won't try to add advertising about Home Depot's new lawn mowers. The fact that the article existed for 9 years is encouragement enough, assuming they are even paying attention to this article. If they were, I'd hope they notice that it gets only 300 page views a month. If a company is paying $2 for 1,000 ad impressions, this works out to about about $8 worth of advertising per year. They would spend 2-3 person hours, at a cost of $50 to $100, for $8 worth of "free" ads. I wish they were paying attention enough to understand that. But I don't have any evidence that they do. COI editors know little to nothing about Wikipedia, and they don't learn the history and mistakes of other COI editors. They just jump in, write a biased article, and in the case of Espresso Vivace, it hangs around for years because hardly anybody is even aware it exists. Deleting this article won't prevent a future COI editor from doing the same thing.

And that is why there is nothing in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that lends much support to deleting this article on those grounds. The subject obviously has received significant coverage enough coverage to meet GNG, or WP:CORPDEPTH, or you could say David Schomer meets WP:ANYBIO and we should redirect there. Regardless of how we go about cleaning it up, the only applicable guideline here is "AfD is not cleanup." I am sympathetic to the idea of discouraging using Wikipedia for advertising, and getting rid of this minor article would be a small price to pay if it helped, but I don't see any evidence that it would help in a case like this. I'd change my mind if I did see evidence, or if we had clear guidelines saying promotional content was sufficient grounds for deletion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What will deter promotional editors is consistency in removing promotional articles. Even good faith but naive editors base their content in the promotional style , because there is so much of it they think it's what is wanted here. It's not this specific article by itself that will have the effect. but that can be argued against doing any such deletion, with the result that we'd delete none of them. To remove them all, we haveto go one at a time.

Keep — Notability is met several times over. Multiple high-quality sources make a good case for each of the following, any one of which is sufficient to keep the article:
1. Establishing and popularizing modern American latte art
2. Popularizing boutique espresso in Seattle and across the US
3. Training and influencing baristas across the US, establishing norms that are taken for granted now
4. Technical innovations in bean roasting and espresso brewing methods and equipment
5. Widespread acknowledgement of David C. Schomer as a pioneer in espresso small business entrepreneurship, foodie culture, and barista techniques

A good case could be made that we should have a bio about Schomer with a large section about Espresso Vivace, rather than an article about Espresso Vivace with a large section about Schomer (one or the other but not both), but that's a question of how to clean up the article. All that matters to us here is that it passes the bar for notability. WP:G11 doesn't apply because fundamentally, the article contents are fine. It's merely a matter of achieving a more neutral tone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the major issue here. it's promotionalism. If something doesn't pass WP:NOT, there's no point in even consideringthe notability guidelines, DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If a subject is notable, then we should keep and improve the article. Reduce it to a stub, if need be, to remove promotional content, but deletion is not necessary. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to know which content is promotional. If someone says the tone is promotional, OK, then please fix it. But the basic facts? Which ones? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep evidence for notability in several books: "has set the standard for excellence for lattes in Seattle and throughout the United States" [1], "[the] famed Seattle cafe Espresso Vivace" [2], "Espresso Vivace, renowned for its devotion to perfection in coffee" [3] and more. If this was just covered in one or two guidebooks (which it is, including Fodor's Seattle, Lonely Planet Washington, Oregon & the Pacific Northwest and Not for Tourists Guide to Seattle) I'd be less strident, but what exists here is actually something that has changed American culture and can be documented in an encylopedic fashion. Based on my research for this reply, I'm fine with Dennis Bratland's suggestion to swap the articles around so the main subject is David Schomer. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This business page is an excellent example of advocating the business and that means WP:Not advocate, a basic policy and this policy supersedes WP:GNG, as the latter's first psrsgraph states. Notability is not relevant now that this is what lies between preserving the encyclopedia or an ordinary business. Trampton (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preserving the encyclopedia? Wikipedia will not survive if we don't delete this now? If that's the only way to save Wikipedia, then by all means, we must. But I kind of wonder how Wikipedia survived for the last nine years?

WP:NOTADVERTISING could supersede WP:GNG since policy trumps a guideline, but this policy doesn't do that. In fact WP:NOTADVERTISING explicitly tells us to follow those guidelines when it says, "See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability." If we do as the WP:NOT policy says and follow the advice on advertising, we are told to do three steps, in order: first, clean it up (per WP:NOTCLEANUP, obviously), second, remove the advertising content, and third, delete the whole article, if steps 1 and 2 didn't resolve the issue.

There simply isn't any policy or guideline that says "nuke promotional article on sight without even trying to fix the problem." Numerous polices and guidelines say clearly to not do that. Editing policy goes into even greater detail about how and why we operate this way, and WP:CANTFIX spells this out even more clearly. Don't nuke content that is fixable. You could claim it is harmful in its current state, but that doesn't square with the nine year history of this article having not caused any detectable harm. Or you could say "delete this article in spite of policy, because WP:IAR". You can always say IAR. But it's inaccurate to say that WP:NOT or any other policy justifies deletion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and to date, I have not found any article that is "intellectually independent". Invariably the references either talk about the founder, Schomer, which this article is *not* about, or the references rely on interviews with Schomer. For those that have expressed a KEEP !vote, can you please provide links to any two articles that meet the criteria for establishing notability and meet the criteria in WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be near-complete agreement that redirecting Espresso Vivace to David Schomer to is at least as good as redirecting David Schomer to Espresso Vivace. I favor expanding Espresso Vivace first, and thinking about moving or renaming later, but it's really six of one or half a dozen of the other. Espresso Vivace has a broader scope than a Schomer bio, making it easier to cover the entire topic in one article and avoid multiple articles about these subjects, which would simply annoy our readers for no good reason. This is an editorial decision dealing with cleanup, outside the scope of AfD. Note that a long interview with a subject in a respected publication is evidence of notability: it is independent, and it is not self-published. The fact that a major publication will devote large amounts of space to printing the a subject's answers to questions is all the more proof that that person is notable.

The following more than meet GNG or CORPDEPTH:

Here is evidence for the claims to notability that I enumerated in my previous comment above. Standards such as WP:CREATIVE don't rely on a minimum quantity of coverage, such as article size or number of articles, but only on the existence of achievements or innovations in a field. These below are sufficient to keep, independent of meeting GNG (above):

Many sources credit Vivace with various innovations, but some take issue with that:

http://thesheridanpress.com/70176/baristas-connect-latte-art/

Per the due weight policy, we focus on the widespread consensus while giving proportionate attention to dissenting views. Also, Schomer's book Espresso Coffee: Professional Techniques IS self-published. Many reliable sources cite it, but we need to treat it as a WP:SPS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article may well have a promotional tone. But the way to fix promotional tone is by cleaning up the article, and AfD is not for cleanup. The subject is clearly notable. At that point, we keep and scrub. I've picked up the strong sense that there's an aura pervading AfD these days of 'articles on businesses are inherently not notable and should be deleted', and the fact that some editors above are explicitly stating "notability doesn't matter" is extremely concerning. As Dennis Bratland points out, this is not a policy-based argument to delete, and I hope the closing admin considers that accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon consideration, meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD per a review of available sources, and also retain per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly expanded after this discussion was initiated (diff), and concerns regarding promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I quote WP:GNG:

It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy and WP:AUD's same page says Except matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season), brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, routine restaurant reviews, passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization. Copyediting isn't an excuse for deleting an advertisement against WP:Deletion policy and WP:NOT which in turn say: pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content. These policies describe very clearly that we need an article in a good condition without promotion, and the article has those promotions without any proposals on how to fix it. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree with the notion that this article could potentially be renamed to David Schomer, becoming a biographical article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not aware that notability overrides G11 spam, and although the argument has been made that it could be cleaned up, no one has actually attempted to do so, unsurprising given that the refs are mainly PR pieces. And I don't acceptthat spam is OK if it doesn't get many views, either Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This little place had a huge impact on the Seattle coffee scene that was the creative drive behind much larger companies, such as Starbucks as we know it today. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you to Dennis_Bratland for listing the references above. But. As I already stated above, references must be intellectually independent in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability. I also stated that interviews with Schomer or their staff or their customers/suppliers/etc generally do *not* meet the criteria. I'm not sure if my summary of policy/guidelines was misinterpreted but, of the first six you list under the heading of "more than meet GNG and CORPDEPTH", three significantly rely on quotations and interviews and therefore fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. But I believe that this seattletimes.com reference meets the criteria as it has (in my opinion) sufficient independent opinion. The remaining reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. None of the remaining references (excluding the books) meet the criteria either but since I do not have full access to some of the quoted books (and given that it is clear that Schomer is revered by knowledgeable baristas), I would be far more inclined to create a David Schomer article since *all* of the references invariably talk about David and he appears to be better known than this business. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They are published in independent sources with a policy of fact checking. They are not presumed to be mere mouthpieces for the businesses they write about. If a business makes a boast about itself, reliable sources seek verification. The New York Times, for example cites first Veraci sources for their influence on roasting and brewing methods, then quotes a barista on the other side of the country who is independent of the subject to corroborate that. Mark Pendergrast's book similarly quotes independent sources to verify the claims, and that book is published by Basic Books, a venerable and highly respected publisher with a reputation for integrity and fact checking. We don't expect sources to be omniscient and infallible, but they make a reasonable effort to get the facts right and that is our definition of a reliable source. Several of these sources have a consensus about this company's influence, and the due weight policy says we give that mainstream consensus the greatest weight, even if the mainstream consensus says a lot of nice things about the subject. There isn't always a hidden dark side to every single topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry but this is simple advertising. The refs do not establish notability. What they establishes is that there is a coffee shop in Seattle (probably serving good coffee) operated by an individual who is very good at selling himself and his ideas to others. Well, that is fine, but it doesn't make for notability - it's an advert. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement here is false. The refs to not merely say the coffee shop exists or is merely good. They say it is influential in several different areas. Do you dispute the sources? Are you saying the NYT, NBC, LA Weekly, Village Voice, etc, or the books by Mark Pendergrast and Robert W. Thurston are not reliable sources? Or that you have other sources that dispute the claims to notability? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Something I wanted to importantly contribute here is to show the actual extent of promotion here and the unsuccessful attempts at improving this article: Once, Twice and Thrice. It's not possible to be both an independent neutral encyclopedia who is uninvolved to company interests also support their own publicity along with including each time as linked, a devoted section to promoting a businessman's own self gains. The precedence here is our own encyclopedia principles. SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You're complaining that the article describes things that ast the subject in a positive light? If we refused to include this type of content, then the article wouldn't contain any mention of the things that make the subject notable. It would be like the bio of Isaac Newton omitting any mention of his discovery of the laws of gravity because it's "promotional". Featured Articles about contemporary businesses, such as Panavision or Cracker Barrel are a chronological history of the subject's innovations, influences on their industries, and expansions. They also include contractions and reorganizations, which even in stub form, are mentioned in the Espresso Vivace article. You're attempting to argue for a universal principle but it's clearly arbitrary. The standard you're using against this article would justify the deletion of these FAs and many others. NeXT, or On the Origin of Species, you name it. Wikipedia is not prejudiced against articles that cast their subject in a positive light if that content is a reflection of independent reliable sources, which we presume have a policy of editorial oversight and fact checking. You're framing this as if the content all comes from publications written by the subject, and that is false. The basis is independent sources known for their integrity. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like what SwisterTwister said, the article is just simply too promotional and a huge advertisement for a coffee shop that has faded out of the spotlight. The failed attempts to remove promotion have not helped either. Sources are lacking in sufficient content to prove any true notability. FiendYT ★
- See WP:SURMOUNTABLE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. If people feel it should be TNTd, then that can happen. The time to delete something notable is when much of past versions constitute an attack page, not for being "promotional", which as pointed out above is a dubious claim.L3X1 (distænt write) 17:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1 Actually no, the policy as quoted above is that anything is deleted when the deletion policy says deletion is clearly needed. 3 unsuccessful attempts is no better why should we trust a 4th time? Also, an attack page is not solely the criteria at Wal: Deletion policy, as several things besides "an attack page" can be deleted such as advertising, copyvio, BLP, etc. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Davis Park, Washington

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

This article confuses the removal of markers from Highway 99 with this later controversy, blending the timeline of both. This belongs merged into the Jefferson Davis Highway article, not as an undue separate piece. Anmccaff (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The highway is only tangentially related to the park. Additionally, the Jefferson Davis Highway page is attempting to be all-encompassing of all events that take place on the never official highway; the controversy of the removal of the markers is not related to the current controversies. Nihlus 21:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the "unrelated" marker removal takes up the majorty of the article. Anmccaff (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a separate and notable subject. If there is any confusion, it should be handled by regular editing.Staszek Lem (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stripping it back to what is separate from the marker removal would leave a stub of questionable notability. Anmccaff (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a separate and notable subject. This Jefferson Davis Park is a creation from 2007 and though it centers on the Old Highway 99 marker stones; the Son of Confederate Veterans, that run established the park and operate the park, did so for the express purpose of awareness and education of the public for the contributions of Jefferson Davis to the Pacific Northwest.[4] This has nothing to do with what the Daughters of the Confederacy intended when they established the stone markers in 1939. The controversy surrounding the park that made national news twice in August [5](2017) and October [6](2017) further speaks to the need to include the park as a separate article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then why is the majority of the article about events from before 2007, which legitimately might be covered at the JDH article? Anmccaff (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, more importantly, why does the link you supplied also concentrate on the history of the JDH? Anmccaff (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, these Sons of Confederate Veterans, live in the past and wish to preserve the legacy of 'the glorious cause'; so it is not unreasonable that the bulk of their website is about the past. Secondly and to your point is that this is a new story. When all traces of the Jeff Davis Highway were finally removed in 2007 from public lands, that's when the story of this park begins, in 2007. Much of this article from the lead to the ending is to give context to the vandalism, death threats and actions of Ridgefield city in seeking the removal of the markers from the Clark County Historical Registry. The city and county governments wanting to distance themselves from the park and all it stands for; in 2017, after such moved were rejected in 2007, this shift in local policy is note worthy as it not only made regional news, but national news. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the reasons already stated. deisenbe (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / snow keep – the subject is independently notable of the highway and meets WP:GNG. The Parkl is a Confederate monument; these have generated controversy in the recent years, which is likely to continue on the regional and national levels. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment far from a snow keep, how is this not a WP:A10 speedy delete? It's a nearly new article which is substantially a duplicate of material in another article. Anmccaff (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Michelle Darnell

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NPOL a local candidate is acceptable as "notable" if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" There are three instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article;

The first one, https://thestoryexchange.org/election-2017-women-run-races-big-small/ The Story Exchange is a nonprofit media organization dedicated to telling the personal and professional stories of women business owners — and to exploring the role of entrepreneurship in advancing women’s economic independence. They are completely independent of and outside the control of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell). The Story Exchange is a well respected site; coverage by them certainly qualifies as "Notable"

The second one, http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/libertarian-party-wins-more-than-a-dozen Reason is an independent media organization which is completely separate of and outside the control of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell). Reason is a significant media organization; coverage by Reason is certainly enough to make someone "notable".

The third one, https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4600618/michelle-darnell-brings - C-SPAN, an acronym for Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network, is an American cable and satellite television network that was created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a public service. It is also completely independent of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell), and is a well-established channel, of which an appearance on, is certainly qualified as "notable".

Wikipedia's own page on Notability defines it: "Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. It also refers to the capacity to be such. Persons who are notable due to public responsibility, accomplishments, or, even, mere participation in the celebrity industry are said to have a public profile." Based on the evidence presented here, the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell) is worthy of notice, for being a woman who ran in a state election and garnering significant numbers of votes; She has fame as her actions have been covered by at least three separate and independent sources; she is of a high degree of significance for being a woman who has run in several difficult elections against much better funded opponents; regarding capacity, she certainly has the capacity for further demonstrations of these qualities.

Based on all this, I recommend that this page be retained; I would also recommend that editors follow Wikipedia guidelines in that an attempt should be made to improve an article before suggesting that it be deleted - and regarding notability, that additional sources should be searched for if this is the main concern. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives Joezasada (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for office is not a notability criterion — a person has to win the election and thereby hold office, not just run for it and lose, to clear WP:NPOL, but this makes no claim that she has preexisting notability for any other reason. And the depth of reliable source coverage shown here is not adequate to get her over WP:GNG in lieu, as Joezasada claims above: of the six footnotes, one is a clarifying note rather than a reference; two are her own primary source content about herself, which cannot support notability at all; two (Reason and The Story Exchange) just glancingly namecheck her existence in stories in which she is not the subject; and the C-SPAN reference isn't coverage about her but merely a one-minute video clip of her speaking. These do not represent coverage about her — they represent the kind of purely run of the mill sources that any candidate in any election could always show, not evidence that her candidacy was somehow a special case over and above everybody else's. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Losing candidates for political offices do not meet the notability guidelines under WP:NPOL, and there is not significant, reliable sourced coverage of the subject to pass WP:GNG. And, coverage of the subject's electoral campaign is considered one event, see WP:BLP1E. --Enos733 (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrament ov Impurity

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

Fails WP:Band local band, no radio airplay, no major record deal, no national concert tours, no national TV appearances, no media coverage. Rogermx (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Only one notable site (Portland Mercury) and that contained only an outdated concert listing. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach.io

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

This article is promotional, thus making it an egregious violation of our neutral point of view policy. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft, salt the article Hopefully this page can be "neutralised" in draft space. The article should have been confirmed or denied, like any other draft. This didn't happen. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure how this is promotional. This is written in a neutral POV and does not include promotional or leading language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseyf (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't see any reason for this to be notable. The company still seems to be in its early VC-funded stage. The product doesn't have a wide userbase and doesn't seem to be notable. The media coverage is restricted to announcements and Public Relations wires which are picked up by various blogs and interest sites. There isn't any credible coverage about the company by well known media. The Forbes article is one of the many "Forbes lists" and is a pure speculation of the value.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam on a nn business. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Deletion Review