- 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. WP:SNOW, WP:IAR. The tagger, CatFly86 (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, making this nomination moot. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mortar (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I declined an A7 tag, tagger reverted it, so here we are. I am neutral. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: While written with a subtle promotional undertone, it doesn't seem blatant. I think it's a borderline pass of WP:GNG considered in light of WP:ORGCRITE. As this source states, the organisation received national coverage on the NBC, and there are other sources in the article. I also would have contested the A7 tag, as claims of significance are asserted via the sources in the article. Local Variable (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Any promotion is completely unintentional. Could you point out sentences you think are problematic? I moved to Cincinnati in 2019 and came across this really interesting article about the Over-The-Rhine neighborhood when I was learning more about local history. Most of the national-level coverage of Mortar is positive, but I also included coverage stating that only 7% of its participants were from OTR. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)·[reply]
- It was more of a holistic impression I got reading the article. Although, as you've asked, I'll try pin it on something. I think interweaving quotes from the founders doesn't help - it makes it look a bit PR-like. It is so very subtle that I considered not even mentioning it, and views may differ. Anyway, certainly not a factor counting in favour of deletion. To avoid doubt, I didn't intend to suggest any impropriety on your part. Sorry if that's what was conveyed. Local Variable (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination does not give a reason to delete and so there is no case to answer. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, No reason was given because the nomination was procedural, your complaint should be redirected towards CatFly86 (talk · contribs) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- user:CatFly86 is effectively an SPA/newbie who has not come here to explain themselves. This nomination has no sponsor to speak for it and I'm not wasting my time guessing. Procedurally this is absurd as, per WP:BEFORE, nominators are supposed to do due diligence, not just edit war some complaint and then run away. The topic here is a respectable organisation doing good work for minorities, supported by people like Obama and winning an MLK award. The page has plenty of sources and so a strong case is needed for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not seeing how this meets WP:NORG (and larger WP:GNG). WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article does not explain clearly how the organization is important to others. It should be either deleted or expanded from reliable sources.
- HappyMouse2 (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2021 (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.