Recent changes[edit]

Recent changes to WikiProject Connecticut pages.

Alerts[edit]

Recent developments to pages under the scope of WikiProject Connecticut. For an archive of older alerts, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Article alerts/Archive.

Articles for deletion

03 Apr 2024 – Muneer Alshowkan (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
02 Apr 2024 – LesserEvil (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Jtrrs0 (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
01 Apr 2024 – Liam McLaughlin (baseball) (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Namiba (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 08 Apr 2024; see discussion (8 participants)
31 Mar 2024 – Marion Hepburn (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Allan Nonymous (t · c) was closed as keep by Xymmax (t · c) on 07 Apr 2024; see discussion (6 participants)

Proposed deletions

03 Apr 2024 – New Britain Mules (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Let'srun (t · c) was deproded by Kvng (t · c) on 09 Apr 2024
03 Apr 2024 – Hartford Hurricanes (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Let'srun (t · c) was deproded by Kvng (t · c) on 09 Apr 2024

Templates for discussion

04 Apr 2024 – Template:Connecticut cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · edit · hist) was TfDed by Woodensuperman (t · c); see discussion
26 Mar 2024 – Template:Western Connecticut Wolves football navbox (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Eagles247 (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Assessment log[edit]

Recently assessed or reevaluated WikiProject Connecticut pages.

April 11, 2024[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Template:1892 New England Intercollegiate Football Association standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1923 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1924 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1925 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1926 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1927 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1928 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1929 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1930 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1931 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1932 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1933 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1934 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1935 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1936 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1937 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1938 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1939 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1940 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1941 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1942 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1944 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1945 New England Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1972 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1973 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1974 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1975 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1976 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1977 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1978 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1979 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1980 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1981 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1982 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1983 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1984 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1985 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1986 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1987 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1988 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1989 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1990 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1991 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1992 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1993 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1993 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1994 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1994 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1995 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1995 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1996 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1996 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1997 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1997 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1998 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1998 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1999 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:1999 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2000 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2000 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2001 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2001 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2002 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2002 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2003 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2003 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2004 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2004 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2005 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2005 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2006 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2006 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2007 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2007 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2008 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2008 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2009 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2009 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2010 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2010 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2011 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2011 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2012 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2012 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2013 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2013 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2014 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2014 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2015 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2015 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2016 New England Football Conference standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2016 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2017 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2017 New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2018 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2018 New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2019 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2019 New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2021 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2021 New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2022 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2022 New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2023 New England Small College Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Template:2023 New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference football standings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

April 9, 2024[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Manhattan Prong renamed to Geology of Manhattan Prong.

Reassessed[edit]

Starwood Hotels and Resorts (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Redirect-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed[edit]

Geology of Manhattan Prong (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
Draft:Sneako (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

April 8, 2024[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Berkeley Divinity School renamed to Berkeley Divinity School at Yale.

Reassessed[edit]

Mad River (Connecticut) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed[edit]

Berkeley Divinity School at Yale (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)

April 7, 2024[edit]

Assessed[edit]

WQB (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

April 6, 2024[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Emilio Q. Daddario renamed to Emilio Daddario.
Northeastern Connecticut Planning Region, Connecticut renamed to Northeastern Connecticut Planning Region.
South Central Connecticut Planning Region, Connecticut renamed to South Central Connecticut Planning Region.
Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region, Connecticut renamed to Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region.
Western Connecticut Planning Region, Connecticut renamed to Western Connecticut Planning Region.

Assessed[edit]

2009–10 Fairfield Stags men's basketball team (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
B.F. Clyde's Cider Mill (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
Category:Defunct magazines published in Connecticut (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Emilio Daddario (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
Northeastern Connecticut Planning Region (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
South Central Connecticut Planning Region (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
Western Connecticut Planning Region (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

Deletion discussions[edit]

Transcluded from and further information found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Connecticut.

Connecticut[edit]

New Britain Mules[edit]

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

Completely unsoured article that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Connecticut. Let'srun (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Basketball League (1925–1955)#American Basketball League teams, 1933/34 to 1954/55, where they have an entry, though that entry is also unsourced, and allow the article's recreation if the required sources are brought forward and a standalone article is justified. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep. The area newspapers of the time gave extensive coverage to this team; which isn't all that surprising since the ABL was, it appears, among the largest professional basketball leagues of the time. See thousands of results from just 1933 to 1935 when they were active. It seems one could easily develop a WP:GA-class article or better if they put the work into it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @IgnatiusofLondon: Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This is a great find, but I don't think the mere existence of sources, although it helps to establish notability, changes my !vote. Currently, New Britain Mules provides little information separate to the team's entry at American Basketball League (1925–1955)#American Basketball League teams, 1933/34 to 1954/55. I appreciate this argument runs against WP:TOOLITTLE/WP:RUBBISH, but per WP:NOPAGE:
  
  Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable.
  
  I'm not sure what benefit to understanding keeping the standalone article really provides, at this time, until an interested editor makes the effort to source or expand the article. So a redirect strikes me as an appropriate alternative to deletion for now. And of course, I am fully aware of the irony that this might well turn into one of those deletion discussions in which, for all the time we spend discussing whether to delete the article, we might as well have used that time to bring those sources forward that render the question moot. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LesserEvil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this page for deletion for not establishing its notability in 2022 and I've now realised it has been recreated. Admittedly, the article now has more sources than it did then but as can be seen from the table below, there are still no sources that count towards GNG or ORGCRIT. They are almost all either small local newspapers or specialist trade publications. In any case, the sources either largely depend on quotes or read like press releases. It should be deleted.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Pitchbook (https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/128856-34#overview)	? Unknown where Pitchbook gets their info from but doubtful it is independent.		WP:ORGTRIV Merely an entry into a database	✘ No
International Bakery Article (https://in-bakery.com/lesserevil-collaborates-with-rind-snacks/)	The article consists largely (though) not entirely of quotes	IB seems to be an indutry blog largely publishing press releases, not a secondary source as such	barely	✘ No
The Journal News, White Plains NY article (https://www.newspapers.com/image/166431624/?clipping_id=131265720&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjE2NjQzMTYyNCwiaWF0IjoxNzEyMDc2MjcyLCJleHAiOjE3MTIxNjI2NzJ9.p5UIjOhpxTsTgxJjWAhxUUrtn66o7Rfk9j7GFrpgnRA)	Consists largely of quotes and reads like a press release	? I assume the Newspaper in question is reliable but I don't know	WP:AUD the newspaper's audience is too local	✘ No
Stamford Advocate article (https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/judges-like-what-they-savor-in-lesserevil-3442484.php)	Consists largely of quotes and reads like a press release	? I assume the Newspaper in question is reliable but I don't know	In any event, WP:AUD the newspaper's audience is too local	✘ No
Own company website history	Obviously the co's own coverage is not independent			✘ No
Hatford Business Journal article (https://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/nearing-100m-in-annual-revenues-cts-lesserevil-expands-organic-snack-foods-line-readies-new)	Large quotes and the article simply rattles off facts that likely came from the company, not much evidence of their own journalism but not as quote-heavy as some of the others	? The HBJ seems to largely publish press releases, but I am unsure about its journalistic practices	Very doubtful about its circulation per WP:AUD but the coverage is more in-depth than the other articles	✘ No
Danbury daily voice article (https://dailyvoice.com/connecticut/danbury/business/lesserevil-snacks-opens-a-new-factory-in-danbury/580408/)	Largely quotes	? I assume the Newspaper in question is reliable but I don't know	WP:AUD local newspaper	✘ No
Danbury's Financial Report	Presumable	I presume it is	The City of Danbury's financial report is not significant is a primary source	✘ No
Nosh article (https://www.nosh.com/news/2020/lesserevil-moves-into-new-categories-expands-distribution/)	Many quotes; reads like a press release	Reads like a press release	It's a specialist trade blog/magazine	✘ No
Foodbusiness news article (https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/21129-lesserevil-enters-bar-category-with-acquisition-of-redd-bar)	Mostly quotes	Reads like a press release	It's a specialist trade blog/magazine	✘ 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)).

Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need at least one independent non-local source per WP:NCORP, so we look at International Bakery (a reprint of this press release [1]), Foodbusiness (a reprint of this press release [2]), and Nosh (I feel slightly better about this as a source than nom, previous RSN discussion [3], but in any case, the specific article is a CEO interview). ~ A412 ^talk! 23:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that we need at least two sources per WP:NCORP, not one. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree, and I'm aware of the general provisions of WP:NCORP, I was quoting the audience requirement, which says At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry! Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Two new sources have been added - a Forbes article from 2019, as well as a more recent Bloomberg Law article. The company is well-known and worthy of an article. It can be improved but not worthy of deletion. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles by Forbes contributors are generally not considered reliable. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with @A412 that Forbes is not reliable. I have tried having a look at the Bloomberg Law article. It is paywalled so I can't read all of it. Bloomberg Law is probably reliable, like most articles written by Bloomberg staff tend to be. I am not sure it amounts to significant coverage for the company, though. It's an article, as far as I can see, about a first-instance lawsuit against the company. I am not sure that it should count. Even if it's sufficiently in-depth, I am not sure it sufficiently demonstrates the company is notable enough. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two additional independent & non-local sources have been added - neither echo any press release material. Thus the article shall remain active. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one extra source, the Just Food piece. If you mean the sources in the 'Ingredients' section I removed, they should also not count because some nutriologist noting that a product has a short ingredient list does not even come close to establishing the company's notability.

Apart from that, I've had a look at the Just Food article. It is almost entirely reliant on quotes from the Company/its officers/business partners. It is not independent.

Furthermore, even if we do find two sources, please note that only creates a presumption of notability (per WP:ORGCRIT. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added multiple additional RS with SIGCOV, removed a few of the worst press-release ones and the content sourced only to them. I think this subject makes it over the hump. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, none of the sources added amount to to RS SIGCOV. They are:
'Top 10 list' style coverage that happens to cover one of their products ( [4] and [5]) and which only amount to trivial coverage;

A Forbes contributor piece ([6]) which is not RS;

Reviews of a product of the company ([7] and [8]) which must be treated very carefully. Setting aside whether they are reliable and independent sources, neither amounts to significant coverage of the company. They are just covering some of their products. Coverage of the company itself is trivial. Companies do not inherit notability from their products.
Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add that Forbes piece. I added Men's Health, Business Insider, E! Online, Bon Appetit, Baking Business, Prevention, WFSB, Self, and Eat This, Not That, IIRC. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the confusion on my part. I'll deal with them one by one:
Men's health is link 8. I don't think a review of a single product establishes notability either of the company or of their product line such that WP:NPRODUCT applies.

Business Insider [9] is paywalled but seems to be just another review of a single product.

E! (link 5 above) is indeed trivial coverage of a single product in a Top 15 list.

Bon appetit (link 7) is a slightly less trivial review of a single product. It's a few paragraphs of prose rather than a terse couple of sentences in a top 10 list. This surely still can't amount to SIGCOV of the company though. Is the company notable because a reviewer liked their pink salt popcorn?

Baking Business [10]: reads suspiciously like a press release. I've found two posts with almost identical wording ([11] and [12]). It's almost certainly a press release.

Prevention [13] is a one-line mention of the company in a top 30 list.

WFSB [14] has several problems. The article is largely composed of quotes. It's not independent. Likewise the 1min57s reportage. WFSB is also a newstation local to Hartford.

In my view none of these establish a presumption of notability for the company or their products. They are all reviews of a single product, entries in a Top X list, press releases or otherwise not sources we count for notability. Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Companies do not inherit notability from their products.

While this is true, the article is effectively about the company's line of snack products, and by WP:NPRODUCT, In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic.

I would be inclined, in this case, to count substantial reviews of their product line, though I have yet to look at the sources added by Valereee. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. If there were substantial reviews of the company's product range I might be inclined to agree (subject obvs to the reviews being substantial reliable and independent). But as you can see from my reply to Valereee, none of the new sources amount to that. They are either reviews of individual products, or top 10 list entries or a press release. Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of the sources that have been added would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]