Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mintek


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Mintek

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Bringing to AfD after 12 years in CAT:NN and tagging user:Ravenswing and user:196.24.216.2. There is some coverage, but I'm not sure if it is enough. Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Last year, I sought to redirect this twice to the appropriate government ministry, and was reverted by an anon IP. Whatever the notional importance of this sub-agency might be, there has been no evidence of significant coverage of the subject, now, or at any time in the twelve years this stub has been dangling around.  To quote from WP:ORGSIG:"No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is ... If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists ... 'Notability' is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance.' No matter how 'important' editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it."Period.  There is no carveout for governmental sub-agencies.  There is no exception based on alleged budget.  The only sources that have come up are primary or namedrops, and neither can be used to support notability.  I believe a redirect remains appropriate, but I'll be happy with a deletion as well.  An article going twelve years without reliable sourcing is prima facie evidence that no one cares about the subject enough to source it properly, and never will.    Ravenswing      12:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC).

The arrogance of wikipedia 'editors' never ceases to astound. There is literally a book on the subject (references to this have been stealthily deleted by such editors through the years: The story of Mintek, 1934-1984 Hardcover – January 1, 1985 by Jack Levin 196.24.216.2 (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable subject. Sonofstar (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.