Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemont Seneca Partners

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. If someone feels they could use the content for a merger, they may file a request at WP:REFUND for that purpose. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemont Seneca Partners

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable. This organization is only mentioned in connection with its famous founders, Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz, from whom it cannot inherit notability per WP:NORG. Every single source is a trivial mention in an article about the founders; that means it fails WP:GNG as well. Keeping it around additionally risks WP:BLPVIO, as this is a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hunter Biden. KidAd • SPEAK 20:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone were to read about a Hunter Biden "conspiracy theory" on the internet, wouldn't it be helpful if they could read some actual facts about it on wikipedia? Or is it better to let the conspiracies rule the internet unchallenged? 2600:8804:6600:45:7C3F:B38:FE05:DA45 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTADVOCACY, it is not Wikipedia's role or responsibility to fact-check or "correct the record" in any way. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, though not every news story or controversy is notable enough for its own article. KidAd • SPEAK 15:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If its not notable, why are we here? I sure wouldn't be here if it wasn't headline news. 2600:8804:6600:45:8DBD:A469:BD32:BF5C (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOTNEWS. KidAd • SPEAK 19:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 2600:8804:6600:45:2CA2:4D0B:E598:F57C (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not wikipedia's role or responsibility to fact-check"

what the fuck is the point of this website if you don't fact-check the content? In its present state, this article is an embarassing jumbled mess that contradicts itself openly in the first two sentences. It should be deleted, or at the very least the first sentence should be removed until it can be verified as factual (beyond an article disputed directly by its subject). 70.17.101.198 (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hunter Biden; nearly every source cited mentions it in connection with him.JMB1980 (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is an organization/company therefore WP:NCORP applies. The "notability" of this firm appears to stem from the link with Hunter Biden but there's nothing to show that this company is notable for any other reason. There are no in-depth references that discuss the company, only passing references with a mention here and there of a transaction. That fails our criteria for establishing notability. The Hunter Biden article already mentions this firm so I don't see any need for a Merge or Redirect. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nothing should be deleted this is an attempt of the biden crime family to cover information. plain and simple 108.191.190.172 (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no crime, that's the issue. Nothing happened. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I want to draw this to a close but the discussion is still divided between merger, delete and redirect. I expected more participation in this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a non-notable company with a tangential connection to some conspiracy-related thing that didn't happen... Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2022 (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.