Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations: Difference between revisions
m Archiving closed debates |
Archiving closed XfDs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations/archive Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DeletionSortingCleaner |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABCT GLBT Special Interest Group}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABCT GLBT Special Interest Group}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BostonCHI}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BostonCHI}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomh Moninne Hurling Club}} |
Revision as of 11:49, 23 June 2010
![]() | Points of interest related to Organizations on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment |
![]() |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Organizations and social programs. 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|Organizations|~~~~}} 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 Organizations and social programs. 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.
Suggested inclusion guidelines for this topic area can be found at WP:ORG.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
Purge page cache | watch |
Organizations deletion
- 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Descendants Motorcycle Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ORG. This club is not the subject of any reliable sources. There is a single news article that mentions the arrest of a member of a club of the same name in Australia [1], but the Wikipedia article is about a US college-affiliated club with no known connection to Australia, and even if it were about the same club, it is not significant coverage. Dbratland (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources to establish notability. tedder (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources given are neither reliable nor do they establish notability. Bonewah (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not established. Brianhe (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not established, poor piece of Google-spam. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2010 (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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- National case management network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable organization, no non-trivial third party sources, no independent hits on google or gnews. 2 says you, says two 02:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:CLUB#Non-commercial organizations: Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
- 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale
- 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.
- It is a national organization affiliated with the Case Management Society of America, and societies in the U. K. and Australia. Typically professional organizations like this receive very little coverage in news media.
- TFD (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any independent, non-trivial sources though. Under WP:ORG, the requirement for non-trivial, secondary sources still stands for non-profits and NGO's, and it is only satisfied when sources are verified to exist and are referenced in the article. I definitely agree that the group's scope would qualify under WP:ORG, but notability can't be based on speculation regarding whether sources exist. 2 says you, says two 12:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The best sources for information on professional organizations are textbooks on the profession. Since this organization is recent (2006) we would not expect to see them in Google books. Also professional organizations rarely make the news. Let's see if the author of the article can research this. I notice that there is also an article about a similar U. S. organization which is also poorly sourced. TFD (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any independent, non-trivial sources though. Under WP:ORG, the requirement for non-trivial, secondary sources still stands for non-profits and NGO's, and it is only satisfied when sources are verified to exist and are referenced in the article. I definitely agree that the group's scope would qualify under WP:ORG, but notability can't be based on speculation regarding whether sources exist. 2 says you, says two 12:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- American Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG; I can't find any coverage that isn't merely routine. Ironholds (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if deleted redirect to The Great War: American Front as a {{R from alternate name}} . 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable racist group easily passes WP:GNG. Searching "American Front" + "skinhead", I find lots of GNews hits from the late 80s to early 90s related to related to many different unrelated events, as well as 183 GBooks hits. Plenty of other independent references including the ADL[2] and the Southern Poverty Law Center[3]. Location (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2010 (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. –MuZemike 23:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EDL Cambridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. This group fails WP:CHAIN, it's local activities are non-notable in encyclopedical terms and do not warrant a separate article. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete also possible merge if there is some merit in that. Pretty much as nom., local activities don't need a separate article. DRosin (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable local branch of extremist fringe group. Quoting one of the referenced articles (I dont really think that student newspapers count as reliable sources) "A grand total of six flag-waving EDL members"; SIX? There are substantially bigger family outings every single day of the week. There is nothing of value to merge to English Defence League. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both student papers are reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines. The group is notable as it has been commented about by these third party sources, the number of persons on the protest is totally irrelevant in this context apart from being a matter to comment on in the article. WP:CHAIN does not apply, this is not a franchise but an example of an local extreme political group, additionally it is notable in it's own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by People4people (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The English Defense League itself might be notable (although I think it's a joke more than a real protest movement; their website says they "have a drink and then shout about the terrorists") but the Cambridge branch is very unlikely to be.Minnowtaur (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These are just personal opinions, the notability guidelines only require the subject matter to be covered by a reliable third party source. Both the student papers meet the criteria of reliable sources under the guidelines.--People4people (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Pit-yacker Peridon (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete local branches of national groups aren't notable - if this were the case we'd have articles on Labour Party (Cambridge), Liberal Democrats (Cardiff), Amnesty International (Birmingham) etc etc. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It doesn't appear that the activities of the group are sufficient to merit their own article. Hash789 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article says it all, "[t]he Cambridge Division has been reported to have few members". —Osa osa 5 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom and Pit-yacker
- 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. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Direct Selling Association Malaysia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Cosmonaut Kramer (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Cant find anything that goes to notability - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Codf1977 (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Me neither, Gnew almost nothing, the press-links at dsam-homepage don't work, so nothing for WP:N. Dewritech (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Including the all-important "of" in searches finds a lot more potential sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is a raft of coverage in major Malaysian news sources. On the pages mentioned by Phil Bridger, we have [4], and enough free news articles to support an article even if we exclude (which we shouldn't) the swathe of articles from one of Malaysia's biggest newspapers hidden behind a paywall.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even after including "of" in searches, no notability. --Tagtool (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete just not notable. Lustralaustral (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2010 (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. In all respect, the author also requested deletion in good faith, so WP:CSD#G7 tangentially applies also. I would not recommending opposing future recreation. –MuZemike 00:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Irish Long Distance Swimming Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Queried speedy delete. I received this message asking for it to be undeleted: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hi anthony. if the page really doesn't belong on wikipedia, that is ok with me, i have no affiliation with the ILDSA. the ILDSA is important to the open water swimming community and the marathon swimming community because it provides observers to ride along on the swimmer's escort boat to certify that swimmer has meet all the regulations during the crossing. The ILDSA is also important because it keeps records of the results. Swimming the irish channel is a monumental achievement in open water swimming. It has been swum by notable people, including Alison Streeter as mentioned in her Honoree page the website of International Swimming Hall of Fame. http://www.ishof.org/honorees/2006/Alison%20Streeter.htm The Irish Channel is currently known as the North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland) Candotoo (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Candotoo (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A tenuous association with notable athlete(s) does not confer notability. Csrwizard (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
to be clearer, i do not propose an association between notable athletes and the ILDSA. Instead I meant to propose that the ILSDA is important in the open water swimming community because it serves in an officiating capacity for one of the the most difficult channel swims in the world, the North Channel (formerly Irish Channel) swim crossings of the North Channel (Irish Channel). But is the North Channel really considered a major challenge in the open water community??? If not, then the ILDSA may not merit a wiki page. But in fact the North Channel is a major challenge, comparable to - if not more difficult than -- swimming the English Channel. To establish this, i pointed out that the International Swimming Hall of Fame has included North Channel Crossings in their biographical sketch of their Honoree Alison Streeter. Candotoo (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Candotoo (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Object While i object to the deletion of the Irish Long Distance Swimming Association ILDSA, would a page title something like Open Water Swimmming in Ireland be more suitable? Candotoo (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Candotoo (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The title is not the issue, the lack of sources showing how WP:GNG is met is. Nuttah (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The absence of sources makes establishing notability unlikely. Nuttah (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG Codf1977 (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Drug Strategies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No secondary sources discussing this organization, none found via Google. All I found were passing mentions. Apparently non-notable. Was prodded, prod removed by author without significant improvement. Huon (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Huon's statement. I read the article and it's clear to me that if they were asked to testify before both the US House and the Senate the organization is clearly notable.DSPolicy1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC). — DSPolicy1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete There are certainly reliable sources mentioning this organization. But if you look at the sources, they are actually about the people involved, who are notable in their own right. For example, in the cited congressional testimony by Philip Heymann, his credentials were given as a professor, not as a member of this organization. Testimony and interviews with Mathea Falco mention in passing that she is president of this group, and then go on to what she has to say.[5] An op-ed in the Washington Post by Falco and Heymann is about policy and does not mention the organization Drug Strategies.[6] Aside from a mention by Donna Shalala, it does not look as if the group itself is notable. The notability requirement is significant coverage ABOUT the organization - which I couldn't find. I could change my mind if shown more relevant sources. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't usually comment on this kind of thing but having read through the article and clicked on the sources this organization is clearly more notable than 90% of stuff on wikipedia. Living in the D.C. metro I have some good friends who work for Congressional committees and I can tell you they vet testimony very closely. Furthermore when you read about who is asking them to undertake their studies it reads like a list of the most important American philanthropic funds; maybe I'm taking this personally as a member of a non-profit, but just because an organization doesn't profit financially from their work doesn't mean that they don't serve an notable, important purposes.--TyraStnx (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC) — TyraStnx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - I don't doubt that Drug Strategies does good work and knows important people - but by the relevant guidelines, that's not enough. Rather surprisingly, I couldn't find anybody writing about Drug Strategies itself. I also don't doubt there's less notable stuff on Wikipedia, but that's no excuse, either. Huon (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As others have said, there is coverage that mentions this institute while talking about some of its people, but I can't find any sources that are about the institute itself. Thus I think it fails WP:CORP. It's a close call for me, and if someone could find even one significant reliable source about this institute, I might change my mind. I admit it's a bit difficult Googling a title like that. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 19:11, 30 June 2010 (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. early delete votes were weak and the delete side has not sucessfully challenged the sources provided Spartaz Humbug! 19:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Camp Letts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable Sadads (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per nom? The nom didn't provide any explanation. --Oakshade (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any third party sources on this. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Both the Washington Post and the Annapolis Capital have given very significant coverage to this topic.[7][8] According to one of the sources, the camp is over
1000100 years old. The nom has given absolutely no rationale as to why they think this topic is "Not notable." --Oakshade (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think you mean 100 years. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! Thanks! --Oakshade (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the sourcing found bu Oakshade. Edward321 (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Tons of reliable sources found at Google News.[9] --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What is called significant coverage above are a couple of human interest stories that say, gosh, this camp is 100. But this is does not constitute analysis in secondary sources, the standard for an encyclopedia article. Other summer camps over 100 years old include Camp Mowglis (founded 1903) YMCA Camp St. Croix, Lake Delaware Boys' Camp, YMCA Camp Eberhart, Camp Lincoln - Camp Lake Hubert, and Camp Wachusett. There are many more, I just searched by "founded 1903" or "founded 1909" and "summer camp". Try searching by some other years. Abductive (reasoning) 06:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Human interest stories" are in fact significant provided they provide depth are not trivial mentions. You might not like the coverage, but that doesn't make it insignificant.--Oakshade (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or the coverage might not be interesting or provide the depth needed for an encyclopedia article. These are in the Style and Local sections of the papers. Abductive (reasoning) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Human interest stories" are in fact significant provided they provide depth are not trivial mentions. You might not like the coverage, but that doesn't make it insignificant.--Oakshade (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not a clear-cut case, but the sources provided appear to just about show significant coverage in reliable sources and hence notability per WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am deeply troubled by your notion that what look like little more than press releases constititute "significant" coverage. Could you point out the analysis of the topic in these sources? Abductive (reasoning) 15:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. Sadads (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's quite a slanderous charge of the integrity of reporters Jennifer Frey of The Washington Post and Jacob Linger of the Annapolis Capitol that they were paid by the topic and didn't report on their stories objectively. I'm considering removing your comment per WP:BLP.--Oakshade (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...? BLP does not apply to a discussion about the notability of an Article.... Sadads (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does. WP:BLP states very clearly "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, images, and categories." You can't just slander someone on a talk page about another topic and claim you're immune to BLP. --Oakshade (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The appropriate thing to do when confronted with facts that show that a topic is not notable is to change your vote, not to fabricate a charge that I am slandering. The coverage is trivial, and I hope that no amount of pile-on voting will prevent this article from being deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Provide any evidence that Jennifer Frey of The Washington Post and Jacob Linger of the Annapolis Capitol wrote "press releases." Otherwise you are slandering them. That's not fabrication. And no. When a topic passes WP:GNG as this one does, I'm not going to change my vote because another editor slandered the reporters of the coverage that establishes notability.--Oakshade (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When another user says "seems like", that is not saying it is a press release, it is saying that it reads like a press release. WP:AGF. What this means is the coverage is trivial, it is without analysis. Abductive (reasoning) 18:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Provide any evidence that Jennifer Frey of The Washington Post and Jacob Linger of the Annapolis Capitol wrote "press releases." Otherwise you are slandering them. That's not fabrication. And no. When a topic passes WP:GNG as this one does, I'm not going to change my vote because another editor slandered the reporters of the coverage that establishes notability.--Oakshade (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an example of the triviality from one of the articles "Can we do your hair, Kayla?" a group of 14-year-old girls call out as they head back to Cabin 31 to primp for the biggest night of the session: the camp dance. Kayla's sprawled in a chair in front of the camp office, looking a little sunburned. She's surrounded by counselors showing the telltale signs of "night off" freedom -- lip gloss, lacy tops, jewelry." <---Look at it! Abductive (reasoning) 18:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While not your intent, by reproducing that excerpt from a 2566 page article directly about this topic you are providing evidence of this topic passing WP:GNG. This is in fact part of an in-depth article about the topic. You don't care for the nature of the writing that includes girls at this camp talking about their camp dance, but that doesn't affect it passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the content of the source matters. Why don't you integrate any encyclopedic information from the sources into the article? Instead of claiming that the article passes the GNG, make it pass the GNG. Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While not your intent, by reproducing that excerpt from a 2566 page article directly about this topic you are providing evidence of this topic passing WP:GNG. This is in fact part of an in-depth article about the topic. You don't care for the nature of the writing that includes girls at this camp talking about their camp dance, but that doesn't affect it passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The appropriate thing to do when confronted with facts that show that a topic is not notable is to change your vote, not to fabricate a charge that I am slandering. The coverage is trivial, and I hope that no amount of pile-on voting will prevent this article from being deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does. WP:BLP states very clearly "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, images, and categories." You can't just slander someone on a talk page about another topic and claim you're immune to BLP. --Oakshade (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To bring this back to the coverage: this is behind a paywall, but reading the intro it seems very likely that it provides a reasonable enough level of depth, and this one says in the description that it contains 2566 words, which is definitely significant. Both these sources seem reliable, so for me that's enough to satisfy WP:GNG. There's also another Washington Post article here, but it's not clear if that's significant enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, significance is in the content, not the length. For all we know, the article lists a number of local summer camps. Abductive (reasoning) 18:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The content of those articles does not supply any meaningful information about the Camp, instead as Abductive has pointed out, they talk about people who are irrelevant to the camp. This camp is simply not notable enough for the articles to provide useful information for Wikipedia. Sadads (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, significance is in the content, not the length. For all we know, the article lists a number of local summer camps. Abductive (reasoning) 18:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - others have found plenty of objective reports about this 107 year old YMCA camp. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2010 (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 redirect to Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ABCT GLBT Special Interest Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable sub group of a professional body, no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources so fails WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back to the parent org. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no Ghits, no coverage anywhere, non-notable. Minor4th (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge to Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, per WP:CLUB: "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." (BTW somebody should also nominate for deletion/redirect/merge the article ABCT Couples Special Interest Group, for the same reason.) --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2010 (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 merge to SIGCHI. per WP:CLUB NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BostonCHI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable sub branch of a professional body. No evidence of the significant, independent coverage required to show how WP:GNG is met Nuttah (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Merge to parent article SIGCHI, per WP:CLUB: " Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to SIGCHI. Little notability as an independent branch, but the body itself is notable and this information should be retained. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:38, 27 June 2010 (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.