Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science of Identity Foundation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:36, 4 November 2019

Science of Identity Foundation

[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)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), because it has not been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Apparently it was active with 20 or so members in the 1970s, and has been mentioned in passing several times in news media. There are insufficient reliable sources to write an informative and neutral article. TFD (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:N due to numerous secondary sources. The article is still a stub and we are in the process of building it out (as noted in early-October AfD attempt). No RS suggests "20 or so members" in the 1970s; on the contrary, RS suggest 1000+ members at that time, including notable politicians in the 1980s. Other WP articles reference this article. User:Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samp4ngelesCan you point to a single article in a reliable secondary source about the foundation or any source that says they had 1,000 members? TFD (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was your own source for claiming (in the deletion rationale) that it was only "active with 20 or so members in the 1970s", and for implying that this was the maximum of its extension? And doesn't the article already cite a source claiming they had 1,000 members? Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG handily. It is covered in an entry of Infobase's Encyclopedia of Hinduism which I just added to the article, and there is also the in-depth coverage of The New Yorker (2017) and Honolulu Magazine (2004).

As noted above, the nomination is based on a misleading claim about the organization's size, which also makes one wonder about the accuracy of its assertion that the coverage in the state's largest and (previously) second-largest newpapers - repeatedly over several decades - which is cited in the current article revision was only "in passing". TFD, have you actually verified that for all these offline/paywalled citations before making that claim? Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 : '''Keep'''.  Meets [[WP:N]] due to numerous secondary sources. The article is still a stub and we are in the process of building it out (as noted in early-October AfD attempt).  No RS suggests "20 or so members" in the 1970s; on the contrary, RS suggest 1000+ members at that time, including notable politicians in the 1980s.  Other WP articles reference this article.  [[User:Samp4ngeles]] ([[User talk:Samp4ngeles|talk]]) 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 :: [[User:Samp4ngeles|Samp4ngeles]]Can you point to a single article in a reliable secondary source about the foundation or any source that says they had 1,000 members? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 05:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
+:::What was your own source for claiming (in the deletion rationale) that it was only "active with 20 or so members in the 1970s", and for implying that this was the maximum of its extension? And doesn't the article already cite a source claiming they had 1,000 members? Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 07:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' Satisfies [[WP:GNG]] handily. It is covered in an entry of [[Infobase Publishing|Infobase's]] Encyclopedia of Hinduism which I just added to the article, and there is also the in-depth coverage of [[The New Yorker]] ([https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe 2017]) and [[Honolulu Magazine]] ([http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/August-2004/Who-is-Mike-Gabbard/ 2004]).
+:As noted above, the nomination is based on a misleading claim about the organization's size, which also makes one wonder about the accuracy of its assertion that the coverage in the state's [[Honolulu Star-Advertiser|largest]] and (previously) [[Honolulu Star-Bulletin|second-largest]] newpapers - repeatedly over several decades - which is cited in the current article revision was only "in passing". TFD, have you actually verified that for all these offline/paywalled citations before making that claim? Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 07:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations|list of Organizations-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shellwood|Shellwood]] ([[User talk:Shellwood|talk]]) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)</small>
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion|list of Religion-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shellwood|Shellwood]] ([[User talk:Shellwood|talk]]) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)</small>