Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella's House

Stella's House

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any substantial coverage of these two entities; a Pentecostal magazine, a Scottish tabloid and a local paper from North Carolina don't do much in that direction. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stella's House – This topic passes WP:GNG per:

Annie Brown, "Abandoned girls tell how their wretched lives have been transformed", Daily Record, Mar 31 2012
Mary Hutchinson. "A Home For Stella". Charisma Magazine. Retrieved February 3, 2011.
Lukas Johnson, "Cabarrus residents heed Stella's Voice", Charlotte Observer Nov. 30, 2011

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The general notability guideline has been met by the above sources. Neelix (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per patent lack of WP:BEFORE. Easily sourcable, passes GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't need that kind of condescending remark from you. If you'd bothered to read my nomination statement, you would have found that I took aim at all three "sources" located by Northamerica1000, as they were already present in the article. -Biruitorul ^Talk 17:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I confirm my remark. WP:BEFORE does not mean consider just references currently named in an article, but search for additional sources. Otherwise you would have found:

A cover story on Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [1]
Multiple articles on The Press and Journal [2], [3], [4]
An article on WAFF [5]
An article on Independent Tribune [6]
An article on Buchan Observer [7]... and so on. Cavarrone (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More passing mentions inside local puffery:
This has three sentences on the subject in a far larger article, so hardly counts as "significant coverage".
This has half a sentence.
Local story, not something normally noticed by this encyclopedia.
Human interest story, barely mentions Stella's House.
A news story from a local TV station? That's pushing it in WP:RS terms. "Building safe housing from the ground up for young girls like Stella, to save these girls from the streets... Now, thanks to a miraculous offering from the Rock, Stella's house two is a reality." Obviously, that kind of writing is not quotable in an actual article.
More puffery/infomerical-type stuff: "The group of citizens behind this local effort is asking for tax-deductible donations, in addition to having a clothing drive. The gently-used clothing donations will be sold in a resale store and will then provide income for the ministry and the orphans."
And even more: "The Ambassador got a guided tour off [sic] the house and also heard the story of one young girl, Dasa Rosca, which moved both himself and his wife to tears."
- Still waiting on that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and that present the subject in neutral, objective, citable language. I can't stop you from chiding me for not doing BEFORE, but no matter how much BEFORE one does, it seems the most one can come up with is unusable local puffery. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming all these articles puffery, local story, infomerical-type article or human interest story does not change the things. The subject received enough reliable secondary coverage to be considered notable. Also, looking at all your other AfDs, it seems you are looking to promote some kind of WP:POINT about all the sources usually accepted as reliable on WP. Cavarrone (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I reject your insinuation about my conduct at AfD, which is strictly based on policy, but if you have a problem, I will be glad to defend my record at an RfC any day.
For another, I simply happen to believe in maintaining high standards for sourcing. Two lines of passing mention in a puff piece published in a local paper doesn't cut it from a WP:RS standpoint. Neither do a few paragraphs, for that matter. We don't stretch the limits of WP:GNG simply because we want to save an article at AfD. We don't normally accept strictly local coverage, infomercials, puffery and "journalism" of that sort, and that's pretty firm. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and what you have presented does not fit the bill. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,I would suggest you to read more carefully what "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" means. According WP:GNG "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. It is more than a trivial mention but it "need not be the main topic of the source material." Per "reliable" see "WP:RELIABLE". "Sources" are meant to be secondary sources. "Independent" excludes self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, press releases. GNG does not say that a penthacostal magazine (it is not a dead link, see here) does not count nor than a local newspaper is excluded from count (despite I consider calling Pittsburgh Post-Gazette "local puffery" quite pointy). So you should list which of these sources are unreliable according WP:RELIABLE requirements, which of these sources is self-published material, which of these are just trivial mentions, which of these are primary sources. Your name-calling every article as "puff piece", "puffery" and so on, being a subjective assessment, does not count. Cavarrone (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, this (aside from now being a dead link) is not a reliable source, since it's in a Pentecostal magazine. We tend not to use sources from explicitly religious publications, as they have an inherent bias toward their particular creed.
This is, for one, a puff piece, and for another, it appears in the Daily Record, a practitioner of tabloid journalism. A serious encyclopedia, which this purports to be, does not draw on tabloid material for its articles.
This is yet another informational/puff piece ("Clothes, linens and similar goods also are being accepted. At least a half-dozen churches are helping with the ongoing effort... The vision of Stella's Voice is to speak for all the orphans of Moldova and to give them a safe home and raise them in a Christian environment. In the past five years, the ministry has been an advocate for thousands of orphans"). It's also in a local paper, the sort of coverage we would never normally pick up.
So I ask again: where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as required by WP:GNG? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in our guidelines against using sources that are of a religious nature; all sources are biased, especially those that do not recognize themselves as such. There is also nothing in our guidelines against using local newspapers as sources. Neelix (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong KEEP!!! By the way, Biruitorul implied that those who voted in favour of keeping this article have low IQ. --Madmans stone (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]