Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Anthology

Miss Anthology

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

Appears to be an unnotable organization. Little or no coverage other than local, niche journalism and self sources. Not that it's an indicator, but social media all has under 200 followers/likes ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it sounds like a good cause, but there are not enough sources to establish any kind of notability. WP:TOOSOON.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It appears to be a bit soon, but I find the nomination problematic. The number of social media follows is irrelevant, and I do not want to see it used in AfDs to evaluate notability. I don't see any "self sources" in the version that User:El cid, el campeador nominated for deletion. I'm not clear on what niche journalism is. Is orartswatch.org niche journalism because it covers the arts or local news because it only covers Oregon? The sourcing is not great, http://www.ksmoca.com/ksmoca-international-art-fair/ is a mere mention, http://littmanwhite.tumblr.com/post/165344872122/outside-of-the-lines-miss-anthology-september looks like a press release. On the other hand, http://www.orartswatch.org/miss-anthology-teaches-the-power-of-comics/ and http://news.streetroots.org/2017/09/08/miss-anthology-using-comics-create-change are sufficiently in-depth critical assessments to meet the requirements of the GNG. Mduvekot (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't warrant an actual response. There is nothing 'problematic' about nominating a page for deletion. Please stop. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Mduvekot says, "The sourcing is not great". The two sources stated to support keep are streetroots.org (not even a news reporting site, it's an advocacy site)and orartswatch.org. GNG is clearly not met by one reliable source.96.127.242.251 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously not on par with the New York times, but I see no reason to believe that Street Roots is a not a reliable source. It is a professionally produced (print) newspaper, not an advocacy site. Mduvekot (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Streetroots.org is an advocacy organization, which produces a newspaper as part of its advocacy. That's not an objective source.96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to scrape by on GNG. Artw (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it scrapes by? Two weak sources are enough for GNG?96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More that two sources would be better, that's why it scrapes and not soars by. Not seeing the insufficiency in the sources you are. Artw (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how two sources in very minor newspapers gets someone an article on Wikipedia.96.127.242.251 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get an account, stick around, maybe you'll learn a thing or too. Artw (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around... lots of ip editors have experience. A two reference article is not notable.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]