Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color of Change

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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Color of Change[edit]

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

Page appears to be a vanity article. It is not a notable organization, and the article cites no reliable sources. Instead, it cites to its own website for all the information about its activities. GaiaHugger (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep co-founded by the newsworthy Van Jones and (at least lately) has lots of outside RS coverage.Cramyourspam (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't proposed deleting Van Jones' entry. But the fact that he may belong to a gym or a local flower club doesn't make those organizations notable. As I indicated, the article relies entirely on Color of Changes' website for its activities and cites no reliable sources at all. When reliable sources are mentioned, they discuss the controversies CoC may claim be interested in, but don't actually mention CoC. GaiaHugger (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Complete WP:SNOW here. Just click on the Google News link at the top of this AFD and you'll find a multitude of reliable sources covering the subject, just in the last month. Yes, our article needs major cleanup and cites CoC's own website too much (I added a third-party tag) but that's no basis for deletion. Just browsing through the cited sources I found the following news stories with significant coverage: Nonprofit Quarterly, NY Daily News, SF Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, HuffPo, MintPress, Hollywood Reporter, Seattle P-I. The nomination makes clear the nominator never even skimmed the references section. This is a naughty AfD. It qualifies for speedy keep under reasons 2 and 3. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. I was tempted to close this per SNOW, indeed, given the plethora of sources, but I'll let it ride for a little bit, for a very selfish reason: the article is terrible, and may benefit from someone picking up Fleischman's references (well, some of them--leave the Daily News out of it). Oh, keep. We've seen so many of these clubs and organizations and whatnot, and here's one that has actually made the news, even the real news. But the article needs to be completely rewritten, from top to bottom: what we have now is a list full of OR/synthesis and primary sourcing in a very predictable pattern--organizational announcement of action, newspaper reports of something having happened (whether as a result of the organization's action or not)--which cannot stand. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, the sources I linked to here are already in the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serious rewrite needed There are some serious weasel words and terms; the history section is just a list of controversies they've weigh in on (listed alphabtically!); many of the references only make passing mention of the organisation; many of the history subsections are 'launch' publicity without any info or analysis on whether this is still something they're campaigning or or whether they had any effect; he lede needs to be nuked; etc; etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite needed is not a delete vote, so will assume Stuartyeates means keep and rewrite/copyedit/cleanup...

keep as above, many references obtained. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the above. This is notable in its activities and web presence and with ample sources, even if the article needs some work to improve said references and possibly balance in places. Libby norman (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2014 (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.