711:, the quality of the source is what matters. For a SINGLE source to be considered relevant for the purpose of notability it needs to make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization" per ORGDEPTH. There also needs to be multiple sources which do this and each source must provide this level of significant coverage in its own right, the sources do not 'add up' together and become significant. How can sources which provide one or two sentences worth of coverage make it possible to "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." Remember once again, that for the purposes of establishing notability EACH INDIVIDUAL source needs to make it possible to write more than a stub article. As for you saying that the other 8 sources seem sufficient, I assume you also didn't read me questioning whether 3 of those are actually reliable sources as well...As for you saying, "It appears this will come down to the decision of a closing admin", well...you could make the closing admin's job a lot more easy by simply agreeing that the article fails ORGDEPTH. Knowledge is meant to work on consensus whereby people change their minds, and I see no valid reason for you not to change your mind here.
519:. Perhaps, for the purpose of better defining this discussion. Could you tell me the two or three sources you think are the best in terms of notability? This way we don't need to debate 9 sources at once, because after all, 2-3 high quality sources are sufficient. Quality matters, not quantity per the ORGDEPTH policy. (But a high quantity of sources can never compensate for the lack high quality sources, when determining notability).
591:...Each source must must offer significant and in-depth coverage in its own right. Look at the examples of what constitutes significant coverage in ORGDEPTH, your sources plainly fail all of those examples. Also note that there is a higher bar applied to proving notability for organizations than the GNG, a higher quality of sources is required to prove notability for organizations per
840:. The keep !vote is very weak and the sources provided do not show GNG: 1) is a trivial mention; 2) is a transcript from a speech given at a gala (not an independent source); 3) is run of the mill coverage of a charity being charity; etc... Unless someone bothers to point if any of these sources actually supports notability, this should be deleted.
668:
I'm sorry if my comment did not seem responsive. I don't have a whole lot to add beyond what I said above. I believe the 8 articles sufficiently establish notability, when considering the threshold for notability that other articles up for deletion pass. You are welcome to disagree. It appears this
566:
It would be really better if you pointed to what you think are the 3 best sources for the purposes of notability. The relative policies make it very clear that a collection of trivial mentions do count towards notability. A source needs to provide significant coverage in its own right to count
533:
I never got a response, so for the benefit of the closing admin, I think I will definitively declare that it should be deleted on the grounds that I haven't found evidence that it has received (A) significant direct and in-depth coverage from (B) multiple (C) reliable sources. As required by
552:
Apologies, I have been rather preoccupied. Excepting the
Newsweek article, I think the remaining 8 are rather self-explanatory, and indicate sufficient coverage; articles are routinely kept with less coverage than this. I leave them there for any others, such as a closing admin, to examine.
732:
I will not change my mind because I reject your reasoning. I'm sorry if you find this inadequate. Please understand that I must refrain from continuing this conversation, as I find it increasingly unproductive. In the nicest way possible, I might suggest you peruse
369:
Subject clearly passes notability. The article can easily be reformed with a bit of rewriting and additional research. At present, it is not so flawed as to warrant deletion rather than keeping with existing tags. This seems like a rather clear-cut case of "keep".
649:
Regardless, this is irrelevant, because the
Newsweek source clearly does not offer anything close to the "significant" and "in-depth" coverage required by reliable sources. And moreover, the relevant policies also make it clear that multiple
218:
623:
To clarify what I meant about the
Newsweek article: Newsweek is now evaluated on a case by case basis. For this article, I find no indicia of unreliability, and without any such evidence, I see nothing wrong with the article.
734:
326:
212:
266:
609:
And for whatever it's worth, in addition to newsweek, i also question whether sources 1,3,8 are reliable sources. (And I dont think they offer significant coverage in my opinion either).
144:
139:
346:
148:
131:
286:
451:
638:
466:
171:
178:
448:
390:
You say that "the subject clearly passes notability". Can you point to at least 2-3 reliable independent sources which give the subject in-depth coverage? per
306:
118:
445:
103:
469:
571:
otherwise it does not count towards notability. There also needs to be multiple sources which each in their own right offer this in-depth coverage (
567:
towards notability. Each individual source needs to make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization" per
233:
200:
849:
750:
You're not rejecting my reasoning, you're just rejecting the policies. You should probably just cite "Ignore all rules" as your reasoning.
63:
853:
826:
795:
759:
745:
720:
677:
663:
632:
618:
604:
561:
547:
528:
479:
428:
407:
378:
358:
338:
318:
298:
278:
258:
73:
194:
457:
190:
68:
135:
98:
91:
17:
240:
127:
79:
789:
755:
716:
659:
614:
600:
543:
524:
424:
403:
354:
334:
314:
294:
274:
254:
112:
108:
511:. Furthermore, I think many of those sources are not reliable sources. For example: regarding your newsweek source:
804:
463:
206:
870:
40:
845:
819:
454:
58:
460:
751:
727:
712:
655:
610:
596:
539:
520:
439:
420:
399:
350:
330:
310:
290:
270:
250:
866:
588:
572:
508:
395:
36:
837:
841:
814:
226:
53:
704:
592:
580:
568:
504:
500:
419:
per my above comment, I haven't yet seen the evidence of notability. I'll change this if I do.
87:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
865:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
784:
774:
654:
sources are required to prove notability. You didn't respond to what I had said at all.
708:
584:
576:
535:
738:
670:
625:
554:
516:
494:
472:
391:
371:
579:). In other words, the sources do not 'add up' together, this is made very clear in
645:
because there is clear consensus that
Newsweek is not generally reliable post–2013
165:
779:
499:. Many of those sources don't seem to offer the in-depth coverage required by
703:: Just so you know, the quantity of sources is irrelevant here see
249:
Written like a resume, with very few reliable sources provided.
861:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
639:
Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Newsweek_RfC
807:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
327:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
513:"post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable"
267:
list of
Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions
777:, even if Newsweek is counted as a RS, which it isn't.
161:
157:
153:
225:
347:
list of
Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions
836:I don't see why this was relisted, except maybe as
813:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
669:will come down to the decision of a closing admin.
287:list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
873:). No further edits should be made to this page.
345:Note: This discussion has been included in the
325:Note: This discussion has been included in the
305:Note: This discussion has been included in the
285:Note: This discussion has been included in the
265:Note: This discussion has been included in the
239:
8:
119:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
643:"Note: This is not a "no consensus" close,
344:
324:
307:list of Italy-related deletion discussions
304:
284:
264:
7:
128:National Italian American Foundation
80:National Italian American Foundation
24:
104:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
94:(AfD)? Read these primers!
890:
827:20:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
796:19:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
760:00:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
746:23:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
721:23:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
678:23:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
664:22:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
633:16:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
619:07:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
605:01:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
562:15:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
548:23:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
529:08:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
480:23:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
429:08:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
408:08:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
379:04:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
359:22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
339:22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
319:22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
299:22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
279:22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
259:22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
863:Please do not modify it.
854:04:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
74:22:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
491:Thanks for your reply
92:Articles for deletion
752:Apples&Manzanas
728:Apples&Manzanas
713:Apples&Manzanas
656:Apples&Manzanas
611:Apples&Manzanas
597:Apples&Manzanas
540:Apples&Manzanas
521:Apples&Manzanas
440:Apples&Manzanas
421:Apples&Manzanas
400:Apples&Manzanas
637:The relevant RFC (
829:
361:
341:
321:
301:
281:
109:Guide to deletion
99:How to contribute
881:
824:
817:
812:
810:
808:
794:
742:
731:
674:
629:
558:
498:
476:
443:
375:
244:
243:
229:
181:
169:
151:
89:
34:
889:
888:
884:
883:
882:
880:
879:
878:
877:
871:deletion review
830:
820:
815:
803:
801:
778:
740:
725:
672:
627:
556:
492:
474:
444:Some examples:
437:
373:
186:
177:
142:
126:
123:
86:
83:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
887:
885:
876:
875:
857:
856:
842:RandomCanadian
811:
800:
799:
798:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
589:WP:MULTSOURCES
573:WP:MULTSOURCES
509:WP:MULTSOURCES
483:
482:
432:
431:
413:
412:
411:
410:
396:WP:MULTSOURCES
382:
381:
363:
362:
351:James Richards
342:
331:James Richards
322:
311:James Richards
302:
291:James Richards
282:
271:James Richards
251:James Richards
247:
246:
183:
122:
121:
116:
106:
101:
84:
82:
77:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
886:
874:
872:
868:
864:
859:
858:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
838:WP:RELISTBIAS
835:
832:
831:
828:
825:
823:
822:(Lets talk📧)
818:
809:
806:
797:
793:
792:
788:
787:
783:
782:
776:
772:
769:
768:
761:
757:
753:
749:
748:
747:
744:
743:
736:
729:
724:
723:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
699:
679:
676:
675:
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
653:
648:
646:
640:
636:
635:
634:
631:
630:
622:
621:
620:
616:
612:
608:
607:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
565:
564:
563:
560:
559:
551:
550:
549:
545:
541:
537:
532:
531:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
496:
490:
487:
486:
485:
484:
481:
478:
477:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
441:
436:
435:
434:
433:
430:
426:
422:
418:
415:
414:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
386:
385:
384:
383:
380:
377:
376:
368:
365:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
343:
340:
336:
332:
328:
323:
320:
316:
312:
308:
303:
300:
296:
292:
288:
283:
280:
276:
272:
268:
263:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
242:
238:
235:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
192:
189:
188:Find sources:
184:
180:
176:
173:
167:
163:
159:
155:
150:
146:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
124:
120:
117:
114:
110:
107:
105:
102:
100:
97:
96:
95:
93:
88:
81:
78:
76:
75:
72:
71:
67:
66:
62:
61:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
862:
860:
833:
821:
816:Megan Barris
802:
790:
785:
780:
770:
739:
700:
671:
651:
644:
642:
641:) does say:
626:
555:
512:
488:
473:
416:
387:
372:
366:
248:
236:
230:
222:
215:
209:
203:
197:
187:
174:
85:
69:
64:
59:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
705:WP:ORGDEPTH
652:significant
593:WP:ORGCRITE
581:WP:ORGDEPTH
569:WP:ORGDEPTH
505:WP:ORGCRITE
501:WP:ORGDEPTH
213:free images
867:talk page
489:Response:
55:King of ♥
37:talk page
869:or in a
850:contribs
805:Relisted
775:WP:NCORP
741:Ergo Sum
735:WP:Stick
673:Ergo Sum
628:Ergo Sum
557:Ergo Sum
495:Ergo Sum
475:Ergo Sum
374:Ergo Sum
172:View log
113:glossary
39:or in a
709:WP:SIRS
585:WP:SIRS
577:WP:SIRS
536:WP:SIRS
219:WP refs
207:scholar
145:protect
140:history
90:New to
834:Delete
773:fails
771:Delete
517:WP:RSP
417:Delete
392:WP:ORG
388:Reply:
191:Google
149:delete
50:delete
701:Reply
234:JSTOR
195:books
179:Stats
166:views
158:watch
154:links
16:<
846:talk
786:uidh
756:talk
717:talk
707:and
660:talk
615:talk
601:talk
544:talk
525:talk
515:per
507:and
503:and
425:talk
404:talk
394:and
367:Keep
355:talk
335:talk
315:talk
295:talk
275:talk
255:talk
227:FENS
201:news
162:logs
136:talk
132:edit
852:)
241:TWL
170:– (
848:/
758:)
737:.
719:)
662:)
647:."
617:)
603:)
595:.
546:)
538:.
527:)
471:.
468:,
465:,
462:,
459:,
456:,
453:,
450:,
447:,
427:)
406:)
398:?
357:)
349:.
337:)
329:.
317:)
309:.
297:)
289:.
277:)
269:.
257:)
221:)
164:|
160:|
156:|
152:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
52:.
844:(
791:e
781:b
754:(
730::
726:@
715:(
658:(
613:(
599:(
587:,
583:,
575:,
542:(
523:(
497::
493:@
442::
438:@
423:(
402:(
353:(
333:(
313:(
293:(
273:(
253:(
245:)
237:·
231:·
223:·
216:·
210:·
204:·
198:·
193:(
185:(
182:)
175:·
168:)
130:(
115:)
111:(
70:♠
65:♣
60:♦
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.