Talk:Under the Hood Café

Notability
This article has no reliable, secondary sources and puts forth no claim for why the Cafe is of any actual note. The principle emphasis of the article seems to be that the "Fort Hood Chapter" of the IVAW meet there but the Killeen IVAW itself don't even meet the notability threshold. I understand that the Under the Hood might play an important role in the lives of the people immediately involved in it but that does not qualify it for inclusion in wikipedia under wikipedia's notability guideline. If this is not addressed by another editor in the next couple of days I will begin the deletion process by proposing a deletion. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added significant citations from a variety of media outlets about the cafe, including the Austin American-Statesman, News 8 in Austin, The Killeen Daily Herald News, The Socialist Worker, Univision, and others. I also added more discussion on the rest of UtH's work. If you feel that notoriety is still an issue, I would appreciate input as to what areas need improvement so I can have the chance to fix the article before it is deleted. --Jmbranum (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Under the Hood was mentioned in an AP story about the Ft. Hood shooting on Thursday, Nov. 5. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091106/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_shooting_30 Peacearena (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On Nov. 10, the New York Times profiled Under the Hood and Cynthia Thomas in a video sidebar to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10post.html?pagewanted=1&hp Peacearena (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At this time, especially considering contemporary interests, I see an expanding source of information about the Cafe. I'll hold off on any process to remove the article at this point, I'm not a subject matter expert and the events at Fort Hood seemed to have stirred a lot of interest which is always a source of future sources. With that in mind I don't see why this article can't stick around (and so attract sourcing) for now. Still, there has to be some other substantial claims by reliable sources why this is an independently notable institution or this will more than likely be revised in the future. Thanks to all the other editors that have put forth the effort so far to improve this article. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Most definitely will keep working on finding more and better sources for this article. Thanks for the encouragement. --Jmbranum (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is now fairly well referenced. Since this discussion hasn't developed since 2009 I am removing the tag. --Duncan (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Spanish language source

 * Just reread Verifiability. I'll leave the [Univision Story|http://www.univision.com/content/videoplayer.jhtml?cid=1885664] out until I find someone who can help translate it (my translation skills are too rusty for this)

--Jmbranum (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Reinstating sources deleted
I am reinstating the deleted citation to The Socialist Worker article. Another editor said it was not a reliable source. I disagree. And I'm also reinstating the Univision article ( http://www.univision.com/content/videoplayer.jhtml?cid=1885664 ) The fact that the story is in Spanish does not negate it being a source. --Jmbranum (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Under the Hood Café. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091107091431/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20091106/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_shooting_30 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091106/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_shooting_30

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)