Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action Wellness


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Action Wellness

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A local non-profit doing local thing. A quick WP:BEFORE suggests it does not meet WP:NCORP and I don't believe it's a suitable encyclopedia article. The article creator appears to be a promotional editor based on the edit pattern and the name that's suggestive of a purpose specific role account with activity duration that seems to be consistent with a typical internship. Graywalls (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine, United States of America,  and Pennsylvania. Graywalls (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No indication of meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG, and appears to be in violation of WP:PROMO as well. Sal2100 (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: For some further input. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - no significant sources. Salsakesh (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Clears the bar of WP:GNG. Here are some sources beyond the ones already cited in the article. There are probably others behind the Philadelphia Inquirer paywall.Prezbo (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have looked at all the sources and I don't see them as satisfying WP:ORGCRIT.
 * Coverage that is primarily stuff like Burns continued, “Together, we created an organization that offers lifesaving and life-changing services to people wrestling with chronic illness, substance use disorder, housing insecurity and other challenges. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to be a part of this important work.” is clearly not independent. I see a lot of local coverage. Local organizations get local coverage but local notability is not global notability, which is essentially the criteria for WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:AUD seems like the most relevant part of that guideline. But Action Wellness has been covered repeatedly in the Philadelphia Inquirer, which is the largest newspaper in the state.Prezbo (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are the google scholar results for convenience. I haven't sifted through them to determine which are nontrivial. Prezbo (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And again, that's a publication acting in its capacity as a local paper. You know, like things happening in NYC being covered in NY Times acting in its capacity as a local paper. A significant, in-depth, independent coverage about a company/organization in Los Angeles covered in NYT, or something in NYC covered in LA Times, then we've got something. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a good indication of notability. A facility that has the demographic of people that's of interest for researchers nearby would be a convenient place for them to research. That doesn't make the place notable. Researchers might tap into a specific plasma donation center if they were researching something about plasma, because it's convenient, but appearing in blood related research simply because they were such a site is no indication of the notability of that particular center. Instead of a list of search result, please suggest three actual sources that actually satisfy notability requirements for evaluation. Graywalls (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I read it, WP:AUD is saying that coverage in a large regional paper is evidence of notability. The requirement that it needs to be a paper from outside the region of the organization in question is just something you’re adding. I think a good article could probably be constructed from the Philadelphia Inquirer articles (if someone had a subscription) or from the other articles I linked to originally. Prezbo (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:AMOUNT might be of interest even though it's not a policy. Newspapers regularly gossip local matters all the time. Truth be said, essentially every major city have advocacy group for specific causes. Philadelphia Inquirer might have a page article on a Philadelphia car dealership saying something about its history but I would say that's a local paper covering local affairs and I would be hesitant to suggest the dealership is notable enough to merit a page. All these pages about these local shops really shouldn't be on here. Graywalls (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like your basic argument here is that the existing third-party coverage “doesn’t count” for one reason or another. It’s too positive which makes it not independent, or the researchers probably just did research at this facility because it was close by so the article they published doesn’t matter, or it’s just local “gossip”, or…I think if the sources are out there, it’s fine, keep the article. But I’m probably repeating myself now. Prezbo (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Comment: our guidelines and policies make no distinction between national coverage and local coverage or between big newspapers and little newspapers. The reason is because Wikipedia wants to include as much reliable information as possible (you know, the old "sum of all human knowledge"). We screen for notability not as some measure of earned merit ("they're big and famous") but rather as an indicator as to whether we have enough with which to build a reliable article. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:AUD comes into play for notability determination Graywalls (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I forgot the same rules for corporations apply to nonprofits, too. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, essentially every single trade association in the US would end up being eligible for an article, because they're generally a 501c6 and they're bound to be written about in a trade magazine somewhere. Graywalls (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Imagine this text on a trifold brochure printed on glossy paper -- this is a thinly veiled advertisement, WP:NOTADVERT. Note some of the subtle PEACOCKing,, throwing around context-free numbers, etc. And a bullet point list of services. Additionally, immediate sourcing doesn't meet WP:SIRS. I do however want to note that The Philadelphia Inquirer explicitly meets the WP:AUD requirement as the biggest daily newspaper in any US state (Pennsylvania). No prejudice against a new article when SIRS sources are found and a proper article is written. &mdash;siro&chi;o 07:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Something that's come up in discussions many times in talk pages is when regional paper is acting in its capacity as a local paper. New York Times covers more about Manhattan than it does about Los Angeles and vice versa. Graywalls (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Promo piece with extravagant wording, better fit for those trash spam brochures they leave an car windshields instead of Wikipedia. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.