Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalyst project


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 17:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Catalyst project

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Very few google hits relate directly to the subject (there are other things with the same name). And while the article (parroted straight from the group's website) refers to this as a center, it is hard to say that this is more than a subset of another group without independent existance. The sources cited on it on the article page are mere mentions of the subject, or a mention of affiliation. This has real problems with notability and verifiability. Wehwalt 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep-Article could be progressed as information is found about the topic. Anyways Isnt wikipedia all about adding information slowly as people notice the topics...so give time for other people that know to add info about it. I Say keep it .User:EdwinCasadoBaez
 * Delete- Per nom-- SU IT  42 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, VERY close to a copyvio, pretty clearly cut-and-pasted and then altered only somewhat. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG as there is lake of any 3rd party coverage or media mentions etc. --155.144.251.120 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There may be a misunderstanding here about the requirement of coverage by independent publications meeting the WP:RS criteria as required by WP:ORG. The external articles cited appear to be web sites of related organizations rather than general media etc., and appear to fall under the WP:RS criterion which generally prohibits using a self-published source such as an organizational web site for purposes of establishing notability. Has this organization gotten coverage in any sort of general media publication or scholarly work? Best, --Shirahadasha 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless such outside sources as required by WP:RS are provided. JCO312 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ORG -- Selmo  (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable org. IronDuke  04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because it fails WP:ORG, and I do agree with Starblind; article seems to be cut-and-pasted. -- ♥ Tohru Honda13'  ♥ 06:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:ORG. Terence Ong 10:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources or indication that this is a national organization, as required by WP:ORG.-- danntm T C 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I must say, I agree with the nomination and it seems to be not very notable on Wikipedia so I'm going to have to say delete--  Telly   addict  16:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The Catalyst Project is an active organization that facilitates anti-racism trainings around the country. The fact that they are currently operating and have been for several years makes them worthy of an entry.  I understand that not many results come up from a Google search, but my understanding is that Google ranking alone should not be the basis for a deletion.  As for copyright violations, I do not believe they would sue because the description of their organization on Wikipedia is similar to the description on their own page.  Is there anyone here from the US activist community with familiarity with anti-racist organizing?  What's your opinion on this article?  -Danspalding 01:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "I do not believe they would sue" is definitely not good enough. We can't take chances on copvios.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ORG; notability is not established in article.


 * 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.