Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Minorities and People with Disabilities in Information Technology


 * 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 no consensus. leaning towards delete. If it isn't improved, or can't be improved, I would expect it to land at AFD again with a different outcome. I would note that some of the "keep" votes were not policy based, and the sources provided in the discussion were not really the quality we look for when claiming an organization is notable. After teetering between delete and no consensus, I ended up here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Center for Minorities and People with Disabilities in Information Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable subject per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. I found no significant independent sources, per WP:BEFORE. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Not enough coverage is here for meeting WP:NORG. NavjotSR (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep In the current climate, organizations such as these may be more critical. Search for the abbreviation, CMD-IT rather than the full name (which is rarely used). Added above.Cypherquest (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp  💬  16:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete fail of WP:NONPROFIT. "organizations such as these may be more critical" is not a valid rationale to establish notability. A search for CMD-IT a suggested brings up press releases that are published in various news organisations. a few pages here is good coverage, but there doesn't seem to be any more in that vein. Even this researchgate paper seems to be rather promotional based on the abstract. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point - but the award is sponsored by Microsoft, which indicates the organization is recognized by one of the leaders in the tech field. Professional Woman's Magazine has links - if the notability is not obvious as it is, we need to enhance the article. Be sure to review the most current version before voting. Thanks!Cypherquest (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice link - thank you for finding the book content - that's excellent. I've increased the external coverage to meet our requirements for notability. Nice work! Cypherquest (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cypherquest (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cypherquest (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

KEEP. The CMD-IT organization presents a variety of programs that have been covered in multiple publications including https://www.professionalwomanmag.com/2017/10/georgia-tech-received-cmd-university-award-retention-minorities-students-disabilities-computer-science/ ; https://www.valleymorningstar.com/2019/07/03/utrgvs-villalobos-receives-national-award-scientific-scholarship-stem-leadership/; https://cra.org/crn/2020/02/expanding-the-pipeline-the-2019-cmd-it-university-award-best-practices/  - these will be added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerribarrett (talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: meets WP:NONPROFIT as a national organisation with several significant projects and coverage in reliable independent sources. The closer should note that some comments above were made when the article had significantly fewer sources. The best sources here include Aspray, CRA and GATech. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability outside close-knit sources, which fails the requirement that the sources should be independent of the subject. Bvatsal61 (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Quite enough independent sources now. Rathfelder (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is one fairly decent source, three pages in Aspray's book, but that is not enough to meet WP:ORG which requires multiple independent sources with significant coverage.  Several contributors either do not understand this requirement, or are not signed up to it, and their keep's are therefore not properly policy based. Jerribarrett gives a list of sources which are all either trivial mentions or publicity for giving awards. Not the in depth coverage required.  Rathfelder asserts that there are independent sources (without naming any), the sources may well be independent, but the coverage is not significant. Bilorv offers two sources besides the Asprey book.  One is just the usual awards ceremony publicity, and it is written by the orgnaisations Director of Social Media, so not independent anyway.  The second is about Ayanna Howard, an award winner, not the organisation itself which is only mentioned incidentally.  I also note that the ResearchGate paper mentioned by Eddie991 is written by Valerie Taylor, the CEO of CMD-IT so again not independent big time. SpinningSpark 23:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Spinningspark gives a good overview of the current sourcing in my opinion. Unless there are more good sources out there, this organisation fails WP:ORGCRIT. PJvanMill  ( talk ) 20:54, 6 July 2020 (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.