Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Women, Ageing and Media (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Discounting the SPAs and personal attacks, there is consensus to delete rather than userfy. Nakon 03:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Centre for Women, Ageing and Media
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No coverage in reliable, non-affiliated sources. All sources are affiliated except for the Zwoll, Karpf, Jones and Whiting refs. However, the Zwoll and Whiting refs are blogs (not an WP:RS), while the Karpf ref doesn't even mention the centre. This leaves the Jones ref, which is quite literally from a tabloid, and doesn't really establish notability due to not being an RS. Therefore, due to the lacking of notability establishing sources, we should delete this article. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 13:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While I definitely want to give the recreator some credit for writing an original version this time, instead of the "straight repost of its own website" that constituted the first iteration of this article, the nominator is correct that what this version has still failed to do is to be referenced any better. Very nearly every source here is still either primary or blogspotty, with only one reference (#4) which escapes both of those disqualifiers — and while as a non-British editor I can't adequately address whether that reference is to a tabloid or not, it's not about the organization per se, but just briefly namechecks its existence in the process of being fundamentally about something else. Which means that regardless of where we land on the "tabloid" question, the coverage still isn't substantial enough to demonstrate that the organization passes WP:GNG if it's the only independent and non-bloggy source we've got. I think probably the best approach here would be to sandbox it in user or draft space, to give her the opportunity to seek out better sourcing — but in its current state it still doesn't qualify for inclusion in articlespace. Delete or userfy. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to draw attention to Chess's profile and the problems he seems to have had with a misogynistic impersonation of his account. Coupled with the fact that I found other articles about research centres that are not better referenced than WAM, it's hard to believe in a coincidence. The difference seems to be that these centres are not about women. I still put the article in my sandbox so I can continue to work on it, although I am not sure I will be able to find the kind of references you mentioned. Mainstream media do not talk a lot about research, especially research on women and ageing that is not essentialist or health-related. Also, it wasn't me who wrote the first article about this centre, so I don't need your "credit" for writing an "original" version ;) MaudeG3 (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now what exactly are you implying? I don't see how that is relevant at all. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 13:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'd ask you to please remember to assume good faith whenever possible. It shouldn't be necessary to call 's background or character into question here.  Let's focus on what we can do to improve or save the article, if possible. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , something else to note: it's not necessary for the sources to be in mainstream media. Academic journals or newsletters are also fine sources. What's important is to find sources that are independent of the Centre or its members, are substantially about the Centre itself (rather than mentioning it in passing), and are reliable due to some level of editorial oversight -- i.e. blogs or personal web pages are not generally considered reliable, but newsletters and journals generally are. Are there any more reliable independent sources that discuss the Centre in any detail? That would be a huge help here. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you find them? Look around, because you're trying to find the proverbial oasis in a desert. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been looking. It certainly is difficult to find good sources. Maybe, as you say, there just aren't enough to sustain this article at this time. But I think that we can get there without escalating to emotional rhetoric like "oasis in a desert." —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, there's been 15 days to improve this article, and the improvement has not been done. We've pretty much established that this subject fails WP:GNG, and the complete lack of sources to establish notability firmly convince me that this article should be deleted. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been following this discussion with interest. This entry should not be deleted. It should be expanded! What the original post misses, which addresses the issue of notability but also provides further public references that are in accordance with wiki-policy on citation and referencing, is WAM's contribution to public life and public policy through their Manifesto. This Manifesto, written 2012, instigated the inclusion of two WAM representatives to the public policy document published in 2015 by the Members of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, Chaired by Lord Best. That's pretty notable. Other public policy contributions that include WAM are The Commission on Older Women, 2013 (see page 54).These are independent non-blogspotty references and evidence of the notability of this organization and its members to the lives of older women. I have also looked at other Centres included in Wikipedia, such as the Newman Centres. I note here that with the exception of one source, the evidence of notability and references are affiliated with the Catholic Church.  KimberlySawchuk (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that a quick search for "centers" returns a plethora of pages with even fewer references than this one (for example, Centre_for_Studies_in_Social_Sciences, Centre_for_Food_Safety, Center_for_Puppetry_Arts), and I am not quite sure why Chess is so vehement at targeting this particular one. More references are good, obviously, and I hope that if something comes out of this, it is a stronger article. But that doesn't mean that the page should be marked for deletion - there are other notices that could have been put on the page, or other ways to request a better job at referencing. I would also like to note that while the center itself is not necessarily discussed extensively in the press or elsewhere, the article could point at the individual members' work, which is very extensive and regularly cited and commented. I am not even in that particular field, and I know of the work of Ros Jennings, and I assume that other members are also very active in terms of publication and academic work. Why not mention them as a way of establishing the Centre's credibility? Niccoben (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One important thing to understand is that Wikipedia's content and sourcing standards are a lot tougher now than they were five or ten years ago — an article being created today has to conform to a much stricter set of rules than an article that was created in 2004 did. So the fact that you can find a bad, poorly referenced article that's ten years old has no bearing on the standard that you have to meet to get a new article kept today. And I'd also encourage you to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — especially the part about "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Therefore, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it." Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * let's quote that you said, "I am not quite sure why Chess is so vehement at targeting this particular one". How is that in any way relevant to this discussion? Please explain how that influences this article's notability. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Userfy. is right to point out that the article suffers from a lack of reliable third-party sources. But the article is well thought out and researched otherwise, and it may only be a matter of looking for more.  It would be unfortunate to delete it prematurely, and I'm disappointed in  for moving straight to deletion without asking for improvements first. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've looked for more sources. They're not there. It's a fundamentally non notable subject. Userfying won't change that. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:36, 11 April 2015 (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.