Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chatty Café Scheme


 * 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Chatty Café Scheme

 * – ( View AfD View log )

promotional article with insufficient references. Consensus has always been that MBE andOBE are not intrinsically notable.  DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have listed the further references in the article now (only the Queen's Birthday was listed at the time that the request for deletion was made). The initiative's relevance derives IMHO from the national attention, the awards, and the implementation abroad including overseas. --Chris Howard (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Borderline WP:TOOSOON but maybe just about now? Passing mentions in academic sources:, , , no SIGCOV there but some in media. Still on the fence here, but this is not as bad as it could be (well, that's why we are discussing this and not speedying it, I guess). PS. Ping me if SIGCOV sources are presented or criticized. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As main author of the article, I have further re-worked it adding information as to the organisation (registered as a community interest company in the UK), and I think I have finished the re-working at this point. Concerning relevance in terms of WP:NONPROFIT, I would note:
 * international scope (UK and Australia at least, with registered organizations there),
 * media coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization – the question of significant coverage is indeed borderline, the three most interesting possibly being:
 * as additional consideration, factors that have contributed to widespread attention (support by notable politicians, Points of Light, Queen's Birthday Honors).
 * --Chris Howard (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Response You say the sources are "independent of the organization" but they also need to be "intellectually independent". See WP:NCORP and especially the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND sections.  HighKing++ 21:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Quite enough independent references. Rathfelder (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 11:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either mentions-in-passing or short articles based on an interview and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Response It would seem safe to say that the Points of Light award of 2020 and Queen's Birthday Honors 2021 are surely from unaffiliated sources and based on independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking. --Chris Howard (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Response The Points of Light reference contains no in-depth information on the *organization*, fails CORPDEPTH. The NationalWorld reference also fails CORPDEPTH as it is just a mention-in-passing. *Each* reference needs to pass *both* WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 15:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's enough here for NCORP and GNG. The Financial Times article already mentioned is in depth and directly on the topic, and so is this article in The Telegraph.  I've also found on ProQuest a number of local papers running short stories. Plus this book has a paragraph on it – not much by itself, but more than a trivial passing mention. Some local authorities for instance Dacorum have information pages on Chatty Cafes in their area and an award from the Prime Minister and a page on the PM's website isn't nothing. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, the scattered pieces of coverage barely gets it over the line for WP:NORG in my book. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.