Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harlem Children Society


 * 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. Consensus is to keep the article, especially in light of the recently added references (the original problem was "Unreferenced. May not exist") (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Harlem Children Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced. May not exist Rathfelder (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * A quick search found a few mentions in Live Science, The Indian Panorama, and NDTV. So it probably exists.  Grey joy talk 08:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I wonder if we have checked these sources prior to submitting this article to AfD?
 * The New York Times: here and here.
 * New York Senate: LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION commemorating the 15th Anniversary of the Harlem Children Society
 * The National Science Foundation
 * The New York Sun
 * The Scientific American
 * The Indian West
 * The Science Teacher
 * New Delhi Television (already mentioned above)
 * Winds of Change
 * Information Technology Newsweekly. (July 12, 2011): p80 (no link: copyrighted material)
 * Inter Press Service


 * As expected, there are more references in blogs and lesser-known sites. Den... (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Den, refbombing will not persuade editors that this passes WP:ORG.  For example, your first link above is to the NYTimes, clicking leads to a listing of events for children on a particular weekend in New York City.  The featured event (which gets several paragraphs) is a medieval festival.  27 events follow, 2-3 sentences each, of which one is the Harlem Science Yatra and Street Fair sponsored by this organization.  It would be helpful to other ediotr here is you would select the articles in your long list that provide WP:SIGCOV of this ORG.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for the advice. You are correct. Sorry for refbombing (WP:CITEKILL). Lesson learned. I should have been more selective and more explicative on just a few sources. Honestly, I am just learning how to debate and offer evidence and arguments effectively through this medium. Still, my position holds. I spent many hours looking carefully through these sources, and comparing them with the WP:NORG guidelines, and I am thoroughly convinced that this organization passes the test for the reasons I badly tried to explain above, and much more. Three important aspects I should have highlighted or focused on: 1) NSF research grant (here, here and here) 2) the broad international coverage that it received through the research project led by molecular geneticist Sat Bhattacharya, 3) the NY legislature resolution. I also noticed a page with complaints (here). I just ask now you take my WP:GF and research the topic on your own and share your thoughts. Most likely you will do it better than what I did. Den... (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding the references to the article is even more convincing.Rathfelder (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * not necessarily so, and not required. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete (changing to keep due to developments below): despite the references brought up by I don't see any of them meeting the required level of coverage.  StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I did my own searching and found a large number of mentions and other things that don't contribute to WP:GNG.  But, I also found:
 * All of which I see are also in Den's list above. Of these, the Sun article is the strongest, but the IPS piece is pretty good too.  The SciAm item is an odd case.  It's an interview, which we generally downweight for WP:N purposes, but SciAm is a pretty solid publication.  An interview there counts for more than an interview in a lot of other places.  I'll admit the NY State legislative resolution doesn't count for much; these get handed out like candy to any worthy cause.  I do question how much WP:BEFORE effort was put into this nomination.  I suspect none.  Finding sufficient solid sources to establish WP:V was trivial.  WP:N is not as clear, but I think we've got enough here to go on.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: updated my !vote to include Weak, so as to not overstate my evaluation. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I found an additional source:
 * This is also in Den's list, above, but the JSTOR version is the full text. I'm not sure if the JSTOR license allows me to make extensive quotes, so I'll just summarize it by saying it's about 200 words and describes the basic history, educational model, community outreach programs, and some statistics.  I suspect it's somewhat of a rehash of HCS promotional material, but the fact that the National Science Teachers Association elected to print it gives it some credence.  It's certainly not enough to meet WP:GNG by itself, but adds to my impression that the educational community has taken note of them.  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All of which I see are also in Den's list above. Of these, the Sun article is the strongest, but the IPS piece is pretty good too.  The SciAm item is an odd case.  It's an interview, which we generally downweight for WP:N purposes, but SciAm is a pretty solid publication.  An interview there counts for more than an interview in a lot of other places.  I'll admit the NY State legislative resolution doesn't count for much; these get handed out like candy to any worthy cause.  I do question how much WP:BEFORE effort was put into this nomination.  I suspect none.  Finding sufficient solid sources to establish WP:V was trivial.  WP:N is not as clear, but I think we've got enough here to go on.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: updated my !vote to include Weak, so as to not overstate my evaluation. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I found an additional source:
 * This is also in Den's list, above, but the JSTOR version is the full text. I'm not sure if the JSTOR license allows me to make extensive quotes, so I'll just summarize it by saying it's about 200 words and describes the basic history, educational model, community outreach programs, and some statistics.  I suspect it's somewhat of a rehash of HCS promotional material, but the fact that the National Science Teachers Association elected to print it gives it some credence.  It's certainly not enough to meet WP:GNG by itself, but adds to my impression that the educational community has taken note of them.  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is also in Den's list, above, but the JSTOR version is the full text. I'm not sure if the JSTOR license allows me to make extensive quotes, so I'll just summarize it by saying it's about 200 words and describes the basic history, educational model, community outreach programs, and some statistics.  I suspect it's somewhat of a rehash of HCS promotional material, but the fact that the National Science Teachers Association elected to print it gives it some credence.  It's certainly not enough to meet WP:GNG by itself, but adds to my impression that the educational community has taken note of them.  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Mentions in passing, but short and some of them not a far cry form press release levels. may be in-depth and seems reliable a publication of American Indian Science and Engineering Society, but it is only a snippet view, and can't be sure how extensive and independent the coverage really is. It is a commendable initiative, but I don't think it is encyclopedic, not until it gets more recognition in form of proper in-depth coverage and/or major awards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's now worth keeping. Rathfelder (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Checking out all the sources posted here, 3 of those (lots of passing mentions or primary sources here) may pass WP:SIGCOV. Keep on WP:GNG basis. Also the book reference Piotrus has posted also seems like it may count towards notability.
 * Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple sources found to prove notability —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 01:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple sources found to prove notability —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 01:34, 15 November 2018 (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.