Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Resolves


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

High Resolves

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:PROMOTIONAL (e.g. "Each module and year level of our programs can be run effectively") article on a not notable company. Only source in article is to a government charity directory. A basic BEFORE (JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com) fails to find anything more than a smattering of passing mentions that don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep—I've added a handful of citations and pretty much revised the entire article. I'm reasonably sure that there will be more that can be found by people with access to Australian media, education-focused publications, or civics/moral education literature.  I did check The Chronicle of Higher Education and found no mentions, but this publication is largely US-oriented, I believe. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: Justinohare and Ceyockey are the two main contributors to the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your work on this article. I have to respectfully disagree that it passes the GNG, however. We now have eight sources, half of which are from the website of the McNulty / Aspen Foundation. Of the remaining five, one is a press release, one is a corporate registry listing, two are from the website of an advertising contest (good-design.org). The book seems fine but it, alone, can't establish notability. I find nothing else in BEFORE and I have access to Australian media, education-focused publications, and civics/moral education literature. Chetsford (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep— I'm Terrable as I find subjects that are missing from Wiki but I am never able to put them up in a way that they are prevented from being deleted. Thank you for your help in fixing up this page. This not for profit has been around for a while and has won some big awards recently.  As this is a small Australian based organisation it has gone under the radar of much of the press as  User:Ceyockey points out. ( Justinohare ) 12:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "As this is a small Australian based organisation it has gone under the radar of much of the press" Then it doesn't meet our notability requirements. A notable company is, by definition, not one that has "gone under the radar." The fact it does good deeds, unfortunately, doesn't matter. Our standards of notability are the same whether a company is for-profit or non-profit; whether it's good or bad. High Resolves has to meet the same notability criteria as Wynn Casino and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Merely proving it exists is not sufficient to prove it's notable. Chetsford (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep There are sufficient references to support WP:NEXIST to support GNG.  For example, on top of those already stated, here is a journal article, here is an international reference, here is support by a senior federal politician and the University of Melbourne, and there are quite literally dozens of strong mentions by individuals schools using the programme.  These are all very easily WP:BEFORE found.  Aoziwe (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The "journal article" is by Terry Robb, the organization's founder, and is not WP:INDEPENDENT. The "international reference" is a press release. I stopped checking there, didn't seem like much point to continue. Chetsford (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. But are you saying that the journal article has not been peer reviewed in any way or not been subjected to any editorial over view?  The vast majority of all journal articles are by definition written by people with a critical and reputational stake in the content?  And what is wrong with the press release.  It is not by the High Resolves people.  It is by two independant parties, both of each other? and of High Resolves?  Aoziwe (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "are you saying that the journal article has not been peer reviewed in any way" That's exactly what I'm saying. Despite the fact the NLA has labeled it a "journal" Ethos is (was) actually a popular magazine and it had no peer review process. An op-ed by the founder of an organization is not WP:RS for coverage of said organization. "And what is wrong with the press release." If you're !voting at AfD you should already know the answer. Anyone can write and issue a press release. It has no more reliability than a Facebook post. I can write a press release about my neighbor's cat tomorrow and pay $750 to post it to Globenewswire, PRNewswire, or Businesswire; my neighbor's cat doesn't now qualify for a WP article. Chetsford (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but are you referring to the correct publication? There are at least three Ethos "magazines" I think.  The NLA cited publication is ISSN 1448-1324 which is this one?  The press release is by an independent organisation having given an award to the subject.  What does it matter what the mechanism is?  Surely it is the organisation behind the press release that matters?  Would you discount a press release by say the National Academy of Sciences or The Royal Society about an award they had given?  Are you saying that the McNulty Foundation and the Aspen Institute are unreliable?  (The press release is not by the subject of the article.) I agree with the principles you are referring to but it seems we might not be referring to the same objects in applying those principles?  Regards.  Aoziwe (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Sorry, but are you referring to the correct publication." Yes. "The press release is by an independent organisation having given an award to the subject. What does it matter what the mechanism is?" See WP:SELFPUBLISH for our policies regarding self-published sources. Chetsford (talk) 19:50, 19 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.