Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Publishing Resource Center


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Independent Publishing Resource Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The local nature of this wouldn't not pass notability standards under WP:NONPROFIT. There are many brief coverage such as this Oregonian piece, but all in all, it's not convincing that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I thought about merge and redirect to Chloe Eudaly, however seeing that she was just a co-founder, I didn't feel that's quite proper. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * clarify With some additional searching, I see no indication that this organization could qualify as "Nationally well-known local organizations" either. With their activities being local, it wouldn't be able to pass WP:NONPROFIT's requirement that it meets WP:SIRS as well as being national or international in scale of activity. Graywalls (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. I'm finding multiple reliable sources covering IPRC and confirming a variety of the statistics we like to see for bios of such organizations, including membership counts, key personnel, collection size, major milestones such as relocations, etc. These are found in publications like Willamette Week, Portland Monthly, and The Oregonian, which is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. Good enough for me! I've even expanded the page up to 20 sources, Start-class at least. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 06:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unambiguous keep per improvements, including 10x expansion (from 2 to 20) in number of footnotes, since nomination. Nicely done. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There is some good coverage of this organization in local papers, but WP:AUD is still a concern. I think coverage such as this from The Oregonian is enough to solidify notability, but it's still a borderline case. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AUD issue is also my take on this. The OPB pieces don't meet WP:ORGDEPTH because they're fairly brief coverage. The relocation due to rent increase is an article in the Portland section of Oregonlive. I searched prior discussions for "metro section" and this discussion suggest the Metro section doesn't carry the same weight as other sections. It's up in the air if "Portland" section should be treated as metro section. I don't think that this organization is nationally notable. Graywalls (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I took a look at IPRC's WorldCat entry, and I found a few books published/printed by them—including Little Advantages, How to Transition on Sixty-Three Cents a Day, and Zine librarian zine—which are held by libraries across the United States. That, in combination with the organization's own library holdings and the Oregonian coverage, is a plausible case for at least regional significance. I understand the position you're coming from though; as I said, I think notability is borderline. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's coverage in the Portland Mercury, The Oregonian, Portland Monthly, Willamette Week, Portland Business Journal, Oregon Public Broadcasting, etc. Of the aforementioned sources, multiple are statewide sources (The Oregonian and Oregon Public Broadcasting, arguably others as well) which passes concerns for WP:AUD. --Kbabej (talk) 18:14, 5 June 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.