Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leading Change Network


 * 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. On notability terms, this was a borderline no consensus. But G5 confirmation makes it a clear delete. If an uninvolved editor believes LCN is notable, they're welcome to create an article. Star  Mississippi  18:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Leading Change Network

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I removed the SPEEDY tag because it was contested. I still believe that delete is in order for violation of WP:ADV and promotion, but we should discuss it as a group and come to consensus. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: both the nominator and nominated this article at exactly the same time, causing two nominations to open at once. I've tagged the second nom for G6 and ask Praxidicae to participate here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * delete I fail to see how LCN is notable on it's own, this is nothing more than what appears to be PR but I can't find any meaningful in depth coverage and all that appears to be in the article are stories about Ganz or speaking roles/appearances that mention LCN with nothing truly independent. No objection to redirecting to Ganz PRAXIDICAE💕  17:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of copying the previous comment from the second nomination. This should be considered basic cleanup only.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, CSD could well have been granted for WP:ADV. Salvage option would be redirect to Ganz. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I stated I have no objection to redirecting, provided we get consensus so we don't have to keep going through this, obviously. PRAXIDICAE💕  15:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Discuss the changes made by. No consensus on notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk &#124; contribs) 03:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I already nominated this article once for speedy deletion (yesterday) as promotion, and it was quickly deleted. I see it is now back.  The tone is still completely wrong, and still reeks of an advert.  Redirect to Ganz until something less promotional can be written.  A loose necktie (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is is possible to receive more detailed feedback as to how to make the tone right? Thank you 82.222.98.255 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten into a non promotional tone and removed all links redirecting to LCN's website. I hope it's up-to-standard now. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Still no consensus concerning notability Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that delete is the only option to deal with promotional tone. It does still need much work even after the latest changes though. Huggums537 (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Is it possible to give me more specific tips on how to adjust? I rephrased all parts that sounded subjective and removed all hyperlinks. Please let me know how to further edit. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your asking for help. The best advice I can offer is to look at WP:ADV and its subsequent links.  I personally tend to prefer editing over deletion as a result.  To me, the bulk of the narrative still reads as promotional material (which points to deletion).  Others may agree or disagree, which is why we have a forum like this to discuss it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read several articles and rewritten accordingly, removing all subjective language and any links and using a neutral tone instead.
 * Please let me know if it reads better now. Thank you. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's better. Is it enough?  Maybe... if consensus is that it passes the notability threshhold, I think we can move the WP:COI concerns to those of editing rather than deletion--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I argue for notability as the NGO is featured as a main item (not just a brief mention) on the Commons Library for social change (an increasingly popular and credible source to all entities and resources related to community organizing)
 * The organization is also referenced in a credible journal inside a research paper presenting it as the main practitioner and teacher of the Public Narrative practice (the paper's topic) initially produced by LCN's founder, Marshall Ganz.
 * Multiple independent secondary resources reference and present the organization as appears in the article's references.
 * The entity's notability is not temporary, as it's active, ongoing and has significant on-ground projects around the world.
 * Based on these facts, my point of view is that the entity is discussed in reliable independent sources and is notable per se, and has not merely inherited notability from its founder. I wish to note that we should not be inclined to judge it "not notable" just because the founder is notable. An entity could have a notable founder and still be sufficiently notable on its own (even if less than the founder) without having inherited notability.
 * Thank you. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I see notability as a non issue with this article. Just because it needed some editing work for promotional concerns doesn't mean no pass for notability. Those are two different things, and I think the article has now improved enough to make it a workable project. Huggums537 (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G5 as an contribution by a sockpuppet with the only contributions by others being adding or fixing deletion templates. Jumpytoo Talk 01:52, 6 June 2022 (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.