Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lower Rents Now Coalition


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Lower Rents Now Coalition

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia ain't here to host activist websites. The topic of this article has no lasting encyclopedic notability and is clearly doing nothing more than promoting the campaign (whose internet presence is a promotional website and a facebook group with 158 members). As a student at the University in question, I'd never even heard of the "organization" until I came across the article. The main author has some WP:CoI problems here (without saying any more, facebook clears it up, but see photo upload). Note, the guy's website actually links the wikipage from its mainpage (http://lowerrentsnow.org). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - This is made tough because there are a load of references, but I'm not sure I saw any of them that qualify as WP:RS. More importantly, a simple mention in a paper isn't enough. If there's some widespread coverage in a notable source, then it should stay. Someone should point those out now though. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. First, for transparency: I am a member of this group. I dispute the basis for this AfD request. Let me systematically go through the reasoning.


 * Claim: "Wikipedia ain't here to host activist websites". Wikipedia is not hosting an activist website here. There is a link to Lower Rents Now Coalition from, but: so what? The website for this group is entirely at said link, and spread across multiple pages of content.


 * Claim: "whose internet presence is a promotional website and a facebook group with 158 members". Of course our official Internet presence includes a promotional website! Regarding facebook groups, these aren't ever considered a reliable/notable source; e.g. "I just lost the game" has 100,000 members, but that was considered irrelevant to showing the notability of The Game (mind game). (Also, the figure given was wrong: it is currently 185, not 158). But if you're implying the only internet mention of this group is the above, then I dispute that, which I'll do in more detail below.


 * Claim: the topic of this article has "no lasting encyclopedic notability". Please read WP:NOTE: "Notability is not temporary. If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". Additionally, coverage (so far) ranges from February 2007 to March 2009, over two years. Pndapetzim says, "I'd never even heard of the "organization" until I came across the article". Um, so? That fact that you have not heard of something does not prove something is not notable, even though you live in St Andrews. Again, I will go into coverage and notability more below.


 * Pndapetzim says, "The main author has some WP:CoI problems here". OK, I admit that CoI editing is "strongly discouraged" (though not banned). However, I reckon more important to consider than CoI is the effect of a CoI, which is an increased possibility of bias (especially because WP:NPOV is a "fundamental" principal, not something which is just "strongly" recommended cf. CoI). The thing is, I would maintain this article has real substance, so where there are neutrality problems, it would be better to fix those (by e.g. by expanding the article by elaborating on 'the other side' is, or at least pointing out specifically the bits that have NPoV problems, or otherwise) than to delete the entire article. When I made my first change to this article, I acknowledged my potential bias, and encouraged someone without such a CoI to ensure the article meets NPoV (see ).


 * Now, regarding notability and reliability of sources, which Shadowjams was interested in. There is multiple coverage in The Courier, a mainstream newspaper, with circulation 80,000, according to the its Wikipedia page). We can find three of the Courier articles online. In chronological order:, , . In addition, there was coverage on 10 and 11 December 2008 (you could probably buy a back issue if you want). Quoting WP:NOTE, "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence [of notability]". I claim that these Courier articles (maybe particularly the middle linked one), including the ones only available in print, meet the WP:NOTE criterion of "Significant coverage" (the definition: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive"). Also, the articles likely meet WP:NOTE the criteria of being "Reliable" (since they were in a mainstream newspaper), and are "Sources", because they are a secondary sources, and "Independent of the subject", as they are in a mainstream, commercial, newspaper. Note these Courier articles are not opinion pieces.


 * Other hints of notability, especially to counter the implication in the deletion request that the entire campaign is merely "the [one] guy's" unnoticable project: The group from the page up for deletion has been discussed multiple times by the Students Association at the university in question (see ). Also, the planning application the university put in was opposed by hundreds of students (see ). After the St Andrews Community Council was approached by the group (see: ), the Community Council also objected to the planning application (see ). This is not completely un-notable, because the St Andrews Community Council is considered by (Fife) Council to be a "Consultee" (not just an ordinary person/group), when considering planning applications and the like. (See the word "Consultee" in the row near the top of for the document titled "CONSULTATION RESPONSE", published 09 Dec 2008.)


 * Almost finally, I would consider a lot of the content on the university's website about accommodation redevelopment, at, to be in response to the negative publicity generated by the group in question against the university's accommodation plans. Also, this month, there was an opinion piece by a member of the group (er, me) in the magazine St Andrews in Focus, which has distribution of over 7000 and estimated readership over 25,000, according to.


 * In summary, coverage the group in question's letters and opinion pieces have not been insignificant; coverage has lasted over two years; hundreds of students have been involved (there was also a petition in association with the students association, which got over 1,000 signatures (see page 5 of, or the Courier articles), or roughly 17% of the student body at the time. Importantly, there has also been plenty of detailed, repeated, secondary, non-biased mainstream coverage in regional papers. Nicol (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * — Nicol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete of all the sources provided in the article, I could only find 4 which actually are about this organization, the rest is a big load of WP:SYNTH. These are all news stories covering a series of small protests. In all of the news articles, the sources do not do more than mention the organization, mostly in passing when a member is quoted. As such, the organization has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Fails WP:ORG. -Atmoz (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the well-argued points made by Atmoz. Eusebeus (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete echoing Atmoz, I don't feel this meets the bar of significant coverage. Maralia (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I would have to concur with Nicol above, although I, too, am a member of the group. I feel that he has answered the concerns about significant coverage very well. Basically, the group's been covered in well-circulated local-area newspapers several times in the past few years, members of the group have had letters in national papers, and the group has led relatively large actions (protests and planning application objections) which have mobilised a significant proportion of the student body. It has also met with several key members of University staff and Students Union officials to negotiate on the issue. Perhaps the article could be edited to be a bit more neutral, but this can be done and deletion avoided, in my view. Josherick3 (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * — Josherick3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as per Atmoz Power.corrupts (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2009 (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.