Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Burns Institute


 * 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Lucy Burns Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dispute over whether this organization meets general notability requirements. Schematica (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment-- I don't see that this article has been previously prodded, and therefore suggest an admin speedily close this AfD. Furthermore, the nominator and article creator are one in the same which is odd. --Wlmg (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see there were recent questions at Talk:Lucy Burns Institute and then the article creator tried a RFC at Talk:Lucy Burns Institute, then was instructed to open an AFD instead.  Let's just establish, here, that the organization seems notable.  IMHO, it seems notable. -- do  ncr  am  05:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , what's the basis for your conclusion? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: As WP:ORG indicates, sources should cover the subject more than incidentally. None of the cited sources refer to the subject more than in passing, and I couldn't find any significant coverage elsewhere. A number of the cited sources don't mention LBI at all. Given that a large number of incidental references were added only after the notability tag was added I suspect there's some bombardment going on. In any case, without significant coverage it appears that deletion is appropriate. There may be a few tidbits that could be merged into Ballotpedia and/or Judgepedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is sufficient reliable secondary coverage to establish notability. A number of the sources cited in the article cover the subject in more than an incidental or trivial way. For example, there's a whole article in Governing about a study issued by the LBI . I'm not sure how one could argue that an entire article devoted to discussing an organization's work is a trivial or incidental mention. There's also an entire article in Politico which discusses a publication of the LBI . The whole focus of the article is about the LBI's publication, so it's clearly not a trivial or incidental mention. There's also a Metropolitan News-Enterprise article which is exclusively devoted to discussing the LBI and one of its websites . These three references alone are enough to establish notability. Schematica (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Governing: The source only mentions LBI once. The source focuses on a study by LBI, not LBI itself. This might or might not be considered significant cover of LBI itself, not sure. I defer to more experienced AFDers on this.
 * Politico: This source is similar to Governing in that it's about an LBI publication, not about LBI itself. I'm also not clear on whether it's reliable. It's a blog, unclear if it falls under WP:NEWSBLOG, and it doesn't really read like a news article. Certainly the author is an experienced journalist. (He now works at NPR.)
 * MetNews: Two issues here. First, the article is about Judgepedia, which already has its own article. Second, MetNews is a tiny news outlet with an extremely limited local circulation (actually called "tiny" by the LA Times here, here). Even if this is considered significant coverage of LBI as opposed to Judgepedia (I think not) there's the question of whether coverage by such a small outlet contributes toward notability requirements.
 * --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Politico is RS. This article at Politico is RS news article. This is a well respected, professionally staffed, and professionally edited news organization. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It meets the general notability requirements. I especially note that the entire Governing article revolves around LBI's study, clearly notable. When the subjects are non-profits the RS stories are almost always about its activities/research as opposed to articles focused on the institution itself. (e.g. Brookings) Capitalismojo (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Mentioned in major newspapers etc. Meets notability guidelines thus no reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2014 (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.