Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami Coalition of Christians and Jews


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 09:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Miami Coalition of Christians and Jews

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Organization is a non-notable chapter (as per wp:ORG, specifically wp:BRANCH) of the former National Conference for Community and Justice, now National Federation for Just Communities. I haven't found any significant sources. I don't think there's anything here that deserves merging into either article. Also nominating the following article, another non-notable chapter:

 Ignatz mice•talk 16:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BEFORE. A number of independent sources come out of the woodwork if one searches for them, especially under the acronym MCCJ. StonyBrook (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did see various news articles like that. I fail to see how they demonstrate the subjects' notability. In the one article you linked, for example, the MCCJ is mentioned in one line out of 65 paragraphs: They got a single quote from a rabbi who works with the organization, hardly "significant coverage" per WP:ORGCRIT. I've yet to find a news article actually focusing on the organization that is neither 1) a straight-up press release nor 2) noting the fact that they're giving out a community engagement award.  Ignatz mice•talk 21:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I count 2 mentions in 36 paragraphs, but I guess we count differently. Not including captions. StonyBrook (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake, they quote rabbi twice. I just re-counted and got 71 newlines, but agreed on the point that news articles break things into way more paragraphs than other sources do.  Ignatz mice•talk 22:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep " Miami Coalition", I agree with StonyBrook, it looks as though this organization - which has been around since the Roosevelt administration - needs improvement, not deletion.Strandvue (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be annoying, but do you have policy reasons to support your opinion, besides "it's been around for a long time"? I'm specifically wondering if you can find sources that are "specific, independent, reliable, secondary" (per wp:ORGCRIT) that demonstrate notability. I haven't been able to.  Ignatz mice•talk 23:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , lots more in the Miami Herald, although the public access archive only appears to go back a few years. Better archive searches will undoubtedly produce more sources.Strandvue (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Link 2: An obit for a former MCCJ director. MCCJ mentioned a few times, nothing that demonstrates notability.
 * Link 3: Another obit for the same person. MCCJ featured more prominently, enough to be used as a decent reference in an article, but I'm not convinced it demonstrates notability.
 * Link 4: A gussied-up press release. "Here is an event that will happen in the community!" Nothing demonstrates notability.
 * See my comment below; just because an organization is mentioned in news articles does not mean it is notable.  Ignatz mice•talk 21:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Virginia Inclusive Communities does gets at least some local coverage, but does not come up in a search of the Washington Post, where I would expect to find important Virginia civic organizations. On the other hand, the Richmond Times-Dispatch offers deep coverage of VIC , so I suggest Keep.Strandvue (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You say that the RTD offers "deep coverage" on VCIC. Here's the first result in that Google link you posted. Note the URL and the text at the bottom of the article: "This feature [...] is brought to you by the featured organization". Not an independent source, therefore fails to demonstrate notability.
 * Here's the second Google hit. An opinion column by a VCIC steering committee. Not independent.
 * The third hit. A profile of the organization's president. As with MCCJ, there's enough info here to use it as a reference but I don't believe the profile demonstrates notability of the VCIC itself.
 * The fourth. An editorial, three paragraphs long, congratulating awardees of a VCIC award.
 * Fifth. A column by the VCIC's president.
 * All of these articles are either not independent or are wp:TRIVIALCOVERAGE of the subject. The fact that the organization exists, and has been mentioned in scores of newspaper articles and columns, does not demonstrate notability if those articles are not substantial, explicitly about the organization, and independent of the organization. I'm not trying to be flippant here, but an honest question: Can you make an argument that the links you posted demonstrate notability under wp:ORGCRIT, or can you find a source that does? Because I don't think they do.  Ignatz mice•talk 21:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the article needs improvement, not AfD. Wm335td (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2019 (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.