Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Campus Network (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Millennium Campus Network
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NORG, WP:GNG. While this source is a marked improvement over the previously-deleted version of this article, I was unable to find additional significant coverage in secondary, independent sources that would add up to meeting notability guidelines. signed,Rosguill talk 23:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 23:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 23:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Whole lotta buzzwords, and a whole lot less that's substantive. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt: This wasn't notable six years ago, and it's not notable today.   Ravenswing     04:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. We should base notability decisions on the sources that are available, not just those cited in the article. Google News revealed the following sources:
 * Major newspapers:
 * In addition, I could not access the articles in two US newspapers because of GDPR blocks.
 * News website (probably citeable):
 * Notable student newspaper:
 * University websites:
 * The MCN launched the Millennium Fellowship Program with United Nations Academic Impact. The link to a UN program adds to MCN's notability.
 * Verbcatcher (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the thing is, across all these sources, pretty much the only information we have about the Millennium Campus Network is that they co-organize the Millennium Fellowship together with the UN. I think that these sources comprise a decent case for the notability of the Fellowship, but we still have basically no information about the Network, and no information about what the Network does versus what the UN does. signed,Rosguill talk 17:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a number of those sources namedrop the subject. But that is not, and has never been, a requirement of the GNG. The GNG holds that a source, to be considered to support the notability of a subject, must discuss that subject in "significant detail."  Which of those sources you cite, precisely, do you claim does so?   Ravenswing      19:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have two more sources to offer, on MCN conferences:
 * My main reasons for considering MCN to be notable are the scale of its activities, its global reach and that it has existed for several years. 600 people attended their Rabat conference in 2017.
 * 'Salting' the article would be harsh, as the organization could develop further and more sources may appear. If we decide to delete then an option would be to make a stub for the Millennium Fellowship Program, merge some of this content into it, and redirect there. Alternatively, we could redirect to Sam Vaghar, although the notability of his article may be questionable. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that salting is unnecessary, and is really only appropriate in cases where there's repeated attempts to circumvent consensus or otherwise add spam. However, of those two additional sources, the HuffPost one is literally written by the Millenium Campus Network, and the Le Matin piece does not mention the Network, just a conference that is presumably sponsored by the Network. signed,Rosguill talk 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The MCN launched the Millennium Fellowship Program with United Nations Academic Impact. The link to a UN program adds to MCN's notability.
 * Verbcatcher (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the thing is, across all these sources, pretty much the only information we have about the Millennium Campus Network is that they co-organize the Millennium Fellowship together with the UN. I think that these sources comprise a decent case for the notability of the Fellowship, but we still have basically no information about the Network, and no information about what the Network does versus what the UN does. signed,Rosguill talk 17:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a number of those sources namedrop the subject. But that is not, and has never been, a requirement of the GNG. The GNG holds that a source, to be considered to support the notability of a subject, must discuss that subject in "significant detail."  Which of those sources you cite, precisely, do you claim does so?   Ravenswing      19:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have two more sources to offer, on MCN conferences:
 * My main reasons for considering MCN to be notable are the scale of its activities, its global reach and that it has existed for several years. 600 people attended their Rabat conference in 2017.
 * 'Salting' the article would be harsh, as the organization could develop further and more sources may appear. If we decide to delete then an option would be to make a stub for the Millennium Fellowship Program, merge some of this content into it, and redirect there. Alternatively, we could redirect to Sam Vaghar, although the notability of his article may be questionable. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that salting is unnecessary, and is really only appropriate in cases where there's repeated attempts to circumvent consensus or otherwise add spam. However, of those two additional sources, the HuffPost one is literally written by the Millenium Campus Network, and the Le Matin piece does not mention the Network, just a conference that is presumably sponsored by the Network. signed,Rosguill talk 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My main reasons for considering MCN to be notable are the scale of its activities, its global reach and that it has existed for several years. 600 people attended their Rabat conference in 2017.
 * 'Salting' the article would be harsh, as the organization could develop further and more sources may appear. If we decide to delete then an option would be to make a stub for the Millennium Fellowship Program, merge some of this content into it, and redirect there. Alternatively, we could redirect to Sam Vaghar, although the notability of his article may be questionable. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that salting is unnecessary, and is really only appropriate in cases where there's repeated attempts to circumvent consensus or otherwise add spam. However, of those two additional sources, the HuffPost one is literally written by the Millenium Campus Network, and the Le Matin piece does not mention the Network, just a conference that is presumably sponsored by the Network. signed,Rosguill talk 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Salting' the article would be harsh, as the organization could develop further and more sources may appear. If we decide to delete then an option would be to make a stub for the Millennium Fellowship Program, merge some of this content into it, and redirect there. Alternatively, we could redirect to Sam Vaghar, although the notability of his article may be questionable. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that salting is unnecessary, and is really only appropriate in cases where there's repeated attempts to circumvent consensus or otherwise add spam. However, of those two additional sources, the HuffPost one is literally written by the Millenium Campus Network, and the Le Matin piece does not mention the Network, just a conference that is presumably sponsored by the Network. signed,Rosguill talk 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The Rabat conference was one of a series of Millennium Campus Conferences organized by the Network. The authorship of the HuffPost article should not be a problem as it appears to be under the editorial control of HuffPost, and is not an advertorial. 22:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this assessment of the HuffPost article. Our WP:RSP entry for HuffPost establishes that pieces labeled as HuffPost contributors have insufficient editorial oversight to be reliable. signed,Rosguill talk 22:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I accept your analysis of HuffPost. On this basis we should give this article the same status as a page on MCN's website – the basic description of the event should be treated as reliable. Other sources also describe this conference. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The bottom line, however, is that we still do not have reliable sources that describe the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG and WP:ORG requires, and your other rationales for believing the subject notable -- its putative "global reach," scale of activities and numbers of years active -- are not part of any pertinent notability criteria. To quote WP:ORG, " No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it."  I ask again: what specific sources provide significant detail about the subject, as opposed to an event it was sponsoring?   Ravenswing      10:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a poorly sourced brochure for an unremarkable school business. -The Gnome (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Deletion decisions should not be based on the current content of the article. Please consider the sources I have given above. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The primary criteria in WP:ORG are:
 * This test is met by the articles I have linked above in major independent newspapers, including the The Hindu (an Indian newspaper of record), The News International, (a major newspaper in Pakistan), The Times of India (the largest selling English-language daily in the world) and The Boston Globe (a major US newspaper). These are sources of the highest quality and are independent of the the subject.
 * Comments above deny that this amounts to 'significant coverage'. WP:SIGCOV says '' These articles are focussed on programs run by MCN, or on their conference. These are not trivial or incidental mentions of our topic.
 * Comments above deny that this amounts to 'significant coverage'. WP:SIGCOV says '' These articles are focussed on programs run by MCN, or on their conference. These are not trivial or incidental mentions of our topic.


 * WP:NONPROFIT says:
 * Both of these are met.
 * Both of these are met.


 * We should also remember that Notability is a guideline, not a policy. A note on that page says ''. MCN co-organises a program with UNAI. This program was launched by Ban Ki-Moon in a video in which he mentions MCN. Barack Obama joined their meeting in the White House. These are sufficient reasons to make an exception, if one is needed. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost all AfD proposals are submitted & resolved on the basis of notability, Verbcatcher. Anyway, you have made your points repeatedly enough. More would inadvisable. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And you've already been answered. "Significant coverage" needs to be given to the subject.  Indeed, it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, but significant coverage given to the subject needs to be there all the same.  Significant coverage given to a program (but not to the subject) run by the subject does not count. Significant coverage given to a conference (but not to the subject) run by the subject does not count. Beyond that, yes, WP:N is a guideline.  And we need to see something far more compelling that, well, erm, because reasons, to set it aside.  So far, not a single editor other than yourself believes there is any.  Come up with a source where Ban-Ki Moon discusses MCN in significant detail (as opposed to a namedrop, whether or not Barack Obama was standing in the room when he said it), and minds might change.   Ravenswing      06:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete but hold the salt. While I appreciate the attempts at establishing notability, I read Verbcatcher's comment about common sense and thought that it applies both ways. My common sense tells me that the subject just has not (yet?) crossed into the threshold for notability. Ifnord (talk) 17:16, 6 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.