Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Black Caucus of State Legislators


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

National Black Caucus of State Legislators

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Originally tagged as db-corp which was removed by claiming that "this is full of indications of importance/significance." I have re-reviewed the article and there are no reliable sources to back up that claim. The only sources listed on the page are sources to the organizations own sites. This article has been tagged Refimprove since Feb, 2011 and no attempts have been made to do so. There is simply no evidence of notability. Technical 13 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of independent sources (mixed in with the press releases) at GNews, HighBeam, GBooks, etc. E.g., etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the Google sources reliable (except possibly the Gbooks one, but putting the book up like that seem copyvio to me). That leaves the one Highbeam source.  That also seems kind of copyvio to me as they seem to be simply quoting another source.  Technical 13 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources linked by Arxiloxos are published by the Lodi News-Sentinel, The Baltimore Sun, The Milwaukee Journal, The Dallas Morning News, The Columbus Times and State University of New York Press. All perfectly acceptable reliable sources. And even if we were to accept the clearly misguided claim of copyright violation that wouldn't detract from the fact that such sources have been published, establishing notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the list of numerous independent sources. Not sure what User:Technical 13 is talking about; just because a source is indexed by Google does not make it a "Google source".  (Nor does quotation equal copyright violation.) Also, under WP:NONPROFIT, please note that #1 says notable if national or international in scope; this organization is national.  This organization is also long-lived -- more than 35 years since founding in 1977.   --Lquilter (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * After reviewing these sources, yet again, I retract my nomination for deletion as I was under-informed (Too many dang discrete sections to too many policies) and missed that section of the policy. I apologize for any inconveniences or aggravations this nomination may have caused.  Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2013 (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.