Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not Yet New York


 * 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 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Yet New York

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

-I found online the two sources not linked to by the page author, for one, to prove their verifiability (the third is already linked to on the page): , - This is a Google books result that alleges that Not Yet New York had an impact on the urbanization process in Los Angeles. - Another Google books result; this one that puts their activism in some context. -Other assorted mentions in substantial works can be found, , , -Additionally, this bibliography here says includes Not Yet New York in its annotation for an article by Dick Russell in the Amicus Journal. I don't have access to that journal at school or online, but it would be another source should anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt91486 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable per WP:ORG - short lived organization. Contested prod. Strothra (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm the one who contested the prod, mainly on procedure, but I'm starting to favor actually keeping. There is a somewhat sizeable amount of media coverage in regards to Not Yet New York.  I think it could meet the lower echelons of notability with that.  It has had coverage in secondary sources.  Moreover, it says the longevity MAY be considered in WP:ORG.  I think the meaning of WP:ORG is different than you are alleging.  So far as I can tell, the organization was not that short lived and seems to have been around and active in Los Angeles for several years.  I believe that WP:ORG, when in regards to length, is referring to organizations that are around for a matter of months only, and this organization has much more longevity than that. matt91486 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to dig up some links here, I didn't save them when I contested the prod for some unfortunate reason.
 * Keep Very impressed with the research and links provided above, which certainly carry the organisation into notibility, a lot of which could be used to aid the articles expansion. Could be suited to a merge given the groups relatively short life line, although i am having difficulty finding a suitable partner. Either way the article should not be deleted.  Carlyle 3 Carlyle3Contributions/Carlyle 3 
 * I'll see if I can get some of the content into the article now that I've found it, but I really am not particularly familiar with the topic so I'm not sure I'm the person best suited to contextualize it. matt91486 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2008 (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.