Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nurture Nature Center


 * 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. Per the analysis of SpinningSpark. Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Nurture Nature Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable local center. Despite the long list of references, none or almost none seem adequate; most are merely references to general government sites about flood preparedness and the like; the others are routine notices in local papers.

It reads like a press release, but it does not seem to be copied directly from any source I could quickly find.  DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  01:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 02:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 09:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep (vote apparent by following statement by editor User:Mrtl11, with summary vote added and with reformatting by doncram)
 * The article should not be deleted. This Center has clearly achieved some notoriety and it is regional not local. The reviewer seems to have read the references too hastily in concluding otherwise.


 * The review states that “most [of the citations] are merely references to general government sites about flood preparedness and the like.” Here is the actual breakdown.


 * There are thirty-seven cites in the article. Of these, only one is to a “general government site” that does not specifically reference the Center discussed in the article. That one cite is note four, which provides background information about NOAA’s Science on a Sphere ("SOS").


 * Of the remaining thirty-six references, nine are to government websites. However, they are not general cites, but all specifically reference the Center. That they reference the Center in the context of more general discussions does not minimize the organization's importance, but just the opposite.


 * The nine government cites specifically referencing the Center fall into three categories:
 * (1) Six of the nine confirm awards of governmental grants to the Center, most also describing the nature of the work the Center would perform under the grants. The Wikipedia article would have been subject to challenge had no support been provided for the claim that these grants were received. Apart from being necessary components to show the reliability of the Wiki article, the cites also support notability. Five of the six are highly competitive federal grants, which are only awarded if there is a broader national purpose achieved by doing so. An example is the Sea Grant referenced in note 30. Possibly the reviewer failed to open the text on the grants that is included on that page, and thus overlooked that the grant to this Center is listed and described, along with nine other grants all of which went to major universities (Harvard, Yale, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Rutgers etc.). Grants of this nature are simply not awarded to organizations if their work is of only limited local significance. What is particularly striking is that not one, but multiple federal agencies in a short period of time found this young Center’s work significant enough on a national level to warrant such awards.
 * (2) Two references are government web pages that make available to the public work product of the Center, namely its script on flooding. These cites, in addition to specifically referencing the Center, are evidence that an important federal agency (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) found the Center’s work product to be of sufficient importance to share on an official government site.
 * (3) The final government cite lists the locations of all SOS exhibits, including the one at the Center. Placing the Center in this context is useful in evaluating the importance of being selected as one of a limited number of SOS sites worldwide.


 * The review not only mistakenly characterizes the government references as general ones, but also mischaracterizes the non-government references as “routine notices in local papers”.


 * A closer reading indicates that none of the references provided are actually routine notices. All are substantive, authored articles about the role of the Center in the region and beyond. A Google search makes clear that if routine notices published by local newspapers had been included, far more references would have been given, as there are often notices in the news media about events occurring at this Center.


 * It is also incorrect to state that the notices are from local papers. Wikipedia’s policy for organizations, which is still under discussion, provides that “Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.”


 * The Wikipedia article on this Center includes eleven references to regional media, as well as a citation to World News. No citations are provided to news sources of solely local circulation. The regional sources cited are the Morning Call, the Express Times and WFMZ television, all of which are circulated throughout the Lehigh Valley. The Lehigh Valley is described in Wikipedia as “the fastest growing and third most populous region in the state of Pennsylvania with a population of 821,623 residents as of the 2010 U.S. Census.” The citations to news sources distributed throughout this populous region meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability for an organization, and cannot be trivialized as merely “local” in import.


 * In sum, the comments proposing the article for deletion are factually mistaken. As such, they do not provide a basis for deletion.
 * -- User:Mrtl11)


 * Keep. There actually is coverage of this nonprofit organization. -- do  ncr  am  18:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (spiel)  @ 15:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 19:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

 Keep. I will say up front that I am affiliated with this organization and do not have citations for every one of the statements I will make, but I can assure the Wikipedia editors that this organization is not what the gentleman who recommended deletion described. NNC’s flood-related work, in particular, has attracted attention from all corners of the country and even beyond. The Wikipedia article already pointed out that NNC’s Rising Waters program is one of the programs used with Science on a Sphere exhibits across the globe. What the article did not say is that the flood outreach materials NNC created several years ago are also regularly requested and used nationwide. Those who have specifically contacted NNC requesting these materials include the National Weather Service Forecast Offices in Alaska, California, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, and Tennessee; the Training Center for the National Weather Service in Missouri; and the Eastern Region of the National Weather Service, which covers 21 states, from Maine to northern Georgia, and westward to Ohio. The materials have also been in demand by emergency management agencies across the country (the most recent one last week was from Iowa) and by schools in many different locations. In 2013, twelve thousand copies of NNC’s Focus on Floods materials were reprinted for a school district in another region of the state, and less than two weeks ago, two hundred of the coloring books concerning flood preparedness were sent to the Washington DC government for teachers and students in Washington DC’s public schools, to complement the demonstrations they give with the floodplain simulation model. NNC’s social science research, which is still in progress, is garnering similar attention. In just the last few months, NNC’s staff has been called upon to present the results of its NOAA–funded study on Flood Warning messages at: a webinar for the Silver Jackets (a joint project of multiple federal and state agencies devoted to flooding) in November; a National Webinar for the Army Corps of Engineers in October; a nationwide webcast for NOAA staff for NOAA’s Science Days program in September (a program that included as well NNC briefings to NOAA leadership and Congressional staff); a presentation at the National Weather Service’s Flash Flood Summit earlier in September; and a presentation at an international world weather conference sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization in August. Earlier, the findings of the study were summarized at to the annual conference of the American Meteorological Society, in a presentation that is available on their website. NNC staff have also made presentations during these same periods to many regional groups, including the New Jersey Association of Floodplain Managers and Pennsylvania and New Jersey emergency management organizations. The events NNC holds at its large facility in the city of Easton also have impact beyond the immediate local area. In the first place, as the Wiki article already noted, NNC’s methods of engaging the community are designed to serve as a model for engagement for other communities. Equally important, the “community” NNC serves does not just comprise the city where the facility is located (about 27,000 people), but other nearby populations as well, including among them the city of Allentown (nearly 120,000) and Bethlehem (approximately 75,000), which are both significantly nearer to NNC than Kennedy Airport is to the World Trade Center in New York. NNC also receives visitors from northern New Jersey, which is directly across the river from the facility. A series of radio programs on WDIY, a public radio station headquartered in Allentown that is aired throughout the Lehigh Valley, is just one illustration of the interest NNC’s work has generated regionally. Those programs, and some other references that are not yet part of the Wiki article, need to be added. Another addition that can be included shortly is a link to a new website that NNC will be launching in December. The website, which will allow residents of communities impacted by floods to share their stories and learn from each other, is made possible through a grant from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection under a contract with FEMA, two other government agencies that NNC has been working with, which are not yet mentioned in the Wiki article. Hopefully, when these citations are added, Wikipedia will see fit to close this deletion discussion and keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NNCRHC (talk • contribs) 00:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep GNG coverage. -- Green  C  20:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I realize that there is much enthusiasm for this organization, but I do not see sources of the quality that would raise this to an encyclopedic level of notability. It doesn't matter how may cites there are if they are mostly from local news sources that do not have broad impact. Being awarded a <$100K IMLS grant also does not establish notability -- IMLS awards about a hundred of grants per year, mostly for small local projects. Mentions in government documents related to ones' activity also do not establish notability. The arguments above are not arguments that use the WP criteria, so unfortunately they don't move this article any closer to notability. There is nothing in WP criteria that I know of for which the population of the surrounding towns would be relevant. This is one of those times when I want to ask: why do you want a WP article for this subject? What purpose does it serve? Who is the intended audience? What makes this encyclopedic? If the main goal is to make the organization more visible, then that it not the role of WP. If the motivation is that you are proud of the work you do (and you are directly connected in some way to this organization) then that is not the role of WP. LaMona (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep NOAA's Science on a Sphere® website states that 33 million people see Science On a Sphere® every year. The Nurture Nature Center is one of 110 Science on a Sphere locations worldwide, and has also produced a script for display on all the spheres. These numbers argue in favor of retaining the article. The Center also has sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Some significant references that were omitted initially have now been added. User: Gabjandel 15:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep A Google search under news reveals considerable local coverage, however, this, by itself, is not sufficient. There should be an indication of at least regional coverage or impact.  There is evidence of regional (state-wide) coverage beyond local coverage:, , and . --I am One of Many (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are some hugely long posts here, but none of them have been doing the one thing that is necessary, attempt to establish notability by presenting some actual sources, until the post by I am One of Many immediately above.  Unfortunately, these are all mere passing mentions, not the substantial coverage required by GNG.  I assume that this is the best that can be found, in which case it is not enough. SpinningSpark 16:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -Does not meet up to notability standards of WP:GNG--Canyouhearmenow 12:53, 8 December 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.