Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation


 * 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. Time to put this discussion out of its misery. I am explicitly not closing this based on the argument of advocacy; while the article text was inappropriate in that direction such things can be fixed easily enough and are not reasons for deletion. Nor has it been deleted because the original author is a paid editor who is explicitly complying with the terms of use. However, there has also been a fair bit of ink used discussing the sources, but there seems to be a consensus formed that the references provided are either exceedingly local in nature, of dubious independence from the subject, or primary sources. While not universally accepted, this argument has not been rebutted and is the strongest view presented here.

I will restore this to anyone's user space upon request if they want to go ahead and try to salvage some content. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable non-profit organizations that reads like an ad: it is excluded by both points of WP:N, as it fails WP:NOT since the article solely exists to promote the subject, and it also fails the general notability guideline. The sourcing that exists in the article is almost all from the org or a related website. Google News search reveals only connected sources (PR or org personnel interviews) or local coverage that typically doesn't rise to the level we expect for companies. All of these concerns make deletion the most appropriate response under policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Hello, I would like to address the concerns about the Rainbow Housing page, so that it is not deleted. First, the article does not solely exist to promote the subject, but rather provide factually correct information that has been published in credible sources. As mentioned in the entry, Rainbow Housing is a non-profit entity, so there is is not a commercial motivation behind this organization. The article avoids puffery and it is not written to read like an advertisement since it is not intended to “promote or sell a product, service or idea.” Second, in terms of notability guidelines, the article does include citations to reliable news sources that establish there has been significant coverage of the organization from multiple publications. While the organization’s website is used as a source of information, the 12 other outlets cited in the article provide factual details. The news articles used in the citation include content written by independent reporters. I added more citations and sources the the article today, 8/14/17.When conducting a google news search for “Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation,” the first page of results does not yield any PR press releases. The search results include an article published by one of the U.S.’s largest daily major newspapers (Houston Chronicle), an online real-estate trade magazine (Commercial Property Executive), and an established national magazine (Affordable Housing Finance). In terms of Wikipedia’s policy on notability, I did not see any criteria related to what can be found in a Google News search. I do not see the connection between deleting a Wikipedia page based on your Google search, but please direct me to the appropriate Wikipedia guideline, since I found no mention of Google News Search in WP:N and WP:NOT. However, I do know that the notability guidelines state that “notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.” Perhaps notable news sources not already being used in citations can also be found outside of conducting only a Google News search. Since their is a concern for the sources currently being used, below is a brief overview of the outlets cited in the Wikipedia article. Upon reviewing these, it is clear that many of these citations come from trusted sources that are used for other published Wikipedia entries.
 * The Houston Chronicle “is the largest daily newspaper in Houston, Texas, United States. As of April 2016, it is the third-largest newspaper by Sunday circulation in the United States.” The Chronicle is also one of the largest newspapers in the state of Texas.
 * Affordable Housing Finance is a national magazine published by Hanley Wood, a real estate media firm that “is one of the ten largest business-to-business media companies in the United States, with the largest analytics and editorially driven Construction Industry Database of more than 2.5 billion records.”
 * Next City “is a national urban affairs magazine and non-profit organization based in Philadelphia.” (Next City Wikipedia page)
 * Arizona Business Magazine is the Arizona’s “leading monthly Business magazine. Published by AZ Big Media, the magazine covers a wide range of topics focusing on the Arizona business scene, and is aimed at high-level corporate executives and business owners.”
 * Bisnow Media is “a multi-platform digital media company that produces news and live events...covering 27 metropolitan markets across the U.S., Canada and the U.K. with a subscriber base of over 600,000, Bisnow is one of the largest producers of commercial real estate news and events.” (BisNow Wikipedia page)
 * Multi-Housing News is a real-estate magazine headquartered in New York that “became an online real estate magazine in July 2012.”
 * How Housing Matters is an online resource which conducts housing-related research projects. It was created by the Urban Institute, “a Washington D.C.-based think tank that carries out economic and social policy research.”
 * Shelterforce an independent, non-academic publication, that has been used as a citation in other Wikipedia pages, such as Gary Winkel and Susan Saegert.
 * In addition to large, established outlets, a number of smaller trade outlets are cited as well. They include the following. National Real-Estate Investor is a national magazine that had reported on real estate-related news for 50+ years. Commercial Property Executive is an online trade magazine with a focus on reporting about commercial real estate business across the U.S. Connect Media is an online commercial real estate news source.
 * Therefore, I do not think deletion is appropriate in this case. HannahVerg (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)HannahVerg
 * That is quite a lot to process, but I'll try: first, the Houston Chronicle mention is fairly trivial: a smaller part of the larger article and a quote from a staffer. Even if it was more substantial, it was in the paper's local section, which is not as valuable as coverage in regional or national sections. The Next City Source is an op-ed by an employee of the NGO (see WP:SPIP). Trade publications and business journals are rarely considered to be reliable sources sufficient for notability on Wikipedia: they tend to reprint press releases and whatever they are told by the organization in question, and that seems to be the case for most of the things here. The language in the article clearly shows a promotional intent and tone as well, so in addition to the the lack of sourcing available that meets our standards, it would be excluded by WP:NOTPROMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note also, just noting for future readers HannahVerg has declared in compliance with the terms of use that she has been paid to edit this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article content is neutral in tone and supported by credible news content from reliable trade and GCM media outlets with varied geographic reach. This article presents factual information regarding a valid non-profit organization. ctonih25  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toniharrison25 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)   Struck vote per Sockpuppet investigations/Toniharrison25 TonyBallioni (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note I would like to clarify that I was not paid by this organization to create the article. I merely disclosed my employer to provide transparency on how I became aware of Rainbow Housing, not to declare that I was paid to edit this article. I will edit my talk page accordingly to avoid future confusion. I also edited the page to reduce "promotional intent and tone." In terms of trade publications, I could not find and Wikipedia policy stating that these types of publications are not credible. HannahVerg (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. ThanksHannahVerg (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC),  J 947(c) (m) 03:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - I've cleaned it up a bit and fixed some references. I searched newspapers.com and their housing units are all over the country. It seems likely there are local news articles and TV news segments that exist out there - see WP:NPOSSIBLE. I also added an article from the Albuquerque Journal about its partnership with a San Francisco company to make housing units more ecofriendly etc. I think it needs to be less promotional and more encyclopedic in its tone, but it's not that bad compared with the truly horrific promo puff pieces on here. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The local stuff wouldn't get it anywhere near the GNG even under NPOSSIBLE. Quite literally every local non-profit in the United Statss would be eligible if we held them to local only coverage. Re: spam. Yes, they aren't for profit but this is just as horrific a promo piece as many of the businesses I've seen on here. Combine that with the COI issues with both of the !votss above and deletion is the clear best option under policy here TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Local newspapers/television do not fail as reliable sources. That is only when the subject of the Wikipedia article has only coverage local sources, the point of which is to prevent people creating Wikipedia articles about their town's beloved 85-year-old librarian using the 10 articles about her in their town's newspaper. There are SIX NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS in the United States. That's it. The subject of this Wikipedia article is the organization itself, which is based in Phoenix. Therefore, the article in The Albuquerque Journal (the largest newspaper in New Mexico) about the organization working on a project in Albuquerque attests to the organization's notability. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes: and we even hold the local sections of those six national papers to a much lower value than we do the rest of their coverage. It tends to be of significantly lower quality and cursory in coverage than stories of regional or national importance. The fact that the only sourcing that can be found here is local makes a very strong case that the subject does not meet our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, this is the creator of the page. Yes, the organization has received local coverage, but this is coverage that spans across the nation since Rainbow Housing has a national reach. The citations come from a variety of sources. There is also coverage from large national trade magazines, such as Affordable Housing Finance and Bisnow Media, so the sourcing is not only local. I have not been able to locate any Wikipedia policy that states trade magazines are not credible sources. Local coverage does not mean lower quality coverage. There are reporters who have received Pulitzer Prizes for local coverage, such as Lisa Falkenberg and Raquel Rutledge. HannahVerg (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY with no encyclopedically relevant content. The sources are either WP:SPIP or passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NORG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I know this has been here for a long time, but I'm in a quandry how to close it. So, I'm going to make my standard offer to the people arguing to keep. Could you list here the TWO OR THREE best sources, which discuss this from the point of view of WP:ORGDEPTH. Specifically, are there sources which talk about the organization itself, rather than mentioning it in the context of some project or event which the organization was involved with? Please limit it to just two or three; if you're willing to put in the effort to filter it down to a small number, I'm willing to put in the effort to read them. But, I'm not going to wade through a long list in the hopes something there clicks. There's no hard requirement that the sources need to be in national media, but the larger the audience scope, the stronger the source, so bear that in mind when selecting the best sources to review.
 * Delete per K.e.coffman. The majority of the sources are not independent (either directly with org's website or written by their staff). Others are just passing mentions. Insufficient in-depth independent coverage. MB 15:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep In response to RoySmith (talk). Below please see a listing of 3 best sources in the Wikipedia article.
 * 1. Albuquerque Journal: This 2008 coverage is specifically about Rainbow Housing's work. One main focus of the article is Rainbow's partnership with NRG Energy. This is reference #24 on the Rainbow Wikipedia page. Link to article:
 * 2. Connect Media Commercial Real Estate: This article is a Q&A with the director of Rainbow. The content focuses on how Rainbow's housing model works. Connect Media is an online commercial real estate news source. This is reference #21 on the Rainbow Wikipedia page. Link to article:
 * 3. Commercial Executive Magazine: This article's focus is that Rainbow Housing was selected as a service provider for a new Section 811 development in Arizona. Commercial Property Executive is an online trade magazine with a focus on reporting about commercial real estate business across the U.S. This is reference #21 on the Rainbow Wikipedia page. This is reference #3 on the Rainbow Wikipedia page. Link to article:

Thank for taking the time to review. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional sourcing. HannahVerg (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Two things: just a note for the closing admin that this user has already !voted above. Second, of the three sources, only the first qualifies as anything near a reliable source. The 2nd is an interview, so it is WP:PRIMARY, which doesn't meet GNG. The second is a press release style article in a trade publication that is now excluded as counting toward notability by WP:ORGIND. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: please find a better argument for keep, or it may end up as a delete close next week.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  19:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Fails the significant coverage requirement for WP:ORG. When asked above to provide the 3 best reliable sources, the article creator listed only one (The Albuquerque Joournal) which might meet the standard for significant coverage by an independent reliable source. The second ref is about affordable housing in general, not about this organization. The third ref is clearly a press release. Given that these are the "best" references presented after a month of searching, the page fails WP notability criteria at this time. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom but especially per User:CactusWriter. This may be a wonderful organization but that's not the question here. Is it notable enough for an encyclopedic article? No. Ifnord (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2017 (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.