Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals


 * 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. Or "nomination withdrawn". Pick one. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The subjects fails to meet the notability guidelines for an organization, per WP:ORG. Specifically, please note the section on local chapters, which are generally not notable unless significant attention has been paid by reliable sources outside the chapter's local area. WP:ORG also states organizations that are not at least national in scale may not notable unless they have received significant attention, again, from third party sources outside the local area. Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals seems to fail to demonstrate such notability. See related AFD for Providence Teachers Union.

Both are local affiliates of much larger, more notable unions and organizations, however in my opinion they are not deserving of their own articles. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. State-wide is bigger than local, and the union is independently notable. - Eastmain (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions.  - Eastmain (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  - Eastmain (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by nom: WP:ORG, in general indicates that in order to be considered notable it should be at least national in scope, and have received significant attention from secondary sources. Reviewing the top hits in a basic Google search, I am finding neither. All references that are not self-published seem to be minor, side-note type references, or references by other organizations with which the Rhode Island Federation... is affiliated. True third-party notability seems hard to come by. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 03:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I count 22 hits alone in Google News just since the start of 2010, all directly related to RIFTHP (rather than its national affiliate). It seems less a matter of notability than a matter of building up the article and including cites. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now there are 49 neutral reliable sources, including 21 non-local sources. (Although, in a state as small as Rhode Island, "non-local" is a difficult term to define. Coverage by the Providence Journal-Bulletin is statewide coverage, even if it is a local newspaper.) - Tim1965 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The best thing that every happened to this article is being nominated for deletion!  When I look at the article that existed at nomination compared to now, it's a stark contrast.  The organization clearly has a significant impact in Rhode Island and should be maintained as noteworthy on that basis.  Part of the problem is that WP:Org reflects a pervasive regional bias in WikiPedia by using "reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area" as one of several criteria for establishing notability.  By that rationale, an organization covered in the Providence Journal would be excluded while an identical one in the metro section of the New York Times would be included because those two papers have different distribution areas. That just reflects the geographic presence of national media organizations, not the underlying notability of the organization.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of the significant, huge reworking of the article with many sources, and RevelationDirect's insight, I no longer support deleting this article. Tim1965, you've done a great job with it. Keep! –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 05:43, 15 January 2010 (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.