Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grantsmanship 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   keep. postdlf (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Grantsmanship Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not believe that this organisation meets notability requirements. The references fall into a few different categories: primary sources, including the official website for the organisation and press released about upcoming workshops; short mentions in local papers (two or three of these - it's hard to tell what's a press release sometimes) ; and the founder's obituary in LA Times. There appears to be a certain amount of conflict of interest for the main editors of the article, as well. bonadea contributions talk 17:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, reluctantly. I could find nothing written ABOUT this center, except the founder's obit (which does make him and his organization sound significant, but obits do that, and in any case it is the only source providing significant coverage). I found lots of hits on a Google News search, but all of them are simply announcements that a local workshop will be held. The same is true of the numerous references at the article: they announce a workshop while parroting the organization's description of itself. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of articles written ABOUT The Grantsmanship Center in the references section. Some are behind a pay wall.--SenorPower (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To be precise, there are currently 33 references in the article. One of these (which I cannot access at the moment) appears to be a non-trivial mention in an independent publication - that's this one. The few other references that are independent of the GC itself are trivial mentions in local newspapers, and the majority of the refs are still announcements of workshops, all of which include the organization's own description of itself, and so this does not come close to showing notability, unfortunately. However, Norton J. Kiritz may be notable, based on this, this possibly this (which I cannot access). Since notability is not inherited, Kiritz' potential notability does not mean that TGC is notable. --bonadea contributions talk 13:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep well established organization whose workshops are noted in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good! If there are sources that I failed to find, that's excellent - please add them? There is very little there at present that's independent other than small local press. --bonadea contributions talk 05:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The most famous organization of its sort. For any organization like this, most of the material will intrinsically be mere notices, but that doesn't rule out that some of them are substantial. Thje NYT articles talks substantially about the person and the center, and provides the necessary evidence.  &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 18 September 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.