Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Street Trust


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The Street Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Vanity organization of local interest. Does not pass WP:NCORP. BikePortland.org, a one man show reporting outlet does not have meaningful impact in terms of establishing notability and coverage of this organization in media of regional or national coverage is nowhere at the level of significant coverage. Sources have been added since nomination; however numerous minor coverage isn't the equivalent of several coverage in depth and notability isn't inherited. The article on Sarah Iannarone becomig the executive director of this organization is more about her than it being a significant coverage on the organization. Graywalls (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Transportation,  and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It's not immediately apparent if this organization passes or fails WP:NCORP. There are a lot of insignificant mentions of the org (under its current and former names), especially in the Oregonian. Better citations of existing coverage in newspapers and government documents could prove notability.
 * QuintinK (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The initial nomination text seems to suggest that the nominator has personal familiarity with the organization and a non-neutral (negative) POV. A less slanted nomination would be much better and would clarify that this proposal is being made in good faith. QuintinK (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Government documents are generally PRIMARY sources. For example, when a non-profit does more than a certain amount of financial activity, by law, form 990 must be filed. The existence simply means they filed a legally required paperwork. It has nothing to do with notability. Per WP:SIRS, things used to establish notability have to be secondary and totally independent. Government documents / primary sources aren't forbidden when used sensibly, but they're not stuffers to fill contents and would hold no weight in notability. Graywalls (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting in light of the improvements to the article since the nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant coverage in secondary sources. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 15:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:ORG and specifically WP:ORGCRIT with ample significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. WP:ORGDEPTH is easily met solely through the book sources which have been added to the article, which include:
 * Pedal Power: The Quiet Rise of the Bicycle in American Public Life
 * Cycling for Sustainable Cities
 * Cycling and Recycling: Histories of Sustainable Practices
 * Joyride: Pedaling Toward a Healthier Planet
 * Leadership changes in the organization also regularly receive significant coverage from news outlets like the Oregonian:
 * "BTA fires chief bike lobbyist in middle of legislative session"
 * "Sarah Iannarone named executive director of The Street Trust, a Portland advocacy group"
 * "Sarah Iannarone Has a New Job: Executive Director of The Street Trust".
 * Despite the assertion that the Iannarone sources are about her, they are also about, and contain significant coverage of, the organization itself. This 30-year-old organization has also had a significant impact on transportation legislation and policies. Its efforts led to changes in metropolitan mass transit policy to require bicycle racks for buses and its lawsuit against the City of Portland changed the interpretation and enforcement of the Oregon Bicycle Bill. gobonobo  + c 16:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment As much of the new material provided is not available free online, it would be helpful if someone could identify the specific sources that qualify as "reliable, independent, in-depth coverage". I was only able to find short mentions. BruceThomson (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The organization, under both names, has had sustained coverage throughout the years in Oregon papers and news channels. 610 results in archives of The Oregonian and it's clear from the headlines that many of these are more than passing mentions. Here's a typical example, from 2013, that details one of their advocacy efforts. Profile in a trade journal. Recent coverage. Retrospective from 2014 on their 1995 legal action; there are likely to be contemporary sources for that as well. Jfire (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is definitively significant coverage, a cover story in the Willamette Week (per the other Willamette Week link above). Jfire (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a local weekly intended for Portland, Oregon only. Which piece in national or regional media outlet significant, independent secondary coverage to satisfy WP:AUD of at least one regional or national coverage criteria of WP:CORP is satisfied? Graywalls (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I concede that the Willamette Week is a local media outlet. But we assess the balance of all sources. A cover story in local media, significant and sustained coverage in the major regional paper, documented impacts on state legislation, and coverage in book sources, on balance, establish that this organization meets the WP:CORP requirements. Jfire (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per Gobonobo and Jfire. Subject clearly passes WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2023 (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.