Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traction (organization)


 * 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. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh  19:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Traction (organization)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable. Nuberger13 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; it's just not notable is not an policy or guideline-based argument for deletion. The source provided in the article (from the Independent Weekly) combined with this source: (from the The News & Observer) means that the group is verifiable and does meet the notability criteria of having received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". EJF (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.   —EJF (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   —EJF (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per EJF. I encourage Nuberger13 to become familiar with deletion policy.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's notable though the article needs more sources, I dont see the N&O reference mentioned above.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am the original author of the article.  There is a new reference here, from the Philanthropy Journal.  I'd never heard of the Philanthropy Journal, but from looking at it and doing a Google search, it appears reliable, at least on the surface.  The N&O article is here, but it includes only two paragraphs on Traction.  If you look at my old version of the article, there was a Herald Sun article, but now I can't find it.  That said, I could change my mind about keeping this article if someone convinced me that 1) The Philanthropy Journal is not as reliable as it seems at first glance, and 2) the Independent Weekly is not a big enough newspaper to establish notability.  With respect to that last point, I seem to remember reading a WP guideline somewhere about not using very local news sources as stand-alone sources.  Now I can't figure out where I read that, but anyway it seems like the Indy is probably big enough to be a stand-alone source.  --Allen (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I added the Philanthropy Journal reference and another sentence about funding. --Allen (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (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.