Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatcom Peace & Justice 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   no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatcom Peace & Justice Center

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has been questioned as to whether or not it meets WP:N. Article currently has a un-sourced lead, member list, and a collection of indiscriminate links. Phearson (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has had poor sourcing for a long time. The sources it does have are self published sources such as other organization's websites.  Further, i see no indication that this article meets any notability guidelines.  Bonewah (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMedtalk stalk 02:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep - Many articles are unsourced; this piece is virtually nothing but sources. Clearly over Wikipedia's notability bar as the object of multiple, independent, substantial pieces of coverage. The article is terrible, but this is correctible through the normal editing process. Correctly tagged for style. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I would not call the sourcing in this article 'substantial'. Most of the sourcing is to the local newspaper, a local college newspaper or to websites that are in no way news organizations.  Just spot checking the links and i find a number of them only mention the subject in passing or are only tangentially related to the subject. Mere volume of sourcing does nothing to change that.  If you think this article can be improved, by all means do so, but it has been in this state for several years, and I dont see it getting any better. Bonewah (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - article has ongoing coverage by local and regional press. I edited the article to move the excessive list of sources into refs. These are legit local news media, not fly-by coverage. Article does need cleanup; but it is notable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 06:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a borderline case. The relevant guideline is Notability (organizations and companies) which requires that the organization has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.  The Whatcom organization, within Google, has a few hundred mentions by independent sources, but the sources are rather minor and local.    The organization appears to be nine years old, so there is some continuity and longevity that makes me lean towards "keep".  --Noleander (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Longevity has no bearing. A person could live to 100 and never be notable. Phearson (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an invalid comparison. People live unless they die. But not dying is a lot harder for an organization. Organizations must be continually operating, drawing in new people, and serving/delivering. If they still have ongoing local press coverage after 9 years, they are doing good, and they are notable. Although, as I mentioned before I think this is only just past the threshold of notability. Wxidea (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur that longevity does make a difference. Articles about institutions that are a year or two old should be given close inspection for promotional intent; articles about institutions that are decades old should be given the benefit of the doubt. Heading for a decade old, this subject falls between the "high bar" for a new organization and the "low bar" for a long established organization, I think. No matter, there are plenty of published sources showing and out there. Carrite (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carrite's expression of this. Wxidea (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2011 (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.