Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatcom Volunteer 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   delete. I had relisted this as references had been added during the last day of the original 7 days. However, it is clear that the consensus is to delete --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatcom Volunteer Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

While the article looks good, it doesn't seem to serve any more purpose than the organisation's own web site could. Where's the notability? Kittensandrainbows (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a student at Western Washington University. I've been working all quarter to put together the Whatcom Volunteer Center page as part of a quarter-long project to introduce the program as a social media tool. I'll agree that the concept of notability has been difficult for me, but I had thought I offered enough external references and documentation to ensure the page's survival. If you can help me grasp the concept better, and maybe give me a tip or two on how I might make it more notable, I'd really appreciate it. We present it and everything else tomorrow, and it would be nice not to have a big deletion sticker on it. I'll be checking back frequently for a response. Thanks. Geode333 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Having external links is not a measure of notability, unfortunately. If your organisation has not been discussed by third parties -- newspapers, published magazines, television, other independent sources -- then it may well be a good organisation, but not notable enough to include in an encyclopaedia. Please have a look at WP:Notability and WP:NOT for more examples of what I mean. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless we can get some better references. I'm going to assume good faith on Geode333's part for finding the references we need (versus just references).  Do this and I'll change my mind. =) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, needs references. Even if all the external links were switched to refs, there still wouldn't be enough to work for the entire article.  If the article was drastically pared down, to something like a stub, and only included the stuff for which there are external links/references or if references could be found for the rest, than I'd change my mind.  I think the comment made by the person who removed the PROD tag earlier is pretty telling, though. "This page contains information that is not available elsewhere on the internet" sounds a lot like original research to me, and doesn't inspire confidence in the availability of potential refs. C628 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC) See below for more thoughts.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Question Geode333, could you please tell me if you are connected to the username Alinwa06? Kittensandrainbows (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. C628 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kittensandrainbows/C628: If you have any evidence that these are the same user, then take this to SPI, otherwise please AGF - it perfectly possible for and  to both be interested in this topic, and yet still be different people. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This looked to me like a worthy organization so I did some work on it. I added several references and converted some outside links to references. The sourcing which resulted may be a little weak but I think it's strong enough to establish notability. If you voted earlier, please take another look at it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * I have relisted this as references were added within the last day, so this will give the original contributors to this discussion the opportunity to look at the article and decide whether to change their !vote or not. I will be contacting them all about the relisting. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've gone over this article and I only see one local news article (the New Tribune one) that actually contributes to establishing notability, which isn't enough. The other references include a reprinted press release (Bellingham Herald) and several that don't mention the subject, and thus do not attempt to establish notability.  (The article also has some stylistic problems that could be fixed easily enough including inline external links and an unnecessary listing of the entire staff; I'll try to address some of them at the article in the meantime just in case the article is kept.)--~TPW 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps merge into Whatcom County, Washington?-- Pink Bull  15:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support that - I found another reference but I don't think it's quite enough for this to stand on its own, and news references seem anemic so I don't think it's reasonable to expect more to pop up over time. Clearly they do good work but I don't think it's notable work.--~TPW 15:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for the discussion and assistance with this page. User is a member of my group, and created an account to address the marked deletion when I notified her about it. ````
 * Reviewed article this AM in light of the changes made (thanks for the pointer!). I'm maintaining my !vote for the purpose - looking through the news bits, they don't really convey notability.  There are more than one press release in there, and one is not so much a focus on the WVC, it's more a focus on homelessness and how WVC are helping.  That last one is a maybe - I see blurry lines there. =)  But frankly, I need something more substantial than press releases before I change my mind. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to retain my !vote, unless it was agreed to reduce this significantly in size, down to a stub. Although I can't claim to have helped in finding sources, I think that what's there is adequate for a stub-class article or a significant mention in Whatcom County, Washington, as suggested above, and I certainly wouldn't oppose that.  Without such an agreement, I'd still advocate for deletion on the grounds of way too much not-notable, unsourced stuff, which far outweighs what is sourced and notable. Incidentally, I'm satisfied with the explanation of the two users here,  and ; no concerns there.  C628 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or perhaps merge a line of it into the article for the county. Excessively local, and nothing non-routine.   DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 15 March 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.