Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Join the Impact (2nd nomination)

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. Wifione ^Message 11:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Join the Impact

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One mention in the NYT does not constitute the requisite substantial coverage. (This has nothing to do with the fact that I happen to support this organization's goals; NPOV is NPOV - notable is notable.) Orange Mike | Talk 02:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - though I'm aware of the controversy around the source's founding, this article gives some coverage of their "co-response" to the Chick-fil-A stuff. I'm not sure whether the Chicago Pheonix would generally be considered a reliable source but this article provides some information about the organisation. This article isn't about the organisation, per se, but is about the fact that one of the co-founders received an award for, in part, founding the subject organisation. Perhaps not great for WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH but maybe useful for verifying some facts. Anyway, just the results of a quick search, in case they are of some value. Am a bit on the fence as to WP:N - would be interested to see what others come up with. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

None of those look like RSes. I found some stuff in the Harvard Crimson, Harvard's student-run newspaper and an RS for this article. There is some coverage at the Minnesota Public Radio site, but what it mostly says is the group's protest had little media coverage. There is coverage here, at the Bay Windows, which per this source is Massachusett's largest gay newspaper. However its current top story seems to be Baron von Steuben was gay, and I don't find support for that in any non-gay publication, so I have to reject the paper as an RS. There is an interview with a high-profile member of the movement at the Austin Chronicle, but that is tangential to the article subject. The combined result from those sources isn't satisfactory enough for me to vote keep. Will keep looking, and if I don't find much more, will go delete. Churn and change (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I was able to easily find multiple secondary sources with significant coverage through Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found several sources from a variety of news agencies (Alameda Times-Star, Macon Telegraph, Oakland Tribune, etc.) in NewsBank. The organization is clearly notable. I don't understand why I keep seeing Alexa.com as a source in several articles though. Is web traffic a measure of (Wikipedia) notability? - Mr X 02:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.