Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echoing Green

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I don't think that this organization meets the GNG. The sourcing in the article is almost entirely from the organization's own webpage. Almost all the sources I've found through a web search are passing mentions, rehashed press releases, or both; the best I've found are this, which reads like an expanded press release, and this, which is so full of puffery as not to be credibly independent. Note that they collaborate with Forbes (see [1]) so the independence of Forbes' writing about them is questionable. This is the best source that a gbooks search threw up, but it's short and uncritical. My Google Scholar search located only passing mentions. Wham2001 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing GNG. There is not meaningful independent coverage (taking into account the above note about Forbes possibly being affiliated) that establishes notability of this org.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments' - this is truly a rare (IMHO) of a situation of Maybe notable or maybe not. My concern is that their primary rationale for notability is the list of former fellows - sort of a notable alumni list. I'd like to see more discussion. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I largely ignored the list of alumni when doing BEFORE, because, as you say, notability is not inherited. I've just done a Google search for "Echoing green" "Michelle Obama" and I was surprised how little turns up - mostly recycled press releases that mention her in passing as a prominent alumnus. If there are independent sources on what she did with her fellowship I suspect they are only available offline.

  I agree that the discussion would benefit from more participation. One problem that I had when looking for sources is that material derived purely from press releases dominates in searches; if anybody know of a more focussed way to search for sources in this field that would be particularly helpful IMO. There is a related problem that, if the article is to be kept, currently we have almost no non-primary material to source it from. Wham2001 (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete .Spend almost 30 minutes trying to find independent secondary sources and i didn'tGeorgiamarlins (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2019 (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.