Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethical Journalism Network

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. Courcelles (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Journalism Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Hardly anything in coverage, fails WP:NORG. US-Verified (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The crux of this discussion will hinge on whether or not there is any kind of coverage that meets WP:NORG. If there is, then the article should be kept. If not, it should be deleted. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. gNews shows some media coverage, both deep and trivial [1] [2] [3], apart from the fact that the news aggregator shows a lot of news from EJN itself. Wiki also has the page of the organization founder: Aidan White (journalist) and some articles use EJN as a source. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As usual, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as while there are some sources reporting on the organisation's outputs, we lack in-depth coverage of the organisation itself to base a viable article on. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sadly. This sounds exactly like the sort of organization I'd like to see on Wikipedia. Any bias I have is strongly towards this sort of thing, but I found no reliable sources in my searches. It seems to fail WP:GNG CT55555(talk) 03:43, 11 April 2023 (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.