Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groundwork Collaborative

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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groundwork Collaborative (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)

This article is somewhat borderline. There are mentions of the group in multiple RS, but there is no significant coverage of the organization itself. The executive director likely meets WP:GNG but does not have an individual article, so it's not possible to merge/redirect. I vote that it be deleted or perhaps draftified. Citrivescence (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Citrivescence (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm the editor who created this page. Thanks so much for the feedback - this is my first article so I appreciate it. While the organization doesn't appear to have significant standalone coverage, it does however seem to have quite a few mentions in high quality sources spanning a few years (publications including NYT, Washington Post, NPR, CNN, etc), some of which are recent significant interviews or pieces with staff of the non-profit discussing the organization's work [edit: which are beyond trivial mentions], including:

• Kelly, Mary Louise; Marquez Janse, Alejandra (September 19, 2022). "Why some blame record corporate profits for high prices". NPR.
• Finney, Michael (August 26, 2022). "Inflation or profiteering? Advocacy group says companies raising prices under cover of inflation". ABC 7 News.
• "Mitch Better Have Their Money". Pod Save America. September 13, 2022.
• "Jon Talks Racial Injustice & Inflation". The Problem with Jon Stewart. February 17, 2022.

Searching through Google News for the last year, I see around 20 pages where it appears the majority of news articles are RS. The org also appears to have citations on Google Scholar and Google Books. Given the above, I believe the article generally rises to the level of WP:GNG. Additionally, other organizations that seem to be roughly in the same category of non-profits (liberal economic policy & advocacy) appear alongside this organization (for example, groups listed in these Congressional press releases from Rep. Chuy Garcia or Rep. Katie Porter) have Wikipedia articles, yet appear to lack significant coverage but also have presumably passed the notability threshold, including Take on Wall Street, Small Business Majority and American Economic Liberties Project. With regards to the executive director, I've actually done enough research to create a page for that person, and was looking forward to launching that in the next couple of days. H acton (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The article has potential, and notability through RS's has defninitely been established, but I think that it has some due weight and NPOV inaccuracies. Criticism and negative reception for the subject should be attempted to be found and added if RS's cover it, and part of the article definitely does seem like a bit of an advert. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for the feedback. I've started adding some criticism to the article to ensure it can comply better with a NPOV. Appreciate all the comments to improve it.

H acton (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is additional support for Keeping or Draftifying.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems like a good idea, the creator seems willing to add more sources and further viewpoints. I'd encourage them to continue, this is what keeps wiki alive. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. I have some doubts this subject meets ORG or GNG as lacking direct detailing, though some coverage has been presented. My initial instinct was to delete, but if the page creator is willing to continue with this, I'd prefer them do it out of mainspace, because IMHO it doesn't meet NPOV or NOTE right now, even with improvements presented as of this datestamp. BusterD (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2022 (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.