Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homes for the Homeless (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. Of note is that while some commentary has dismissed some of the sources as not being usable to establish notability, overall consensus, relative to the overall strengths of the arguments and overall commentary presented herein is for the article to be retained. For example, a user dismissed one of the sources as unusable to establish notability, but then later !voted for the article to be kept, using a guideline-based rationale. The nominator also questioned the sources in a blanket statement, but did not provide analysis of each individual source. Conversely, while AfD is not a vote or vote count, a satisfactory amount of users have stated that there are enough usable reliable sources that provide independent, significant coverage to satisfy notability requirements, countering the nomination for deletion. North America1000 06:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homes for the Homeless

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Homes for the Homeless (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)

Fails to meet WP:NCORP. The argument and references presented in the prior AfD fails to demonstrate that this organization has been the subject of multiple, reliable, significantly independent, in-depth secondary coverage by wide audience media coverage, per the notability requirements for organizations and companies.

The "book" cited was a court proceeding/publication, which is a document of public processes, not a secondary coverage. Some of the reliable sources that mention this thing only do so in passing. I recommend deletion. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC) I cleared out some things in the article and the sources, because while those sources were reliable and what they said, they were generic comments about homelessness that doesn't relate to the organization and doesn't have contextual connection. Graywalls (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment are those items in the list automatically populated from phrase search? Appearing in a list of "organizations to contact" that lists out numerous businesses don't count towards notability. WP:NCORP is the more appropriate standard for companies and non-profits, because this is a category that is especially prone to promotional and public relations editing. See WP:ORGCRIT. "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals"Graywalls (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see lots more sources found. What's with this? We just went through the process, got it up to WP:HEY, it was nominated a second time, and then more sources were found. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability can be found. From the list posted by Cunard above, references 1, 3 and 5 (didn't bother to check any others) are satisfactory. Topic is notable, meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 13:50, 21 May 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Homes_for_the_Homeless_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=958160200"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homes for the Homeless (2nd nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.