Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vermont Council on Rural Development

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. Or no consensus, take your pick. Sandstein 21:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Council on Rural Development (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)

NGOs have a hard time meeting WP:NORG/GNG and this is not an exception. The article is primarily sourced to organization website and press releases. The NGO has some presence in media, but the news coverage is not about them, but about some initiatives they are involved in (ex. like this news piece from Vermont Public Radio) or comment on. I am not seeing how this NGO passes NORG, but I am happy to hear policy-grounded counterarguments. Or see better sources, all I am seeing are press releases and mentions in passing, nothing seems in-depth, independent and reliable (BEFORE was done in news, books and scholar; there are quite a few googlehits since they are a publisher too and are being cited). I can't think of a good redirect target, either. Frankly, as I said years ago on NORG, we should rewrite that guideline to be more permissive for NGOS, but since that didn't happen, I don't see what makes this org notable in the light of our current policies (NORG/GNG). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep really? 7 source, 4 of which are from the principle regional new sources, about a government sponsored agency, that is fundamental to the economic development of Vermont? This is harrasment by Piotrus: I have been commenting on deletion discussions, and suggesting that he is over applying a number of policies in order to try to enforce an unreal -- there is no other way that he would have found this unless he was stalking my new article creations. This is a clearly notable government sponsored body within Vermont, that place a vital role in the rural community -- this is outrageous, Sadads (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NEXIST. I think that the nominator's statement "The NGO has some presence in media, but the news coverage is not about them, but about some initiatives they are involved in" is not compelling; naturally news coverage about an organization is going to focus on the initiatives they're involved in. In addition to the sources currently on the page, I found the following newspaper sources:
  • "Council encourages Wilmington residents to set priorities" by Erin George, The Brattleboro Reformer (March 13, 2001)
  • "Creative economy works in Vermont", editorial, The Burlington Free Press (April 15, 2006)
  • "Getting creative with economics" by Lauren Ober, The Burlington Free Press (April 29, 2006)
  • "Group thinks into the future" by Paul Costello and Sarah Waring (op-ed by the VCRD Executive Director and the VCRD Program Director of the Council on the Future of Vermont, Rutland Daily Herald (Dec 30, 2007)
  • "Vermont's quiet crisis: Why we need an action plan for the working landscape" by Paul Costello, Rutland Daily Herald (Dec 26, 2010)
  • "Creating a climate economy" by Jon Copans (op-ed by the director of the Climate Economy Model Communities Program at the VCRD), Rutland Daily Herald (March 3, 2017)

This is "local news coverage" in the sense that it's all in Vermont, but it's three different newspapers, and an organization that focuses on a specific state will get news coverage within the state. I believe that this demonstrates notability. I added the sources to the article in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use these as resources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Please note, however, that op-eds and editorials usually don't carry much weight for notability (WP:N). Could you highlight two or three of those that carry the most significant news coverage? Jlevi (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, these are news coverage and not op-eds: "Council encourages Wilmington residents to set priorities" (Brattleboro Reformer, 2001); "Getting creative with economics" (Burlington Free Press, 2006); "Group thinks into the future" (Rutland Daily Herald, 2007). — Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But neither of them discusses the organization much, it is just a brief report on some of their activities (holding rallies, supporting local businesses, etc.). We don't have a single source that goes beyond local news coverage (town level or so) that's more than 'local NGO does some nice stuff'. No source that would discuss the org in-depth, call it important and historical, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for basically the same reasons that the pigs... oinked? Here are a few more: https://www.vermontbiz.com/news/2020/january/02/vcrd-launches-climate-catalysts-leadership-program; https://www.reformer.com/stories/community-action-plan-advances-to-next-stage,596733; https://www.rutlandherald.com/news/local/vermont-council-on-rural-development-gathers-leaders-at-castleton/article_d1f529d9-64be-53f1-a7e4-f8f96a2c73a3.html; https://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/climate-leadership-program-launched,594376? https://vermontjournal.com/featured-articles/council-on-rural-development-gives-rockingham-task-forces-a-start/; That's plenty. --GRuban (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As a side note, the nominator's stance that they don't actually support the rule that they are using to nominate this article for deletion is ... troubling. We're supposed to not be a bureaucracy, and to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules when they would stand in the way of improving the encyclopedia. Inspector Javert is not supposed to be a role model at all, much less ours.--GRuban (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of those (very local, too) "sources" are effectively press releases or their rewrites (ex. [1] is 3/4 quoted direct PR; [2] is just a mirror)... plus, they generally don't cover the organization in-depth. They don't discuss when it was founded, its significance, milestones in development, etc. They are little better than WP:GOOGLEHITS. [3] is WP:INTERVIEW and as such not considered sufficient for establishing notability, since it is not independent. Those sources are quite low quality. Sorry, they org is doing a nice volunteer work, I respect them, but I still don't see how they meet NORG/GNG. If I missed something, if one of those sources is in-depth and independent, please be specific which one (and please quote, a lot of this stuff is paywalled). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 12 March 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.