Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago CRED

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. WP:HEY, it was improved with better sourcing. RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago CRED[edit]

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

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

Local organisation doing some community work in a US city since 2016. Article is based on five sources – two deprecated or questionable sites (mentioned in a YouTube video and on World Socialist Web Site as someone's affiliation), a podcast, an interview of the founder in local TV station, and the organisation's own website. All dated to 2023. Yep.

It is obvious that the article subject falls very far from long-lasting, significant, in-depth coverage required for WP:NCORP and for a global encyclopaedia in general.

Additionally, the article's draft, in an almost identical form (less a couple of weasel buzzwords) was already (rightly) removed from mainspace by Mooonswimmer|.[1] The creator went against that and recreated the article in mainspace. However, given the lack of notability, draftifying may be pointless. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Coverage of this subject includes: (1) a specific profile on The Daily Show, (2) a profile by Slate, (3) coverage in The Economist. The idea that those three sources don't amount to SIGCOV is frankly difficult to reconcile.

It was only after those sources were added and the article redrafted that this was re-added to mainspace.

Gosh, kashmīrī , I hope this is a good faith AfD nom and not made in response to my comment on this RfA. It would be saddening if that were the case. I will take it for now that you are acting in good faith. Jack4576 (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your weird arguments in that AfD, where you directly questioned SIGCOV and other Wikipedia policies, made me take a look at your recent edits – and indeed, it seems that you fail to understand what notability is all about. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh would you look at that, with one Google search I've identified SIGCOV from the Washington Post.

It would be preferable to have AfD editors that understand policy well enough to perform a WP:BEFORE, prior to nom. Its hard to maintain the presumption that you are acting in good faith, if you're not going to bother doing a basic Google prior to an AfD.

On the basis of the WAPO coverage are you willing to withdraw this AfD? Its more than a little sad that this entry for a meaningful local NGO has been caught up in your pettiness. Jack4576 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you come across this in your WP:BEFORE search ? Jack4576 (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Christian Science Monitor Jack4576 (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question The Slate source appears to be an interview with the organization's leader that doesn't really discuss the organization? The Daily Show I can't seem to get to -- fixed deadlinks, tried Wayback, no joy -- but it also looks like an interview with the org leader? The World Socialist and Opera sources appear to be bare mentions? I'm not sure I'm seeing sigcov. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Show interview was an interview with both founders about the org, "on how Chicago CRED is connecting at-risk young men with job training, counseling, and paychecks" (link). Twitter links aren't favoured sources but I think this is good enough to make the point here. I'll add it to the article.

Plus the WAPO coverage that I have just added. Jack4576 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage from the Obama Foundation. Now added. Jack4576 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general we don't consider interviews to count as independent discussion. What we need to see are three instances of sigcov in RS that are independent. Don't get me wrong, this is a great organization, but the sources provided aren't supporting notability. Adding more sources that don't support a claim to notability isn't the answer, what we need to know is which three are sig cov+RS+independent, ideally two of which are from media outside the local area? Valereee (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think SIGCOV is met with the sources already provided, I think that sets the bar way too high.

Where in SIGCOV is it required that there be three sources that are all are sig cov+RS+independent.

The requirements for (1) reliable sources, and (2) significant coverage are separate requirements.

Feel free to disagree in the application of policy, but that is not my interpretation of the wording of GNG. The only other thing I have to say is that deletion of this article would leave the encyclopedia the worse for it. Jack4576 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we have specific attention on this org from the Washington Post, The Obama Foundation, The Daily Show; plus numerous local sources, and SIGCOV is still in question? Really?

What are we waiting for, a front page article from the NYT? Good grief. Jack4576 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for actual articles rather than interviews or bare mentions. We require multiple that are all sig cov+RS+independent; some editors are willing to accept two very good ones. In order to make a subject bulletproof, I try to find three before moving to article space. For the policy see WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Valereee (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your engagement in good faith and thank you sincerely for your contributions to this thread. I've encountered this issue re: 'interviews' before, and honestly I don't understand the hang-up over it.

Surely if the interviewer is of a sufficiently high-profile that ought go some way to establishing that the subject has been significantly covered. I'd understand if it was a bare interview without any depth in a trade magazine; but these are of a sufficiently high profile that an exception to the rule ought to be made.

Anyway, I appreciate that this may be more worthwhile a discussion on the relevant policy page than here. Thanks again. Jack4576 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found an in-depth profile from the Christian Science Monitor. Surely this is conclusive of SIGCOV. Jack4576 (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another source. Jack4576 (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would consider both the CSM and the Giffords sources to be sigcov+RS+independent. Both are outside local media, and I'll take it as given this has been covered in Chicago. Keep. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the amended sourcing, notability criteria for organisations have clearly been met. Schwede 66 18:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY improvements. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page was improved and sourced added or found. could be saved now. --BoraVoro (talk) 06:13, 17 May 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.