Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Trends

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Child Trends[edit]

Article appears to be self-promotion, subject is not notable Dr.enh (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources = nonnotable. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Child Trends claims to be "the nation’s only independent research and policy center focused exclusively on improving outcomes for children." [1] And a Google search will show that they are just what they say they are. Child Trends is extensively and authortatively cited in newspaper articles, academic journals and government publications. Here are some of the papers which cited Child Trends research just in the last 7 months: USA Today, Reuters, Huffington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Record, Slate, The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine.[2] Child Trends not only makes the news when one of it's reports is cited, merely releasing a new research report is newsworthy. [3][4] The database which Child Trends maintains is comprehensive and impressive [5]. One of their researchers, Jennifer Manlove, when Googled with Child Trends generates 1950 hits. WP may not think Child Trends is notable, but anyone doing research on children knows who they are. Lionelt (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the current stub is a mess, but there are lots of WP:RS, see [6], available. Rescue and fix. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: provided that more reliable sources are added. South Bay (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Lionelt. Iowateen (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article still has no reliable sources, and using Bearian's sources, the article would have to be pruned back drastically. --Dr.enh (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So prune it back. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you really want me to. The article now contains one sourced line: "Child Trends nonprofit organization.[1]" --Dr.enh (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Without the unsourced material, the article consists of a single line: "Child Trends nonprofit organization.[1]" --Dr.enh (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources above have more info than that one sentence. The official site can be used for info also, but not towards notability. You shouldn't have done anything to the article. We all know that you want the article deleted because you are the one that nominated it. Iowateen (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have undid your edits. Iowateen (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user:Dr.enh edit [7] is an amazing and wanton act of vandalism.

I don't know if this is relevant, but I am engaged in an edit war with Dr.enh at the Traditional marriage movement article. The subject of the conflict is the reliability of Child Trends as a source. He's deleting the Child Trends cite, I'm restoring it. I reported him on WP:AN3. Lionelt (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iowateen, what info do the sources above beyond the fact that Child Trends is a nonprofit? --Dr.enh (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.enh, on 7/9/09 you nom. this article for deletion. When the consensus started to go against you, you blanked the article on 7/16. [8] You may claim you were only taking Bearnian's suggestion to "prune it back," but it was obviously an act of intentional vandalism. Considering you have no intention of improving the article, you should withdraw your nom. forthwith. At the very least, you should recuse yourself from this discussion. Lionelt (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article still has no reliable sources. I added the only reliable source to the article, and it was immediately removed. The person who removed it restored unsourced material, in violation of WP:BURDEN --Dr.enh (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm tired of you twisting the guidelines, vandalizing the article, and lying about the amount of reliable sources and info. Note:I am Iowateen. I had a username change. Joe Chill (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no need for your WP:CIVIL uncivil language, but there is a need for you to back up your aguments. Can you find a WP:RS reliable secondary source for anything in the article, beyond the fact that Child Trends is a nonprofit? If so, why have you not cited it? --Dr.enh (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not uncivil because it is the truth (your edits relating to Child Trends proves it). I'm not the only person that said that also. The sources above like this have info about their reports. The reports can be added to the article and summarized because info about the reports appeared in many reliable sources. I didn't need to give you evidence because Lionelt already did. Joe Chill (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems very widely used as an authoritative source. See the entire GNewsArchive search [9] I agree that's not a secondary source, but it seems convincing. If this needs IAR,then IAR. DGG (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having a lack of reliable sources. A nonnotable organization is a nonnotable organization, whether it promotes a noble cause or not. Them From Space 05:05, 20 July 2009 (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.