Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition for economic survival
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Coalition for economic survival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails WP:ORG - no references in secondary sources Philip Trueman (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment their site seems to have a bunch of what appear to be reliable sources (such as Tme magazine). If these are legit, sourcing should be possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have made myself clearer. I'm not suggesting that it isn't mentioned at all, but that what mentions there are fail "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." In every reference I've seen so far, the coverage is of something else, and reference to this organisation is incidental - it's always one among several people or organisations quoted on whatever the actual subject of the reference is about. I don't see that that can be enough to establish notability. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, but come on... Google News has over 300 articles at least mentioning the group, and it brings nearly 200 Google books hits as well. If even 1% of those constitute non-trivial coverage, that would be enogh for an article. It seems fundamentally illogical that something could attract that much mainstream media attention and still be non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But if there were even a few press articles about the organisation itself, rather than just mentioning it in passing, wouldn't you expect them to be highlighted on the organisation's site? I've formed the impression of a fundamentally non-notable organisation, one among many other fundamentally non-notable organisations, desperate to raise its profile by getting itself mentioned as often as possible. Let's not confuse quantity with quality. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a couple of sources that may make the organization more notable. One is testimoney given by Larry Gross to a House of Representatives Sub Committee(http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/070103lg.pdf). The other is an LA Times article from 1986 that discusses the work done by CES (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/58565413.html?dids=58565413:58565413&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+30%2C+1986&author=STEPHEN+BRAUN&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+). The LA Times article is archived, but the abstract is free. --Renor321 (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was really hoping that these would be good enough - it's always better to rescue an article than delete it. But the headline in the LA Times abstract calling CES a "Fringe Group" does not help, and the testimony by Larry Gross, while unimpeachable as a source, does not really cover CES - what it tells us that the issues that concern CES concern legislators enough to hear Gross' views. Giving evidence before a such a committee once wouldn't (IMHO) be enough to establish notability for Gross, and I don't see that it establishes notability for CES. Given that "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered", I don't see that notability has been established. If CES were a national organisation, then certainly, but as it is, no. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The full LA Times article discusses the rise of CES from fringe group to West Hollywood power broker. I have a PDF scan of the original if that helps. Further, the longevity of the organization, the pivotal role it played in the formation of the city of West Hollywood and the continuing activities of the organization within Los Angeles, should, in my opinion, establish some notability for CES. --Renor321 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was really hoping that these would be good enough - it's always better to rescue an article than delete it. But the headline in the LA Times abstract calling CES a "Fringe Group" does not help, and the testimony by Larry Gross, while unimpeachable as a source, does not really cover CES - what it tells us that the issues that concern CES concern legislators enough to hear Gross' views. Giving evidence before a such a committee once wouldn't (IMHO) be enough to establish notability for Gross, and I don't see that it establishes notability for CES. Given that "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered", I don't see that notability has been established. If CES were a national organisation, then certainly, but as it is, no. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a couple of sources that may make the organization more notable. One is testimoney given by Larry Gross to a House of Representatives Sub Committee(http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/070103lg.pdf). The other is an LA Times article from 1986 that discusses the work done by CES (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/58565413.html?dids=58565413:58565413&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+30%2C+1986&author=STEPHEN+BRAUN&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+). The LA Times article is archived, but the abstract is free. --Renor321 (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But if there were even a few press articles about the organisation itself, rather than just mentioning it in passing, wouldn't you expect them to be highlighted on the organisation's site? I've formed the impression of a fundamentally non-notable organisation, one among many other fundamentally non-notable organisations, desperate to raise its profile by getting itself mentioned as often as possible. Let's not confuse quantity with quality. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, but come on... Google News has over 300 articles at least mentioning the group, and it brings nearly 200 Google books hits as well. If even 1% of those constitute non-trivial coverage, that would be enogh for an article. It seems fundamentally illogical that something could attract that much mainstream media attention and still be non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have made myself clearer. I'm not suggesting that it isn't mentioned at all, but that what mentions there are fail "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." In every reference I've seen so far, the coverage is of something else, and reference to this organisation is incidental - it's always one among several people or organisations quoted on whatever the actual subject of the reference is about. I don't see that that can be enough to establish notability. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This 1500-word article in the LA Times is largely about this group and one other. this one says "Coalition for Economic Survival endorsement is crucial in a city where most people rent and a third are senior citizens" when discussing an election. They're just a couple that I picked out from the first 10 of over 300 google News hits. Looking at the 96 Google Books hits I find within a few minutes all of these sources that devote at leaset a paragraph or two each to the organisation and refer to its importance. That's more than enough to show notability (especially taken along with Renor's LA Times find) in just a few minutes of searching. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Phil Bridger and his finds.--chaser - t 02:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Google search of ""Coalition for economic survival" site:.gov", 17 unique results [1] shows the organization as a party in state and federal legal venues. Novickas (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2008 (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.