Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extra Mile Education Foundation

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, default to Keep. Walton^One 11:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Mile Education Foundation

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY - this is just a small Pittsburgh educational foundation. Rd232 ^talk 12:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does contain two independent sources. One is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which covers the foundation in detail. The other is Charity Navigator, and I'm not sure whether that counts as reliable. Charity Navigator appears to have appropriate editorial oversight, but I don't know if there's a wider Wikipedia policy regarding Charity Navigator. There is at least one other small mention of the foundation in the Post Gazette, and Media Matters has a page on it. The foundation is also featured in the newspaper Pittsburgh Catholic although both the newspaper and the foundation seem to be owned by the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh. Overall, I think there's probably enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, even though the article clearly needs a cleanup. YardsGreen (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has exactly 1 (one) non-trivial reliable source which is independent of the subject (2007 Pittsburgh Gazette article). The links you mention are trivial or not independent of the subject (and Media Matters is clearly scraping CharityNavigator, and neither provides even the most trivial of descriptions of the subject). Rd232 ^talk 16:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that Media Matters is scraping Charity Navigator. Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see the Media Matters information anywhere in the Charity Navigator page. There is also quite a lot of basic information in Charity Navigator that it would be odd for Media Matters to not include if they were scraping the Charity Navigator page. Moreover, reliable sources are not limited to textual descriptions of the subject. A page with statistical and financial information on a subject is a legitimate source for establishing notability, provided that the source otherwise meets the standards of WP:RS. I believe that Charity Navigator does meet these standards. If you disagree, please be specific in giving your reason(s) why. For the Media Matters source, I can't find anything at [1] that describes their editorial policy, so I don't know whether they should be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. But the article already has at least two non-trivial, independent reliable sources. YardsGreen (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is only one non-trivial independent source relevant for notability: the 2007 Gazette article. The others are mere directory entries, or not independent, or trivial. CharityNavigator's description of the foundation, BTW, is taken from the foundation [2]. Rd232 ^talk 19:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - From WP:SOURCES: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I believe that Charity Navigator satisfies this requirement. Once again, reliable sources are not limited to textual descriptions, and there is far more information at the Charity Navigator page than just the textual description (probably enough, in my opinion, to satisfy WP:GNG). You are ignoring all non-textual information at this source. You may legitimately disagree that a source is reliable, but it is not legitimate to claim so because the source's information is not in the textual format you would prefer. YardsGreen (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Additional source Note that there is a second Gazette article. The article's topic is a reorganization of schools to which the foundation is connected, and the article provides details on the foundation and the schools. The two non-trivial Gazette articles, the Charity Navigator page and the Media Matters page are enough to establish notability. YardsGreen (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well I guess we'll just have to agree to differ. To me this doesn't amount to a hill of beans; it's a local foundation which doesn't even provide services, just raises money and passes it on; it's got some local newspaper coverage and a couple of directory entries (it's probably in the phone book too...). I suppose if a reasonable merge target were suggested, that might be an option, but it's just not independently meriting an entry, for me. Rd232 ^talk 22:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does seem to fail to have the sources necessary to establish notability. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 05:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in my book see:
- Gregory A. Morris; et al. (2000). "Listening to Student: Voices from the Inner City". Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice. 4 (1). Chesnut Hill, MA: Boston College Roche Center for Catholic Education: 7. Retrieved 2011-01-24.
- Preserving a Critical National Asset America’s Disadvantaged Students and the Crisis in Faith-based Urban Schools (PDF) (Report). The White House Domestic Policy Council. September 2008. p. 31. Retrieved 2011-01-24.{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: year (link) --Mike Cline (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2011 (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.