Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Mosaic

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. No views in favour of deletion bar the nominator. Sufficient consensus to keep. Michig (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Family Mosaic

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

PROD apparently with the basis of adding three sources but these sources are nowhere near convincing of substance and significance as they are simply local news stories; I still confirm everything from my PROD. Regardless, any additional coverage is only going to be for local news stories and events. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I were able to find quite the number of articles about the association, mostly negative criticism: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and so on. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, comparing this along with he article's current sources, it's all simply trivial of even it's all local coverage or local events and such; it's a considerably thin article if all we have are stories like these. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you define thinness, but if I get these articles to vomit their innards onto the controversies section; it'll be meaty alright. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Also meets WP:AUD per non-local coverage, such as in BBC News and The Guardian. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Lunn, Emma (October 3, 2014). "Housing association residents 'cut off from heating five months of the year'". The Guardian. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
"'Ignored' Family Mosaic tenant hurt in ceiling collapse". BBC News. March 30, 2015. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
Bartholomew, Emma (March 31, 2015). "Family Mosaic accused of 'breaching values'". Hackney Gazette. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
McKay, Jessica (March 14, 2015). "Housing company makes support workers homeless". Hackney Post. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
"Rat infestation causes misery for housing association tenants". Times. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
"Care company transfers contract after two years". Bexhill Observer. March 18, 2016. Retrieved July 30, 2016.
Hopps, Kat (June 8, 2016). "Stratford families 'annoyed' with housing association employees for taking their parking bays". Newham Recorder. Retrieved July 30, 2016.

Again, all of those links are trivial coverage for trivial events only people at those communities would care about; for example, the BBC is only for a roof collapse, that's not substance for Wikipedia and then, the Guardian is only for troubles with the local heating. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per a review of the sources and further addition of a few {{Cite book}}s: subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH. The claim that all of those links are trivial coverage is untrue, cf. Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I myself am simply still not seeing anything actually better. I would like to hear DGG's analysis as I trust his insight. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain There's several interesting questions: 1/, whether the coverage of local events in a national news source published in that city or emphasizing that city is local or national coverage--I cannot see an absolute rule either way. 2/ And the BBC reference is not BBC-England, but BBC-London, a specifically local edition. It is very common for BBC refs in WP that are using the local or regional editions not to specify, and that's misleading. (this is true for other national services also), 3/ whether extensive local coverage might overcome the fact that the coverage is only local.4/ It is also not quite reasonable to expect an organization of this sort to get coverage outside of its home city. In some types of institutions we often accept this, in some types of institutions not. 5/ The effect of the POV problems from not including the negative information, but we do have a policy of not going into details about customer complaints, because they just count as anecdotes--news services customarily use anecdotes in writing stories, but encyclopedias do not. 6/ Whether we should take into account the size of the organization or the number of people served. I'd have no hesitation saying "delete" if it had been a single block of flats, not a system. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – For more evidence of meeting WP:AUD, below is an additional source from The Guardian, a national newspaper, that provides 4 ¶ of content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ivory, Mark (October 14, 2015). "Housing associations bid to ease the pressure on the NHS". the Guardian. Retrieved July 31, 2016.

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.