Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ItStartsWithUs

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ItStartsWithUs

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

Article about an organization, based almost entirely on primary source referencing to directly affiliated member organizations with virtually no evidence of reliable source coverage. The only source here that counts for anything at all is Indian Country Today (#10), which isn't enough sourcing to carry a WP:GNG claim by itself -- otherwise, this claims to have "media" coverage which is actually blogs and podcasts, not reliable sources. Wikipedia does not exempt activist organizations or their projects from our reliable sourcing requirements just because they do good work -- something like this has to have a range of media coverage that clears WP:ORGDEPTH, and does not get to park its notability on blogs and podcasts and its own self-published content about itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVOCACY; unsourced or self-cited original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, I can't find a single reason to keep this article. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2017 (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.