Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missing (awareness campaign)

Add links
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. ✗plicit 11:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing (awareness campaign)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Missing (awareness campaign) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per the maintenance tags, this article is mainly a promotional piece for this organization. Appears to be a worthy cause, but not particularly notable. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week Keep I agree that it does look like WP:NONPROFIT is satisfied. However, the article is pretty cringeworthy and suffers from being mostly promotional material, as pointed out above. It needs work. As an example - under "History" we hear about someone named "Leena" whose work as a photographer is emphasized. Who's Leena? Well, in the infobox we see that Leena Kejriwal is the founder. That information belongs in the body of the article, not buried in the infobox. I could go on...it's just badly written and poorly structured. But there probably should be a page for it; I had heard of this campaign independently before coming here. KeeYou Flib (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Almost all of the sources are about a single public art campaign, and much of the article is unreferenced. There is very little about the organization that is referenced, so unless I missed something I don't see wp:nonprofit being fulfilled. The game gets some attention although I don't know if Gamesauce is a good source - I can't find anything on their site about writers nor editorial policy. Is it a blog? They don't say. It is possible that if all of the unreferenced material was removed there could be enough about the public art campaign and the game to keep, but I don't see enough about the organization itself. Lamona (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the identification of multiple in-depth reliable sources covering the organization over 8 years, including a documentary, cleaning up the article appears to be a surmountable problem. And WikiProject Video games offers a list of sources established as reliable in the field of video gaming per past consensus, and it includes Eurogamer and VentureBeat, which are cited in this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sourcing is far from the only problem here. The whole article reads like a press release (WP:ADVOCACY), which is even cited in policy as one of the most common reasons for deletion. "Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion is a last resort. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved, and based on the sources in the article at the time of the nomination and identified in this discussion, it seems clear that this article can be improved with information from the sources. If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. For this article, multiple independent and reliable sources exist that cover this organization over a sustained period of time, so even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Beccaynr (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the subject is notable, I don't believe this article can be improved in its current form. It needs to be rewritten from the ground up. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:HEY, the article has been rewritten, with sources in the article at the time of the nomination more clearly incorporated, and information from sources identified in this discussion added, which helps show the history of the organization, multiple art campaigns that have received coverage over time, as well as the development of the video game, other projects of the organization, and its awards. Beccaynr (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the article has been improved. KeeYou Flib (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That (the link to WP:TNT) is a link to an essay, not policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Reported on by BBC...won a Thompson Reuters Foundation award...seems notable to me. CT55555 (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The organization won the Stop Slavery Award, a Thompson Reuters Foundation award. I also noticed significant coverage in several different newspapers. The article was improved. It still has promotional features, but nothing serious enough to warrant deletion. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beccaynr and found enough siginificant coverage about the topic. Jeni Wolf (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Missing_(awareness_campaign)&oldid=1077074728"