Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Signals Network (2nd nomination)

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. ^Complex/_Rational 18:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signals Network

AfDs for this article:

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

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is offered here, merely incidental mentions in news stories about cases in which the organisation has played a role. It therefore fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and California. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sourcing is there, including the Congressional site that explains it. Whistleblower support organizations. Most whistle blowers never make the news, so there would not be "significant coverage". And the media is only interested in the big stories, not the everyday average type. Whistleblowers probably would not come forward if they knew their identity would be in the news. i.e., Mark Felt was the whistleblower known as Deep Throat, but his identity was kept secret until he was near death. Signals is one of many such whistleblower organizations that work with the United States Congress, to encourage and assist individuals who wish to provide the government with reports and evidence of corporate misconduct and human rights abuses. The Activities (cases) listed in the article certainly do have independent sourcing. — Maile (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - There is enough coverage of the group as the article stands to keep it. Wistleblower organizations are not the type to have large profiles written about them, which is why there is a lack of profiles written about them. — Let'srun (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ORG. Besides the refs already included, here is coverage in The Daily Telegraph and also in the Los Angeles Times. APK whisper in my ear 06:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the first author of the article I'm not sure if I can vote for it to keep, but I can explain why I think it deserves a dedicated page. In the category 'Whisteblower support organisations' there are other similar organisations that have a dedicated page like [POGO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_On_Government_Oversight) and [GAP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Project), some with more activities and other with less, so I think it makes sense for Signals Network to have the dedicated page as well. Also the wikipedia article only includes the most known cases that The Signals Network worked, that have public references from independent sources, but probably there are more to be added. Sidorela Uku (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2023 (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.