Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Italian American 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Italian American Foundation[edit]

[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)

Written like a resume, with very few reliable sources provided. James Richards (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject clearly passes notability. The article can easily be reformed with a bit of rewriting and additional research. At present, it is not so flawed as to warrant deletion rather than keeping with existing tags. This seems like a rather clear-cut case of "keep". Ergo Sum 04:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You say that "the subject clearly passes notability". Can you point to at least 2-3 reliable independent sources which give the subject in-depth coverage? per WP:ORG and WP:MULTSOURCES? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my above comment, I haven't yet seen the evidence of notability. I'll change this if I do. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apples&Manzanas: Some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Ergo Sum 23:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thanks for your reply @Ergo Sum:. Many of those sources don't seem to offer the in-depth coverage required by WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGCRITE and WP:MULTSOURCES. Furthermore, I think many of those sources are not reliable sources. For example: regarding your newsweek source: "post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable" per WP:RSP. Perhaps, for the purpose of better defining this discussion. Could you tell me the two or three sources you think are the best in terms of notability? This way we don't need to debate 9 sources at once, because after all, 2-3 high quality sources are sufficient. Quality matters, not quantity per the ORGDEPTH policy. (But a high quantity of sources can never compensate for the lack high quality sources, when determining notability). Apples&Manzanas (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never got a response, so for the benefit of the closing admin, I think I will definitively declare that it should be deleted on the grounds that I haven't found evidence that it has received (A) significant direct and in-depth coverage from (B) multiple (C) reliable sources. As required by WP:SIRS. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I have been rather preoccupied. Excepting the Newsweek article, I think the remaining 8 are rather self-explanatory, and indicate sufficient coverage; articles are routinely kept with less coverage than this. I leave them there for any others, such as a closing admin, to examine. Ergo Sum 15:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really better if you pointed to what you think are the 3 best sources for the purposes of notability. The relative policies make it very clear that a collection of trivial mentions do count towards notability. A source needs to provide significant coverage in its own right to count towards notability. Each individual source needs to make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization" per WP:ORGDEPTH otherwise it does not count towards notability. There also needs to be multiple sources which each in their own right offer this in-depth coverage (WP:MULTSOURCES,WP:SIRS). In other words, the sources do not 'add up' together, this is made very clear in WP:ORGDEPTH,WP:SIRS,WP:MULTSOURCES...Each source must must offer significant and in-depth coverage in its own right. Look at the examples of what constitutes significant coverage in ORGDEPTH, your sources plainly fail all of those examples. Also note that there is a higher bar applied to proving notability for organizations than the GNG, a higher quality of sources is required to prove notability for organizations per WP:ORGCRITE. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And for whatever it's worth, in addition to newsweek, i also question whether sources 1,3,8 are reliable sources. (And I dont think they offer significant coverage in my opinion either). Apples&Manzanas (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I meant about the Newsweek article: Newsweek is now evaluated on a case by case basis. For this article, I find no indicia of unreliability, and without any such evidence, I see nothing wrong with the article. Ergo Sum 16:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant RFC (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Newsweek_RfC) does say: "Note: This is not a "no consensus" close, because there is clear consensus that Newsweek is not generally reliable post–2013." Regardless, this is irrelevant, because the Newsweek source clearly does not offer anything close to the "significant" and "in-depth" coverage required by reliable sources. And moreover, the relevant policies also make it clear that multiple significant sources are required to prove notability. You didn't respond to what I had said at all. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my comment did not seem responsive. I don't have a whole lot to add beyond what I said above. I believe the 8 articles sufficiently establish notability, when considering the threshold for notability that other articles up for deletion pass. You are welcome to disagree. It appears this will come down to the decision of a closing admin. Ergo Sum 23:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Just so you know, the quantity of sources is irrelevant here see WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:SIRS, the quality of the source is what matters. For a SINGLE source to be considered relevant for the purpose of notability it needs to make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization" per ORGDEPTH. There also needs to be multiple sources which do this and each source must provide this level of significant coverage in its own right, the sources do not 'add up' together and become significant. How can sources which provide one or two sentences worth of coverage make it possible to "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." Remember once again, that for the purposes of establishing notability EACH INDIVIDUAL source needs to make it possible to write more than a stub article. As for you saying that the other 8 sources seem sufficient, I assume you also didn't read me questioning whether 3 of those are actually reliable sources as well...As for you saying, "It appears this will come down to the decision of a closing admin", well...you could make the closing admin's job a lot more easy by simply agreeing that the article fails ORGDEPTH. Wikipedia is meant to work on consensus whereby people change their minds, and I see no valid reason for you not to change your mind here. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apples&Manzanas: I will not change my mind because I reject your reasoning. I'm sorry if you find this inadequate. Please understand that I must refrain from continuing this conversation, as I find it increasingly unproductive. In the nicest way possible, I might suggest you peruse WP:Stick. Ergo Sum 23:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not rejecting my reasoning, you're just rejecting the policies. You should probably just cite "Ignore all rules" as your reasoning. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP, even if Newsweek is counted as a RS, which it isn't. b uidhe 19:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why this was relisted, except maybe as WP:RELISTBIAS. The keep !vote is very weak and the sources provided do not show GNG: 1) is a trivial mention; 2) is a transcript from a speech given at a gala (not an independent source); 3) is run of the mill coverage of a charity being charity; etc... Unless someone bothers to point if any of these sources actually supports notability, this should be deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:11, 3 July 2020 (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.