Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newark Pride Alliance

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. There is enough consensus to conclude that they the subject is not notable JForget 00:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Pride Alliance[edit]

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

Delete - lack of independent reliable sources which offer significant coverage of the organization itself. To examine the sources offered as supporting notability, the 2007 New York Times article is about the general subject of gay life in Newark and includes a couple of statements from a NPA co-founder. The 2004 NYT article simply mentions the organization's name. The Advocate article (here linked in its entirety rather than the pay-per-view link in the article) is an interview with an NPA co-founder which mentions NPA in one sentence. These are typical of the coverage of the group in reliable sources, mentions of it and quotes from its representatives, which do not pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Disputed PROD. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Two Times and an Advocate article sound like good sources to me. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is for deletion, so "keep per nom" doesn't make sense. Please read the proffered sources. They do not establish the notability of the organization per WP:ORG ("quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization" do not establish the notability of the organization) and WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" establish notability). Two of the three sources only mention the group's name and the third merely includes quotes from a group organizer. Per the plain text of the relevant guidelines these cannot establish the notability of the group. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not provide anything approaching significant coverage. The important material in the article is wholly unsourced and is at best original research.. Lionel (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Lionel (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a group that was created in Newark, New Jersey, following the 2003 murder of Sakia Gunn, and any notability that it has outside of the area is only in conjunction with that crime. That it is covered in the New York Times is of no significance whatsoever; there's a difference between the national news aspect of the NYT, carried onward by its news service to other papers, and the local news for subscribers in the city, in Long Island, and in Jersey. Mandsford 15:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they may indeed be a group with a just cause, but that doesn't make them notable, at least not without significant media coverage. None of the cited sources are about this group.--Kudpung (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2010 (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.