Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeast Kingdom Community Action

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 no consensus. !Votes split 2:2 with extensive commenting; consensus seems unlikely, having already been relisted twice. Both 'sides' seem to believe the other is talking past them. At any rate, some respondents seem to now be actively maintaining the article and trying to WP:HEY it. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Kingdom Community Action[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)

DePRODded out of the belief that government should have articles, which I don't necessarily disagree with. There's no evidence that this social service agency is part of the government, although it receives grants. They do good work, but I can find no evidence they are notable. There's some discussion on Talk about how/why it grew beyond a stub, which is part of the larger issue. There doesn't appear to be enough significant coverage on which to build an article. StarM 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has dozens of footnotes. Remember, this is not people! I agree with nominator that it is not famous. It is, however, part of normal government in Vermont, smaller than some and larger than others. I actually first generated article in an effort to discover where money comes from to run the government. Vermont is too small and too generous to produce it's own money for everything! Having two senators for 650,000 people is a major help. They manage to get pork in nearly every bill they vote for! (All small rural states the same).

Article documents one aspect of Vermont economy, villages another. Many villages are smaller, but still remain even though there is nothing notable about them, nor has there ever been. If this is deleted, editors will have to come up with criteria for which government agencies get documented. Only those with scandals? Riots? What percentage of motor vehicle offices have those? How many Secretaries of Labor? etc. If I were looking for articles to delete, try garage bands! (And good luck there!) About 90% of music "entertainment" is not notable. (About the same as government, I suppose). But at least, entertainment is voluntary, I don't have to listen to it. I have to pay for government which is why it shouldn't be secret! Student7 (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's all well and good re: governmental information, but that isn't Wikipedia's role even if this were a governmental agency. [I don't touch bands, they're only slightly less contentious than schools.] StarM 00:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first, it's not a government agency, it's a non-profit organization. And as such it must pass WP:ORGDEPTH. While it does get some local coverage it does not pass ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Community action agencies are government agencies in Vermont, including NEKCA. See Vermont Department for Children and Families. I have added some additional news coverage and updated the leadership information, and will add this clarifying information. Beccaynr (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, per WP:AUD, "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary," and this now appears to be met with the addition of a news story from The Associated Press to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While community action agencies are listed on the DCF website for reference, and do receive some public funding, they are not themselves governmental agencies. NEKCA's own website lists their private board of directors and leadership team - none of whom are State employees in these roles. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the clarifications I made to the article was the wikilink to Community Action Agencies, which I hope helps clarify the governmental functions performed by the agency. The majority of their funding is from the federal government, and I have also added a source for that. Based on the updates I have been making to the article, I hope it is more clear that they implement and administer a variety of state and federal government programs in a rural area with limited social services, which is what these types of agencies are designed to do. Also, per the Wikipedia article on Community Action Agencies, the Board of Directors is designed by federal statute. Beccaynr (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While they do excellent work for the community, the organization simply does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. The vast majority of references are to either the organization's own website, or local newspapers - neither of which helps to establish notability as per Wikipedia's standards. And as was discussed above, they are not a governmental agency; they simply receive some public funding, and work closely with some state-level governmental agencies. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted above, NEKCA operates as a government agency, and WP:MULTSOURCES have now been added to the article, including two from the Associated Press and one from outside the NEK region. It also appears that the Caledonian Record could be considered a regional, not local, newspaper, as noted in the Northeast Kingdom article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To help clarify the issue of the governmental functions of NEKCA, I have added the Executive Order by Vermont Governor Snelling that created NEKCA to the article. I have also added more news coverage, including commentary published in VTDigger to support notability. I had previously created and have also continued to expand the Awards section of the article, which also supports notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, in light of the additions to the article and per WP:ORGDEPTH, which states, "For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership," the article now includes two sources (The Caledonian-Record and Barton Chronicle) that discuss major changes in leadership at NEKCA, as well as a 2019 Associated Press interview with NEKCA employees, a 2019 interview with a new NEKCA Parent Child Center director published by The Caledonian-Record, a 2009 Rutland Herald profile of a former NEKCA employee, and a 2012 profile of NEKCA that includes interviews with NEKCA employees and was originally published in The Caledonian-Record and then reprinted in edited form by VTDigger in 2013. Beccaynr (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2021 (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.