Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homes for the Homeless (2nd nomination)

Source: 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. Of note is that while some commentary has dismissed some of the sources as not being usable to establish notability, overall consensus, relative to the overall strengths of the arguments and overall commentary presented herein is for the article to be retained. For example, a user dismissed one of the sources as unusable to establish notability, but then later !voted for the article to be kept, using a guideline-based rationale. The nominator also questioned the sources in a blanket statement, but did not provide analysis of each individual source. Conversely, while AfD is not a vote or vote count, a satisfactory amount of users have stated that there are enough usable reliable sources that provide independent, significant coverage to satisfy notability requirements, countering the nomination for deletion. North America1000 06:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homes for the Homeless

Homes for the Homeless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet

WP:NCORP
. The argument and references presented in the prior AfD fails to demonstrate that this organization has been the subject of multiple, reliable, significantly independent, in-depth secondary coverage by wide audience media coverage, per the notability requirements for organizations and companies.

The "book" cited was a court proceeding/publication, which is a document of public processes, not a secondary coverage. Some of the reliable sources that mention this thing only do so in passing. I recommend deletion. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC) I cleared out some things in the article and the sources, because while those sources were reliable and what they said, they were generic comments about homelessness that doesn't relate to the organization and doesn't have contextual connection. Graywalls (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC(talk) 23:17, 15 May 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.