Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hospitality House

Add links
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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitality House

Hospitality House (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)

nonnotable local agency, no refs to show notability. the only references provided are an OP ED in a local paper, by the org, and the orgs website. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 01:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I myself don't immediately find any direct connection to
Summer of love young people coming to San Francisco, within its article about the arts program. Substantial coverage, obvious notability. --doncram 10:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
This is an AFD. "AFD is not for cleanup" is an expression per many, and there's no requirement for the current article to have any sources at all, even. Simply, the topic meets
wp:GNG, as multiple reliable sources solely or substantially about the organization are known to exist, have been given by me. "Supposed links"??? Sorry the Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, Oakland Tribune articles about the organization are not online as far as i know, and sorry that you don't have convenient access to them. Since you ask, i'll put in on my to-do list to use the off-line material to develop this article a bit within a few weeks (and feel free to follow up with me at my Talk page), but that is NOT necessary for decision on this AFD. For now, call for closure: obvious KEEP. --doncram 12:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
its not an obvious keep, and it is entirely necessary to provide references to show notability. its true, if nothing exists online, thats a problem. If you can find offline references that are substantially about the org, then the article can be recreated without prejudice. you already have called for keep, you dont need to say "keep" with each comment, and you DONT get to call for closure. and i never said this was about cleanup. i was saying that if you say there is a source, and dont add it to the article, and dont add it here, then where is it? even if listed here, we could close as keep and someone could add your ref to article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • article 1: [2] trivial coverage
  • article 2: [3] reprint of examiner article, very short piece, examiner not considered all that reliable any more
  • article 3: not online due to age (1988)
  • article 4: [4], possibly originally at Tribune, though also possibly here first. decent coverage.

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - one problem with verifying facts is that there are many similarly-named organizations, including Albany NY, Charlotte NC, and Anchorage AK. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added more information (the article was a two-sentence stub) and four references from major sources. Clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dont believe the new information and sources added show notability. this seems like a
    WP:BLP1E for an organization, a homeless man running gives them a headline. God, i must sound like such a hardass, trying to get this deleted. honestly, im not. i actually work in this general field, in this region, and am open to it being a notable org.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
In the nomination you said "the only references provided are an OP ED in a local paper, by the org, and the orgs website". Now that's no longer true; there are now multiple references in the article from national and international independent sources. But without missing a beat you changed your deletion rationale to BLP1E, without any acknowledgment that your earlier objections have been met. And before that you dismissed doncram's multiple articles from major national sources which are obviously and significantly about this organization, rejecting them because they aren't available online (which is not a requirement for a source) and sneering at them as "supposed links" (aren't we supposed to AGF about offline sources?). One wonders what it would take to get you to acknowledge notability. --MelanieN (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources which cover the subject in depth, and which are primarily about the subject, and show the subjects notability. most of the refs provided are about the runner, not about the organization itself. Yes, we have more refs. my original concern is no longer valid. we have at least 1 reliable source which mentions the organization objectively. but its still trival coverage, mostly secondary to the runner/artist, and shows only that its a small nonprofit, like the thousands of others in the bay area which dont have articles for the same reason. I assumed good faith and researched doncrams refs, and found them online (I may have used too long a search string initially when searching for refs, my error). i didnt add them to article, but provided them here. I am reading each new ref in its entirety, and i HOPE that enough refs can be found. I also wont object if this is kept based on what is now shown-its marginal at best, but i suppose marginal can go either way. thanks to all for the hard work involved.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to respond to the repeated claim that most of the coverage is about the runner: Right now the article contains 11 references, of which nine are independent sources. Four of those nine independent references are about the runner. Four out of nine is not "most". --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have added to the article the three references provided by doncram that I could get online access to. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:HEY. The sources were reports over several days or even years, from reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hospitality_House&oldid=1137916408"