Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheCommunity.com

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. Seems like there is no evidence that the org itself is notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheCommunity.com

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

Promotional in nature. References are given to coverage not related to the article. Nothing significant or notable so far about the website to be here. Article goes on writing about coverage. Not notable. Light21 07:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing about the site itself or why it's noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Influential organization that organizes Nobel laureates and other public figures into notable petition drives. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This says nothing about the organisation, however. If cut to RSes the article would be about a sentence - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once in a lifetime coverage, nothing Encyclopedic genuine. Only thing written about website in NYTimes is " he joint letter was organized by two of the laureates, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa and former President José Ramos-Horta of East Timor, and is part of a broader online petition campaign at TheCommunity.com, whose chairman is Mr. Ramos-Horta. An advance copy was provided to The New York Times." Something is associated with something does not make it significant itself. Light2021 (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not seeing any
WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: the following comment was posted in response to a comment by Light2021 that has since been deleted. Ohnoitsjamie agreed with your deletion nomination, and you are complaining. This really makes no sense. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as what's currently listed is trivial and unconvincing and I'm only managing to find one merely trivial mention, nothing here suggests not only what we would need for substantial improvements, but also an actually convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy
WP:NORG at this time. There is very little significance coverage "about" the website itself. Simply being quoted in a couple of places is not enough and the website cannot inherit notability from these mentions. The NYTimes mention for example, is a pretty trivial mention. All of these show that it exists, but there is hardly any reliable secondary coverage about the website itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2016 (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.