Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gapforce
From 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 NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gapforce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As far as I can see, this organization does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for organizations. The only references and external links in the article that mention Gapforce at all are self-published or do so in self-written blurbs; not the significant coverage in independent secondary sources that allows us to write a meaningful article with verifiable content. There are some news articles referencing Gapforce volunteer activities, particularly in Belize, but in my opinion together still not enough to base an article on. An earlier {{prod}} tag was removed. There are strong indications of conflict of interest editing. --Lambiam 16:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - WP:Before nominating an article for deletion, you should check Google News Archive and Google Books for any reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage, to see if the notability guideline (WP:ORG in this case) is satisfied. It is not limited to the refs presently cited in the article. At Google News Archive there are several similar stories from March 2009:[1], coverage from later in 2009: [2], and some coverage from 2010: [3]. Google Book search shows substantial coverage of Greenforce and Gapforce:[4]. These refs barely support notability. Maybe someone can find others. Edison (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at those, and did not have the feeling they offered enough in-depth coverage to be able to base an article on; the present article is very superficial and not encyclopedic (but a
{{Multiple issues}}tag was removed together with the{{prod}}tag). The primary author of the chapter about Greenforce in the book you found by Google Book search was on placement with Greenforce, where she next worked until October last year – not the level of independence we need. --Lambiam 21:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at those, and did not have the feeling they offered enough in-depth coverage to be able to base an article on; the present article is very superficial and not encyclopedic (but a
- Weak Delete - Unless the article gets formated and someone finds reliability and notability references the article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria to be notable enough to own an article here. This is easily solved by article expansion. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 17:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We do not delete just because some editing is needed to include references which have been identified, or to revise the wording or layout. The notability guideline is WP:ORG, which might barely be satisfied. Edison (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability is one of the guidelines that must be satisfied, but if the article gets expanded, correctly written and sourced, its notability is reached. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We do not delete just because some editing is needed to include references which have been identified, or to revise the wording or layout. The notability guideline is WP:ORG, which might barely be satisfied. Edison (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The references shown above are sufficient for notability. For things hard to judge otherwise, the GNG does have a place. We do not delete because of needed improvement; we sometimes do delete because an article cannot be improved. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 31 March 2011 (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.