Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Common Good (non-profit)

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. Sandstein 19:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Common Good (non-profit)

[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)

This article has had a notability tag for over seven years, and even now most Google results are either primary sources, job boards, or not related to this organization. The article was also created by a single-purpose account. I think it's safe to say this is a WP:NORG failure. Aspening (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it should not be deleted. This article discusses an existing non-profit in NYC that is still active and has secondary sources pointing to their work, I just had to research into it. The organization has honored many important political figures who attend their events, and clearly has been poorly managed on the social media/online front. There are several organizations of a similar name but research and press coverage shows that although small, the organization is certainly in effect and still hosting notable events. See some of the secondary sources I found: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeenafrances (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) — Zeenafrances (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Zeenafrances (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

The sources provided here are all either passing mentions or not substantial coverage. Per the general notability guideline, trivial mentions do not qualify as significant coverage. Also, just because an organization is "active" doesn't mean that they are notable. I would also like to note that this user has only ever edited about this organization. Aspening (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this page should be deleted. After reading the page and doing some outside research I have added in necessary citations. It took minimal work to verify the information provided on the page. There is a variety of sources as well, covering different events, people, and years. It seems like a legitimate organization and I see no reason to delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilyakaye (talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC) — Lilyakaye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Lilyakaye (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Delete I cannot find significant coverage to support WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Note to Lilyakaye, the standard on wikipedia is notability, not legitimacy or existance. Schazjmd (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete. If it's notable, it's just barely so. This was the closest thing I could find to WP:SIGCOV, but it's pretty low on substance. Given that this seems to be exclusively the work of undisclosed COI editors, I'm inclined to blow it up. Colin M (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

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.

[1] ttps://pagesix.com/2019/03/03/harvard-law-professor-says-trump-wont-be-indicted/

[2] ttps://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/for-the-common-good/

[3] ttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/24/david-hogg-parkland-shooting-gun-control-activism

[4] ttps://pagesix.com/2018/05/23/parkland-activists-make-the-rounds-in-nyc/

[5] ttp://www.avenuemagazine.com/bi-curious-patricia-duffs-pow-wows-take-pols-past-party-ties/?cat_id=9914

[6] ttps://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2017/05/womens-march-creator-from-hana-now-ready-to-talk-story/

[7] ttps://www.invitednyc.com/home/2017/5/23/the-common-good-forum-bridging-the-bipartisian-divide

[8] ttps://observer.com/2012/05/mark-ruffalo-goes-green-for-the-common-good/

[9] ttps://www.thenation.com/article/katrina-vanden-heuvel-election-insurrection-midterms-2010/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]