Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community organizing
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 Keep (non-admin closure), as notability has been confirmed. Thank you, one and all. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Community organizing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article does not meet the requirements under WP:NOTE. A Wikipedia article requires multiple, verifiable facts from reliable sources. SimpleParadox 18:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are certainly specific verifiability issues here with some of the content, and extra citations would be good, but a Google Scholar search on "Community organizing" returned 325,000 hits, many on reference books devoted to the subject. It appears to be a recognised social phenomenon and the subject of nontrivial credible academic study, so I don't think WP:N is an issue. Karenjc 21:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The books cited in the article are reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Eastmain,
but drastically trim the article of the spammy internal linkslinks cleaned. Themfromspace (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Keep Citations are needed, but this is a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. As Karenjc pointed out, it is a valid subject with adequate scholarly research. The phenomenon of community organizing is not simply an election issue -- the term has existed since the 1940s and will be used for decades to come regardless of who wins in November.ThoughtsForAll 13:27, 18 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtsForAll (talk • contribs)
- Welcome to Wikipedia, ThoughtsForAll. This was quite a second edit. Regardless, it appears that my concerns have been addressed regarding the article. --SimpleParadox 21:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is definitely a notable activity where references can be found. Gary King (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2008 (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.