Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition to Support Grieving Students

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 10:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition to Support Grieving Students

[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)

Seems to be a fail of WP:NORG. Sourced solely to the website, a search elsewhere turns up a few passing mentions in RS's, mostly books, but no SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG, not to mention the higher bar set by NORG. Seems to have been created by a coi editor (the coalition is led by the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement and Ncscb created the article). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I found a few things, like a brief mention in Rudolph's Pediatrics and a news story about them here. Both sound more like ads then anything else though and the Business Wire article is likely payed for spam that could have been written by the organization itself or at least people connected to it. There isn't really anything else other then those two sources. Except for name drops and otherwise brief mentions. I'm going with weak delete because I'm not 100% sure about the Business Wire article though. It might be totally legitimate, but even so there would need to be another good in-depth source. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 19 December 2020 (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.