Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IMPACT-Charlottesville

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 per both consensus and the author's request below (G7). Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMPACT-Charlottesville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable, no references to support notability ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete minimal coverage in WP:RS; local notability at best. JJL (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• References have been fixed, or are in the process of being fixed. As for notability, how do you define that? The Sea People are not considered "notable" by most of America, but yet they have an extensive article. Community service (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's easy, for WP purposes it's in WP:N and WP:Notability (organizations and companies) – ukexpat (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And of course Wikipedia is not a US only encyclopedia... – ukexpat (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies, by most of the "world."Community service (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for notability, I'll try to make it more evident it meets the required guidelines. Thanks! Community service (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me know what else I can do if it still doesn't meet the criteria.Community service (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability made in the article—at least, nothing that would mean any notability beyond the local level. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I quote "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I have several articles from independent sources. As a developing organization, there is by no means a plethora of information. But nonetheless, I do provide reputable, third party sources. What is the problem? Community service (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, no where in Wikipedia's definition of Notable is there anything about a criteria pertaining to whether or not an entry refers to something "local." I understand there is a serious attitude taken toward the preservation of professionalism and dignity. But I am obviously not taking this process lightly. Community service (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As the admin who had it speedy deleted, then reverted on the basis that it could be improved upon (per discussion at my talk page), I haven't seen much improvement upon assertion outside of a very limited geographical area -- or in general. This is content that is better suited on an individual web-site, not Wikipedia. seicer | talk | contribs 06:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - based upon the deletion !votes citing the non-existant 'Local' clause in WP:N. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • but there is WP:LOCAL. DarkAudit (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What has that got to do with 'Interfaith Movement Promoting Action by Congregations Together' ? WP:LOCAL specifically deals only with places. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • • O.k. so I gave wikipedia a fair shot. But all that has happened is I have been stonewalled at every single turn. So, as the writer of this article, I would appreciate if you would remove it. I would like to be able to know I have not contributed to sycophantic "public encyclopedia" that claims to offer a chance to everyone to document worthy entries so that the public can appreciate them. Also, I would suggest to all of the administrators to stop spending so much time on their computers. Life is really too short to spend in front of a computer screen criticizing other people's work. Community service (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there may not be local guidelines , but there is WP:ORG which covers local orgs well, and this one doesn't meet the RS coverage, specifically "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." That's of course apart from the article-cide committed above. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:35, 6 March 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.