Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multicultural Information Center

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. To answer the last question, a quarter of a million dollars isn't that much. But the facts presented by those arguing for deletion are stronger than the casual mentions advocated by the supports.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multicultural Information Center

edit
Multicultural Information Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - lack of independent reliable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Cites are from the center, affiliated organizations or passing mentions in connection with other people or events. PROD removed by anon with of course no explanation. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 32.169.77.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • "Culver ran straight away to the Multicultural Information Center where she works in an effort to get the group to file a formal complaint about the offensive incident." does not constitute significant coverage of the center. "Mamta Motwani, Assistant Director at the Multicultural Information Center" does not by definition constitute significant coverage of the center per WP:ORG. Other similar mentions in other sources don't constitute significant coverage of the center. The size of the center's budget is not relevant. That coverage is limited to passing mentions is in fact, per WP:GNG, evidence of lack of notability. Please read the relevant policies and guidelines. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 12:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into University of Texas at Austin. Organization by itself lacks notability. --Crunch (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The organization is the racial/multicultural/social justice arm of the University of Texas at Austin. I count 5 sources, including Fox News, The Daily Texan, AsianWeek, the Burnt Orange Report, and The America's Intelligence Wire (encyclopedia of past articles), that independently cite and speak about the organization that are NOT affiliated with the MIC. Check the references. The article may be a little bloated, but definitely should exist in my opinion. The topic areas the MIC deals with, and the complaints/issues in the article itself, are very relevant for UT Austin to have information on. Merging with UT Austin doesn't make sense - the relevance of the MIC is in its topic area, and the UT Austin article doesn't necessarily deal with this area. 66.201.23.207 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 66.201.23.219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • The Fox News story mentions the MIC in one sentence in the context of mentioning someone who works at the center. Burnt Orange appears to be a blog with unknown editorial standards, thus not a reliable source. UTAsian appears to be affiliated with MIC and thus not independent. Asian Week is coming back to my system as an attack page so I can't check it. These passing mentions and non-independent sources do not establish notability. Please read the relevant guidelines. Also, you only get to !vote once. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Delete (for emphasis) These articles are cited for all the protests/complaints of the MIC at the bottom of the page. The Fox News story does not mention the MIC in one sentence - it mentions it as the entity that reported the racist event, basically the one that took action against the event entirely. Burnt Orange Report is a blog, yes, but also provides facts to which I report, and is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article (though up for deletion, it seems to have been voted as having some importance - such as being accredited by the Democratic Party). UTAsian is affiliated with the MIC but kept records of The Daily Texan articles, of which I cite. Certainly that is allowed. Asian Week is not an attack site - ignore the warning and push through, it's a browser error. Again, if you can't find them, check the 5 paragraphs at the bottom of the page, after the organization's informational material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.23.219 (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fox News story, which is about a Halloween party, does indeed mention the MIC in a single sentence, as the place where the person who complained was employed. It mentions Ms. Culver as the "entity" who reported the event. It does not report on any action that the MIC took in response, nor indeed does it report that MIC took any action whatsoever. The other sources are similar and, as you note, are affiliated with MIC in some instances. These are not independent reliable sources including significant coverage of the MIC. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fox News story AND the Burnt Orange Report talk about the same incident, and is cited as such in the Wikipedia article. The MIC filed a formal complaint against the organization, according to the Burnt Orange Report, a blog accredited by the Democratic Party and therefore of notable standards. The Daily Texan articles and quotes cited by UTAsian is also of notable standards. AsianWeek's article, which I have found another src to on AsianWeek's website, is here: http://www.asianweek.com/2005/03/25/protesters-halt-%E2%80%98immigrant-hunt%E2%80%99-in-austin-texas/. It speaks about the Latino Leadership Council, an agency of the MIC. And, the airline incident is also of notable standards, as the "victim" was the director of the MIC at the time and her actions speak for the MIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.81.141 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, you need to start signing your comments by typing four tildes after them ~~~~. Second, you need to read WP:ORG. A source that merely identifies someone as working for an organization does not constitute significant coverage. That is exactly what the Fox News piece does. It identifies MIC as Culver's employer. I've already expressed by belief about the reliability of BOR; accreditation by a political party is not a measure of reliability per WP:RS. The airline incident does not establish the notability of the organization simply because the leader was the person involved, nor does her involvement mean that she was speaking or acting on behalf of the group. The various immigrant hunt stories again simply for the most part mention the organization in relation to identifying a person associated with it. Still no significant coverage in reliable sources. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about the tildes, I kept forgetting. There are only 12 employees. When an organization's opinions and action consist of the opinions and actions of the organization's employees, the organization IS the employees, and their actions in an official capacity ARE the organization. I read what you linked to - it is incomplete in terms of converage. The MIC's opinions and actions are determined by the spokespersons of that organization, and when the organization exists purely to put out opinions and accomplish activities, only employees would/could speak for it. There is no other way for the MIC to even achieve notability except via the opinions of its employees. That's like saying Martin Luther King's involvement in the Civil Rights Movement doesn't create notability for the Civil Rights Movement. 67.78.81.141 (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are purposely ignoring the fact that the people's notability are only even considered to have important opinions BECAUSE of their affiliation to the MIC. They are only considered important because of their position in the MIC. That link reads "...parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable." It only speaks of situations where a product/person can exist on its own without the parent. If the subordinate is defined by its relationship with the parent, and has no other affiliations, the parent should become notable. This is touched on in the relationship defining a position section at the bottom. "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady." The fact of having a relationship to the MIC inherently defines a position of notability (if publicized, as I have proven) that these sources have capitalized on to show the opinions of the MIC. These people are NOTHING without the MIC, and are not even notable in their own right - they are only notable because of that affiliation. If Wikipedia has not explored this concept, I don't think the article should be penalized. 67.78.81.141 (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look again. They're at the bottom. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. Merge whatever is left, if anything, after culling out all the non-RS supported material (which is nearly everything). Lacks sufficient coverage in RS supported articles to be a standalone article. Note: the two "do not delete" !votes are from SPAs.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already given examples of 5 sources, independently generated, that talk about the MIC and it's actions. I contend that they are NOT passing mentions and warrant enough merit for the article to exist. Please go back over the articles yourself if you wish to vote to delete the MIC page. I do not agree with Cow of Pain's assessment. 66.201.23.219 (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite the reference bombing in the article, there is no significant coverage that establishes ntoability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I reviewed the references before coming to my conclusion. But I will explain further. Blogs, and campus newspapers are not useful for establishing notability. The campus papers may at best make a case for merging to the university's article. As for those sources that would be considered useful for notability, none of them are writing about the organisation as the main subject. So taking all of the referencing as a whole, it still lacks significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an organization that deals with racial topics, the events ARE their main coverage (and how they respond). An article about the CIA overturning some crazy African government is about the overthrow, NOT about the CIA, but still brings notability to the CIA. Campus newspapers are not automatically cases for non-notability, it simply makes a case for localized notability, which is NOT cause for deletion, right? Or shall we delete all the towns in the US on Wikipedia that are not important to the rest of the country? 67.78.81.141 (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the coverage is about the organisation or its involvement with the incident to any significant degree. As I said earlier, a campus newspaper may justify a merge to a university's article. However, in this instance, I just don't seet eh coverage that would even support that. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the only response to the incident is from the MIC, or an employee which acts as a representative of its view, that is significant. Does Wikipedia had standards that talk about what this "significant degree" concept is? Seems pretty subjective. 67.78.81.141 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail (check), so no original research is needed to extract the content (check). Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material (WHAT ALL OF YOU ARE SAYING IS NEEDED). 67.78.81.141 (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Multicultural_Information_Center&oldid=1138102882"