Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Check NY (2nd nomination)

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 per WP:SNOW. Article has seen a massive improvement, nominator has !voted keep. Woody (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Check NY

NOTABILITY "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines" News search shows two relevant hits, both of which were not available (along with some false positives). Ra2007 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what research have you done to determine how many and what sources exist, as Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination says for you to do? Uncle G (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Web searches for news articles. Found evidence of two supposedly recent articles or press releases, but both are gone. I don't have access to Nexis. Why do you ask? Ra2007 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because your nomination rationale was non-existent. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I did not see that sub-page in your user space. Anyway, I'll update the rationale. Ra2007 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are two news reports: Little Falls Times Oneida Dispatch. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only one of the links brings up an article, and that is to a small town newspaper Oneida Disptach. I hardly think this achieves notability requirements. Ra2007 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One link requires a subscription but the point is that the articles are out there, as you found yourself. Given that this is an impatient relisting, your case falls far short of what's needed for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I rewrote the article, removed extraneous information and added more than a dozen citations. This is clearly a notable organization. • Freechild 'sup? 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Freechild (good job Freechild!!!). Ra2007 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2007 (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.