Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACE Centre

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ACE Centre

[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)

A worthy cause but no evidence of notability. Article only contains primary sources and I could not find anything to add online. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the Evaluation of the Communication Aids Project is a very respectable independent source. Rathfelder (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m not sure it is independent, and even if it was, it would indicate notability of the CAP project, not the ACE centre. Notability is not inherited. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems substantial, contributing at a larger level by development of widely usable software, not merely a two-location charity. Sure, article needs editing, is written non-encyclopedically with too much "inside" tone/info. It's not promotional in a bad way, this is a charitable non-profit not a commercial enterprise article by a paid editor. Coverage about its research publications and "how-to" publications should be expanded. Commenters not finding those publications apparently don't have good access to coverage that is known to exist. Off-line or non-major-database sources are fine, and we have evidence (assertions in article for which there's no reason to dismiss) that such exists. --Doncram (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources in the article are primary sources and the article does not point to any substantial secondary sources that I can see. And non-profits are not exempt from criteria on notability or promotional content. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that the article has a section on publications and a section on research and projects. It doesn't link to (point to) online articles, right, but I believe that the publications exist, and they may well be substantial sources and documentation of accomplishments. I, you, no one has accessed these. --Doncram (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, I’ve not looked at them, but we know that they’re primary sources! So even if we did find them, they would not add anything to notability. Is there any evidence of any substantial secondary sources existing? If not, fails WP:GNG, simple. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I located several articles about the Centre and its programs: [1] [2] [3] [4]. A couple of them are only incidental mentions, but there are at least a couple pieces that are primarily about the Centre and its funding issues in 2012. They also provides independent verification of basic facts about the Centre. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The purpose of AfD is not "independent verification of basic facts" and indeed the standard for references for such verification is of a *lower* standard that those references that may be used to establish notability. The *higher* standards for sources to establish notability can be found in WP:NCORP. For the purposes of establishing notability, multiple (at least two) sources must contain significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Based on that, I've looked at the references you've linked to:
  - This from the Isle of Wight County Express is a forward-looking piece about a scheme which was due to be launched in the Isle of Wight. It is not significant coverage and contains no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH
  - This from Oxford Mail talks about funding required to keep the Ace Centre open in Oxford and how an MP asked the PM to keep the centre open and mentions a petition. It has no information on the company (other than one of the centre's needs money to stay open). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  - This from ITV is related to the piece in the Oxford Mail but from the point of view of a young woman with cerebral palsy who attends the ACE Centre in Oxford and the impact it has on her life. From the point of view of the company, this is not a significant piece and contains no information on the company, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH
  - This from AT Today is based (word for word) on this announcement from the IoW Council which is a related entity by virtue of their participation (along with the NHS, IoW College and other schools and ACE) in the pilot project. Fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing obviously disagrees, but these are significant coverage in my view. The itv one, from 2016, is touching, about software that detects where the handicapped woman's gaze lingered, enabling her thereby to write mathematical equations. Yes, a huge impact on a woman's life, and it would have been a shame if it were closed. The Oxford Mail one is significant, about it being announced to be closed but then a rally of fundraising came in because it was so important and significant. Haven't looked at the rest. No good purpose served by being negative about this charitable center and its innovative software. -Doncram (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Touching" is not one of the criteria for notability. We also appear to look at the criteria for inclusion significant differently than you - for example being a charitable center with innovative software is not part of the criteria for notability. Being (in your opinion) a "good" company doesn't mean the company is entitled to a "reward" of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not the Yellow pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage, as per HighKing. (by the way, the woodenspoon.com reference is a deadlink) Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion seems evenly divided on whether sources present establish notability or not. Hoping a third relist allows for a firmer consensus (more editors) to prevail.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failed to find the necessary coverage to show it would pass WP:CORPDEPTH. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 19:42, 11 April 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.