Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sol Collective

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. The question whether the nomination rationale was sufficient per WP:DEL-REASON is moot once others start arguing for deletion. While Northamerica1000 is correct when they say WP:AUD does not require certain kind of supra-local coverage and that "local" does not mean "48 counties of the largest US state", no consensus was achieved whether those sources are actually sufficient to establish notability even if they meet WP:AUD. So Why 10:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Collective

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only very local press coverage, so of no general significance for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well known in the state of California and covered as such. From a cultural perspective it is a growing and prominent force. Karl Twist (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. If California had its own wiki this article would certainly deserve a place but it is too local for wikipedia.Domdeparis (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close No argument for deletion. A deletion argument is based on a WP:DEL-REASON as stated in WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this fits what WP:Speedy Keep actually says, since the nomination is policy-based, something that the specific page mentions. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cited WP:Deletion policy, not the guideline WP:Speedy keep. Nor have you been able to identify a WP:DEL-REASON for the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of that actually supports why it would be either a Speedy Close or a Speedy Keep, which policy criteria exactly? Also, I have in fact cited a policy of my own, it was WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Not advocacy as shown below. Those 2 policies are clear-worded in what we use here. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you continue to insist on discussing WP:Speedy keep, including the part about the policies you cited. I said nothing about WP:Speedy keep. WP:DEL-REASON is a part of WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I agree with nomination with the important basis, "press coverage, no general significance for an encyclopedia" which is in fact one of the WP:Deletion policy criteria, therefore speedy close is entirely inapplicable here especially when there's no clear outcome for Speedy Keep. The only other argument, a Keep, is a WP:ITSIMPORTANT to its consumers, and offered no guarantee of improvements, which therefore is also criteria for WP:Deletion policy; one or two criteria is genuinely enough for any deletion, but worse when there's no foresight of improvements to counter this. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the argument that this is not suitable for a general purpose encyclopedia is premised on the sources being local, but local sources are fine. "The sources are local" is not an argument for deletion. Who is attracted to fake deletion debates? Unscintillating (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD. Regarding WP:AUD, the topic has been covered nationally by HuffPost and regionally in the State of California by KQED, which is based in San Francisco, California. Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

National Poetry Month Gets Guerilla With ZFG’s Andru Defeye. HuffPost.
Sacramento-Based Group Gives Kids of Color Much-Needed Creative Outlets. KQED.
Art And Music Creators Find A Home At Sol Collective. Capital Public Radio.
A Beacon Of Activism And Culture, Sol Collective Looks For Long Stay In Sacramento. Capital Public Radio.
Sol Collective Celebrates 10 Years Of Arts, Culture. Capital Public Radio.
Artist collective thrives off the grid. The Sacramento Bee.
Sol Collective: A Center For The Future of Sacramento’s Youth. Sacramento Press.
Sol Collective Close to Buying Building. Comstock's. – In addition to the building acquisition, this contains a great deal of overview content about the organization.
Word to Your Motherland at Sol Collective. Sacramento Press.
Doom, no gloom. Sacramento News & Review.
The Soul of Sol Collective. Sacramento Press.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the last-minute sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources do not establish notability: they are almost all local to Sacramento, CA. HuffPo is not NYT, and KQED is local to Northern California. WP:ADVOCACY for an org that is not yet notable per encyclopedia standards. All of this information can just as effectively be housed on the org's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding WP:AUD, The KQED source comprises coverage throughout Northern California, which is not a locality. It is "the northern portion of the U.S. state of California. Spanning the state's northernmost 48 counties" (see image). The KQED website states "KQED serves the people of Northern California...". As such, the KQED coverage certainly qualifies as regional coverage. Sure, Huffington Post is not the NYT, but it comprises national-level coverage in the United States. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis - I examined the sources above and, first the HuffPost mentions them an immediate 2 times and it's only to introduce the organizer, beyond there it's simply someone's submitted video; the next one is a local news story (which acually cannot satisfy WP:CORP since it says anything "directly or indirectly about the company or where it talks about itself) and this is a good example here:
Nicole Martinez is teaching...."The building houses a...."...."The all-girls DJ class"...."in vast summer offerings"...."[She] is brimming with enthusiasm"...."Sol Collective was founded by"...."[She started it]"...."[She] receives substantial....funding...."...."[But she wasn't always a...."...."[She] went back to school...."...."[She discovered]...."...."One of the group's founding...."...."She sees herself as...."...."She and her new friends look...."...."[That's their] mission...."...."To listen to them, go to...."....
"[Her] new project...."...."One woman began a...."...."[She] reflects on...."...."....raise funds from...."....
"[Sol Collective] runs...."...."She started Sol Collective...."...."She was a...."...."But at the core of their mission"...."Sol Collective operates"....
"She is the executive director of....will talk about this weekend...."
(next one immediately after that is): "Sol Collective's director....spoke...", "[They] have been a gathering....", "Sol Collective....a place...and more....", "[Employee]....who worked with Sol Collective for five years says....It inspires me, he says....", "One of the ways....[They] have transformed people's lives...."...."They hosted...."...."The events highlight....comittment [they created]...."...."[They] have created a safe place"....For more information....visit [their webiste]
"Sol Collective celebrated...."...."[They] invited...."...."I asked [her] a few questions...."...."[They] have hosted...."....
Sol Collective is always buzzing....activity....[She opened] Sol Collective....She says (repeated a whopping 9 times)...."...."They came up with the idea...."...."Sol Collective brought the...."....[Founder] says she...."...., says [founder]....

One of the comments above states that a state publication wouldn't count as actually exclusively local, but this would in fact be the definition of state, as said by Wiktionary.

....history of Sol Collective goes back....the program was able to perfect its dream....[Their] calender is already booked....[They] invite all members....For more information, [their website]"
Donors have pledged...."[They] rented a....", "Those events have included....", "....for a sale price of $406,000....", "....Sol’s revenue come from....events, fees from [members], grant and donations....", "[Founder] says she is aware....", "[They are] in the mortgage application process....", "....works to “promote economic justice and alleviate poverty...", "hear Sol Collective is purchasing....building"...."Sol Collective is on track to close....purchase....the group is...."
The SNR source above is actually starting with a literal:

...any local talent....Sol Collective and this isn't enough to satisfy WP:Notability's measures limited on such news. And so, if we apply everything that WP:Notability means, it means this is not enough of the significant coverage, no matter if there are 5 or 10 of the same published stories, WP:Not Advocacy (policy). SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC) None of this is what WP:Notability actually means in multiple independent reliable coverage independent of the subject if that's still what the overall story is. There's one source that's labeled a supposed "overview content about the organization" yet that's where WP:CORP also says Except anything directly or indirectly about the company, wherever published or wherever it talks about itself and so since it's a a "financial deal", it's exactly that. To also quote WP:Notability again it says: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability. Since not one of these wasn't from either an Indiscriminate local journal or event journal, none of it can count as genuinely significant, and especially since WP:Not a newspaper (policy) to accept anything like it. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Cherry-picked quotes from news articles does not represent the full perspective and content of those articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I quoted the entire articles, hence the different sections and there's no evidence to suggest I picked anything but the relevant areas of concern. You're welcome to of course repost anything else that you consider relevant, but I specifically selected everything that had a clear promotional and given it's all of the above, that immediately makes the coverage not independent, reliable or significant since GNG needs coverage specifically about the subject. Since I quoted GNG along with my argument, what could possibly refute that if it's exactly what GNG means word for word? In fact, the quotes each above are numbered for each source. For example, since the HuffPost only mentions them twice, how else could that possibly be interpreted differently? SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 6 August 2017 (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.