Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adopt-An-Alleyway Youth Empowerment Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. John254 02:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adopt-An-Alleyway Youth Empowerment Project

Adopt-An-Alleyway Youth Empowerment Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

non notable city program Chris! ct 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This organization is actually notable. I happen to know because I happen to be a member of this organization, which has been featured as a community hero over at Crissy Field (I think it's still there...), but, you probably never heard of it. It's been featured in the Chronicle (I think) twice, so people know about this youth organization, and it is a good club that can get people into college. I am not starting that article just for the spam thing, in fact, I do not intend to spam anyone here in Wikipedia, because that's what I do not do. So, anyway, I would like to tell you in a lengthy reply on how the AAA is notable, but, you probably know that Norman Fong started it in the 1990s as a recruitment for High School students (there's even a video of that in Youtube!), because back then people simply didn't give a care about the alleyways in Chinatown, nor were they even officially recognized as city streets. So, that's how it started, and we usually clean up every 2nd Saturday of the month, and they even run the Chinatown Alleyway Tours, which is a hit to tourists, and has been featured in Bay Area Backroads one time. That's how notable it is. Just saying. :) -Goodshoped 04:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait. Actually, keep. -Goodshoped 05:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable and verifiable. Maybe the nominator should perform some "due diligence" before nominating. A Google search is all it took for me to see all the references to it in reliable sources, and it only took me a nanosecond. I am sure more time was spent nominating the article, than it took me to prove it was notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • comment To say that this city program is notable is problematic on your part. A google search only comes up with 70 hits, which is extremely low for it to be encyclopedic. Also there are virtually thousands (if not millions) of such small city programs in the world. We as an encyclopedia should not include them since most of them aren't notable. Even if a program is notable, put that somewhere in the city article, not as a standalone article. Chris! ct 06:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Or 747 hits if you perform the search properly as I did here: [1], which is an order of magnitude higher. Just two good articles are all that is needed to be "multiple independent coverage in reliable sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, the 700 ghits don't impress me. As I say, there are thousands of such programs, and they are non notable. Chris! ct 20:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Thats a silly reason and poor logic. There are 6 billion people on Earth, the sheer number has nothing to do with deciding which ones are notable and which are not. Somehow out of 6 billion living people, we have tens of thousands of articles in Wikipedia on living people. Notability is conferred by the media when they write about the people or the organizations. The Wikipedia test is that they have "multiple independent coverage in reliable sources". My guess is that you are using your gut instinct, instead of research to determine what you nominate. In the end you just bring more attention to the articles you want to get rid of. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, if this afd bring more attention to this article, then so be it. My goal here is to improve Wikipedia. More attention to this article can certainly improve it beyond the previous version. But I do think that this article is not notable, and a few ghits are not going to change that. Chris! ct 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Or, you could do a Google search, and improve the article yourself. You must expend twice the keystrokes defending your AFDs than you would spend adding a few references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No, even with references, this article is non notable. Verifiability doesn't automatically make articles notable. Chris! ct 23:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It is notable, the creator, Norman Fong, is notable, CCDC is notable, and I know this is because I happen to be a member of this organization. -Goodshoped 01:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable --evrik (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 01:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete project is not notable, nor unique in anyway. Plus the article is really boring. --79.72.6.65 03:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. Being boring is not a criteria for deletion. --lk 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This topic has book coverage[2] which is a good test of notability. SaltyBoatr 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
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.