Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berkeley Parents Network

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: as the references found half way through the discussion clearly haven't convinced a significant proportion either way, no consensus, I'm afraid. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berkeley Parents Network

Was originally put up for speedy deletion per A7, but I removed the tag and decided to send to AfD. I did some research and it appears to be notable (using Google and Alexa to back up this claim). Note: I am only nominating this article for deletion because I wanted some second opinions about the article's notability. Nishkid64 23:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 22:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Using Google news and Lexis-Nexis I can find only one article where BPN is featured, and it's in the San Francisco Chronicle, practically BPN's "hometown paper." Delete unless more other reliable non-trivial third-party sources can be found. Pan Dan 23:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just because the BPN is near San Francisco doesn't mean that the Chronicle suddenly is no longer a reliable source. --Daniel Olsen 23:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, I totally agree it's reliable. I'm just suggesting that because it's local to BPN, its coverage of BPN doesn't show that BPN is notable. Pan Dan 00:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (I see that my use of "more" may imply that I thought the Chronicle was not reliable--have changed it to "other")
• Delete per Pan Dan. If 1LA were to become a Wikipedia guideline, every small town yahoo who's ever gotten a perfect 300 down at the bowling alley would suddenly meet WP:N. --Aaron 04:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep SF Chronicle[1] The Guardian (UK) [2] Science magazine (a mention)[3]
• Keep Pan Dan did make an interestig point. We shouldn't be making decisions based on some small local paper that isn't read outside of San Francisco. However, I'm swayed by the large number of google hits. Alpharigel 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This "small local paper" is the largest newspaper in Northern California and has a daily readership of over 500,000. --Daniel Olsen 23:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Counting Google hits is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers, but BPN was actually featured in numerous news articles outside the Bay Area (45 at Newsbank, although with a number of duplicates. SF CHron and Guardian articles are the strongest articles). ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you link to some of those news articles so we (or at least I) can determine whether they're non-trivial and actually feature BPN as a primary topic? (I never used Newsbank before and I must be doing something wrong because I get no hits.) Pan Dan 22:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Guardian. SF Chronicle. Newsbank search. See also Talk:Berkeley Parents Network. ~ trialsanderrors 23:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• OK, I looked through the top 20 Newsbank articles and those on the talk page. Every one is either a trivial mention, or local (e.g. #5 on the talk page). The one exception is the Guardian article, which is a column not an article. Don't think there's enough here to establish notability of BPN, by analogy with existing notability guidelines which generally require multiple non-trivial sources. Pan Dan 00:13, 21 October 2006 (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.