Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Conciliation 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 delete. Sr13 (T|C) 04:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Conciliation Project
This is a very spammy, badly formatted page about an organisation, and reads like an autobiography in the third person. I tried to tag it with a need for a change of tone and confirmation of notability, but the author continually removed them. I can not see any real notability. Delete, unless notability can be established. J Milburn 18:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: It's also a pretty clear COI as well. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: This article should not be deleted because it is a government recognized non-profit company within the United States. It falls under the realm of non-profit theater in America or theater activism. If anyone has suggestions regarding improvements to the so-called "spammy, bad formatting" please send, but deleting the article is not necessary. Harttqh 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Please provide evidence that this article meets the guidelines outlined at WP:CORP. J Milburn 19:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: Here are some notable sources:
- [[1]] (this is a negative editorial on TCP)
- [[2]] (this is a list that verfies TCP's participation in the Intersection IV: Re/Generations conference)
This is all I can offer at this time. I would hope that the 501(c)(3) status and involvement in many national conferences listed in the article would be notable enough. TCP pushes for social change regarding racism in America, and although they are a relatively new theater company, they will be a force for change in the coming future. Harttqh 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
*Delete Yet another example of people trying to obtain ownership of common words. At this point there are no sources that anyone has noticed it, except for one review--the list on umass is the very model of a non-significant mention. They claim to have done things in other cites, but there is no actual information about them. DGG 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC) *Note: The group appears to have a videotape listed on the ERIC database here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fixer1234 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
-
- Comment: Erm, so? Admittedly, it is better than YouTube, but check the link again. Pretty meaningless. J Milburn 17:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Checked that reference. They did produce a video. The listing is evidence that it was produced, and was accepted by one of the ERIC depositories among other instructional material. But more to the point is that it was produced by the Eugene school district and sponsored by the US DOE Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Added to their other productions, for which there is no external evidence, it is sufficient. Changed !vote to Weak Keep
- Comment: I have little idea what you are talking about DGG, could you explain that again please? As far as I interpret it, they made a video that was used by some schools... So? J Milburn 16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Checked that reference. They did produce a video. The listing is evidence that it was produced, and was accepted by one of the ERIC depositories among other instructional material. But more to the point is that it was produced by the Eugene school district and sponsored by the US DOE Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Added to their other productions, for which there is no external evidence, it is sufficient. Changed !vote to Weak Keep
- Strong delete, as a vanity article, conflict of interest, NPOV issues, et cetera. If someone truly independent was writing the article and aiming at neutrality, I would still think the notability is borderline at best. Mangojuicetalk 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable theatre group. Six years and five works with scant media coverage speaks to the lack of notability. Noble intentions, but not enough here for inclusion. Caknuck 20:59, 7 May 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.
