Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence : The only two references within are routine coverage.  MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 00:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kansas .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I am adding more sources to the article but considering it is a local organization and one of the largest domestic abuse support groups in Kansas I believe it meets the criteria for inclusion.  Des Vallee ( talk ) 16:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not satisfactory to say "it's a large domestic abuse support group" and therefore meets criteria for inclusion.  You actually need to point out which sources cover the article subject in-depth.  This article needs to meet NORG in order to warrant inclusion and a thorough WP:BEFORE check shows plenty of small routine coverage "hits" but this does not justify inclusion.  Even a local business often will populate a number of hits in a search engine.  We need evidence of sustained, indepth coverage.  Not hits here and there briefly mentioning the name of the organisation.  MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 01:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This source for example does not count towards notability.  It simply says Jessa Farmer, public policy coordinator for the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, said current Kansas statute left victims who endured years of violence to refile annually for extension of a protection order.  She said the burden was on victims to navigate the court system, often without legal representation due to a shortage of attorneys in Kansas willing to take these cases.  That is the epitome of "routine" and trivial coverage.  The article has nothing to do with the organisation itself.  It's about domestic abuse and they've just quoted someone from this organisation.  That does not substantiate a claim to notability.  MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 01:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MaxnaCarta This source per example is entirely about the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence , a quick search shows it has been mentioned at least 245 times by reliable sources.  Des Vallee ( talk ) 11:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s one source and not of sufficient depth to meet MNCORP.  245 hits means nothing unless the coverage is significant.  Trivial mentions are not sufficient to meet NCORP.  MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 12:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep passes WP:GNG .   A quick search of news articles shows a measureable number of good sources. -- Paul McDonald ( talk ) @ Paulmcdonald : Please list the best three sources you believe are reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate significant coverage so I can withdraw the nomination? MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 23:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sigh.  Click the " news link and you'll see plenty.-- Paul McDonald ( talk ) 20:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Paulmcdonald I did just that. I’ve acknowledged that there are hundreds of “hits”. Irrelevant. Many organisations get lots of trivial mentions. Doesn’t mean they’re sufficiently notable for a stand alone article in an encyclopaedia which requires significant coverage to be included. MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 13:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a big differnece between Trivial mentions and citing the subject as an expert.  For example: "According to the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, SB 180 compliance could put more than $17 million in funding to Kansas agencies at risk. " from Kansas Reflector ; WIBW interviewed the organization's executive director Michelle McCormick and was later quoted as an expert source in both the Lawrence Times and NPR ; the previous executive director was cited as an expert by the Hays Post ; another previous executive director sourced information on porn and human trafficing in the Topeka Capital-Journal back in February of 2019, over four years ago, meeting WP:SUSTAINED .  These samples provided are not Trivial mentions but instead:  they meet the standard of Independent sources , the sources speak to the WP:IMPACT of the organization, the coverage is clerly WP:NOTROUTINE , and the coverage meets the standards set forward not only in WP:GNG but also in WP:ORG .-- Paul McDonald ( talk ) 18:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : SIGCOV gives rise to a presumption that a subject is notable. SIGCOV is not a requirement for an otherwise notable subject to be notable under GNG. As Paul McDonald has noted, the coverage meets the standard of Independent sources , the sources speak to the WP:IMPACT of the organization, and are WP:NOTROUTINE Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GNG doesn’t apply. ORGCRIT applies which does require sigcov. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - sources which are in-depth about the organization do not seem to exist.  Lots of mentions, but fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH . Onel 5969 TT me 15:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The extensive sources we need just aren't there; they likely do meet the inclusion criteria, but without proper sourcing, we can't create an article for them. I can only find trivial mentions. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Newspapers articles mentioning them in relation to other things, directory listings, that's about all I find. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting due to recent comment about the quality of coverage. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep as per Paul McDonald 's comments in the thread above and my own comment in reply. Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete People affiliated with an organization being quoted in the media doesn't amount to in-depth coverage of the organization itself. Even if that media coverage could establish the article-worthiness of the people (e.g., per academic bio criteria ), notability is not inherited : not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable. For example, just because Albert Einstein was a founding member of a particular local union of the American Federation of Teachers [Local 552, Princeton Federation of Teachers] does not make that AFT local notable. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply because there is no argument being made that any people are notable because of their attachment to an organization.  I have no understanding why the academic bio criteria is mentioned as a reason to delete, that's never been brought up either.  Resons to delete should be germane.-- Paul McDonald ( talk ) 03:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable organisation. This is the 2nd Afd in as many days with exact same kind of claim to notability, but the coverage doesn't support it. The fact that some members may be notable doesn't make organisation notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV . scope_creep Talk 22:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : the first two references collectively amount to SIGCOV Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No they don’t. They aren’t sufficiently in-depth. Check NCORP/ORGCRIT. It’s a high bar for organisations and companies. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The second source only names the organisation. While quoting its staff member. Per NCORP/NORG trivial mentions include “quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources”. Not significant coverage. This is what all the coverage out there looks like. It’s not enough. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They specifically fail WP:SIRS . scope_creep Talk 10:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree, I find that the sources not only in the article, but listed above as examples and found through basic online searches far exceed the the criteria at WP:SIRS .  These are not "brief, passing mentions" but are instead the heart of many of the news articles.   They are not trivial mentions, they are material sources. -- Paul McDonald ( talk ) 14:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] done commenting I think both sides have stated their points and don't want to regress into WP:WABBITSEASON .  Hat tip to all!-- Paul McDonald ( talk ) 14:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – mostly per XOR'easter & Onel5969.  The sources provided above and in the article lack significant coverage, thus causing the organization to fail the WP:GNG .  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 04:51, 19 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete