Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canine Companions for Independence (2nd nomination)

Add links
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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience (alt) (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Companions for Independence[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Canine Companions for Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was previously kept at afd on the claim that good sources exist onGnews. They don't. Essentially everything there is a mere local interest story on an individual person they helped.

The articles is in addition so promotional and over detailed that it would be very difficult to rewrite even if they were notable. . DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It was the first service dog training company. That alone makes it notable, historically. "It would be difficult to re-write" is not a reason to delete. The sources are on Google Books, not News (maybe also News haven't looked). -- GreenC 17:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"so promotional that it would need to be rewritten from scratch" is a good reason for deletion, that has been used here thousands of times each year. T DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "so promotional that it would need to be rewritten from scratch", that's just your opinion as nom (how hard is a stub to make?). Meanwhile notability exists (as a historic first organization, sources in Google Books). The guidelines are on the side of Keep. -- GreenC 20:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot it also passes because of WP:NGO meets #1 national in scope and #2 information about its activities can be found in multiple reliable sources. These include:
Google Books reports 3,370 results here are a couple:
  • Delete per nom. I'll happily change to keep if some Google books references (from books that are reliable sources) are provided. --Dweller (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few links and sources above, I encourage you to look through them and read the requirements of WP:NGO. This is the oldest service dog training organization in the world, now a global industry. It is historically notable. The founder Bonnie Bergin is recognized as the inventor of the concept of the service dog, to put it in context (not to make it notable, rather to put it in context). -- GreenC 01:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Books refs. That Beder reference is good. The other two were quite trivial coverage, not in-depth. I'll look at the papers when I can. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take another look at the article -- I think it is greatly improved and should pass notability now. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice work, LaMona. -- GreenC 13:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's notable. A Google search shows several locations around the United States. Among the sourcing on this article are the New York Times, the Washington Post and Paralyzed Veterans of America. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really want to switch to keep, but I'm just seeing loads and loads of trivial references, which don't do enough to prove notability, no matter how many thousands of such pieces there are. I still see only one reference with in-depth coverage (the Beder one, above). Please can someone post just one, single, in-depth piece of coverage from a reliable source (not a press release or a blog) and I'll happily switch to Keep. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not defined by the length of the sources. At a minimum it can be a 2 sources with a single sentence each, so long as that sentence creates notability. In this case we have sources saying it was the first established service do training organization. That is historically notable. You may not agree but I think most people would. Also the special guideline on NGO is met in this case and the sources are sufficient to write a fairly long article with. -- GreenC 13:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does this NYTimes piece help? [1] Not a press release or blog. I can't do a word count at this time but it looks to be several hundred words about the organization and its dogs, including the breeding program, the database they maintain, and details of the training program. Also, the VA is sponsoring a $10 million program to evaluate whether service dogs are truly helpful for veterans with PTSD and this org is involved in the study - see [2] (published by Stars and Stripes (newspaper)). Novickas (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Thank you. Keep. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DGG, consensus seemed clear. Would you like to withdraw your nomination? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My opinion remains to delete. Even if the various human interest stories make it notable, I think it is too promotional to keep as is, and might need to be started over. (A list of its geographic divisions belongs on its web page. The details of how it trains dogs if just a description of the usual method belongs in an article on dog training if not already there; if, as more likely, it is its own minor variations, it belongs on its web page if anywhere; if it is its own distinctive and unusual method, if needs to be cited as being such, and it is not.) So what I've done, to see if it can be made more encyclopedic, is to remove or condense these sections. My opinion will depend on whether they are restored. If they are, then it can not be made encyclopedic by normal editing and is a G11 candidate. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 30 June 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canine_Companions_for_Independence_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1084274463"