Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berkeley Partners for Parks

:{{la|Berkeley Partners for Parks}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Berkeley Partners for Parks}})

No indication of notability, a single local secondary source. The editor has told me separately that it is the parent of Friends of Five Creeks, which may be marginally notable, but that isn't mentioned, and in any case the parent doesn't necessarily inherit notability from a marginally notable subsidiary. Acroterion (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I believe this AFD is premature, raised less than 10 hours after article creation and less than 8 hours since it was de-speedied from a CSD A7 in preference for appropriate improvement tags which I added at the time. A quick glance at results in GBooks and GNews shows a high likelihood that sources can be improved in the near future and as per the DEL guidance such searches should be taken into account rather than just the current sources included in a new article (which is what the nomination appears to be based on). The article creator has made some related articles quite successfully that were originally challenged and as they appear committed to improvement I would rather see these articles encouraged and discussed for improvement rather than challenging with deletion notices so shortly after creation. As for the partnership arrangements of the organization, there is some explanation on the sites linked already in the article and you can read some of these for yourself if you visit [http://www.bpfp.org/index.php/bpfp-affiliate-groups/ bpfp.org], consequently it seems a trivial improvement to add a bit more explanation in the article about how this works and their associated impact and influence on wider issues such as taxation and legislation which is not only supported in independent news articles but in published books. Fæ (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• If the article can be improved so that it doesn't have to reference its subject's own articles of incorporation, that would be a great improvement; the only secondary reference scarcely mentions the organization at all, and there is no real assertion of notability. By all means, if the article can be expanded and suitable references provided to deal with these issues, that would be satisfactory. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy if needed. Right now, the only citation and passes wp:rs only mentions them in passing. Others are 1st party. Other citations that can be found (primarily behind paywalls, ugh) are local in nature and limited in scope. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

::Uncle I see the article has now been cited more fully. Actually, the text of the cites are approximately 5x the text of the actual article. I will give the benefit of the doubt and simply withdraw my previous objections. Thanks for the chuckle. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep this is a notable organization that is routinely sourced as an authority on environmental issues. They are often quoted by major newspapers. They have created and launched notable organizations.Thisbites (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Berkeley+Partners+for+Parks%22 28 news hits], most of them local, none of them in depth about the subject; however, [http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Berkeley+Partners+for+Parks%22 two of the 5 hits] in books, maybe considered significant coverage under WP:GNG, therefore I am not going to write the subject of the article as non-notable, but I don't believe that there is sufficient references that meet WP:RS to pass aforementioned WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

:The comment above misleads and misrepresents the article. San Jose Mercury News, [http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-10-05/living/17136538_1_uc-berkeley-east-bay-restore Restore]: San Francisco Chronicle and Oakland Tribune are not local papers. We're also talking about a major metropolitan area (San Francisco Bay Area), so even the smaller papers like San Mateo County Times, Contra Costa Times, and the Berkeley Daily Planet are sizable. As the References section being larger than the article shows, the sources do go into depth about the subject. I support sanctions against editors who abuse their voting privileges at Wikipedia function pages in this fashion. Anarchangel (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that this article meets the "general" notability guideline and needs some room to grow but it has multiple non trivial coverage and is a noted subject.Thisbites (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Per Thisbites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, as stated previously the nomination for deletion of this article was premature. The article should be given time to develop and hopefully with the future addition of reliable sources from the required parties, this article will satisfy others thoughts regarding its notability. It may be useful to add a Template:Under construction while it develops.08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:24, 13 April 2011 (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.