Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Urban Pedagogy

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Center for Urban Pedagogy}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Center for Urban Pedagogy}})

Fails WP:NORG. Falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. At first sight, you'll see coverage in sources who pass reliable sources in name, but as you dive in, there is a lot of said/explained executive director of the Center for Urban Pedagogy, courtesy of CUP type contents making them fail intellectually independent, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Plentiful of routine announcement type coverages of routine nature do not count towards notability.Graywalls (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York. Graywalls (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - I've done a little clean-up editing on the prose, structure, and sourcing, which it needed. This is a pretty influential firm in Brooklyn, as evidenced by the grants and awards. I only skimmed the surface on that, but it will do. [https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2013004445.html Libray of Congress] validates its notability and lists detailed info about the center, which includes "Civic improvement, City planning, Political participation, Art, and social action". [https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Center+for+Urban+Pedagogy World Cat] pulls up hundreds upon hundreds of books and other information about Center for Urban Pedagogy. For some reason, Authority control retrieved an erroneous WorldCat link that doesn't work, so I've listed the current WorldCat link under "External links". — Maile (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

:: comment Which reliable secondary broad audience actual sources have intellectually independent, deep coverage on the organization? The Smithsonian magazine already in the article for example is a lot of "executive director says..." which fails independence criteria. Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

:::{{tq|which fails independence criteria}} - No, there's independence of a source for the purpose of establishing notability, and then there's independence of a specific quote for the purposes of including a claim in the article. The Smithsonian is an independent source writing about this subject, and thus contributes to notability. If I were to include a bold claim based on a quote from the ED in the article, you'd be right to say that the quote is sourced to the ED, which is not independent. No need to get into that here, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - seems to pass WP:GNG. Among others, there's the Menking article in Architectural Design (paywalled, but accessible via WP:TWL), there's Dewhurst and Desai's [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1123829.pdf article] in the Journal of Social Science Education, the [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/these-kits-beautifully-explain-how-city-sewers-zoning-laws-work-180959168/ Smithsonian magazine piece], [https://www.archpaper.com/2010/03/cup-tools-up/ a] [https://www.archpaper.com/2016/07/visual-primer-for-social-impact-design/ bunch] [https://www.archpaper.com/2018/11/the-drawing-center-center-for-urban-pedagogy/ at] Architect's Newspaper, coverage across a few pages in [https://designethnoglab.wordsinspace.net/2021/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/FrandsenPetersen_UrbanCoCreation.pdf this book] (published by MIT Press), an article in Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies ([https://rgu-repository.worktribe.com/preview/296716/HARRIS%202013%20Practising%20equality%20Issues.pdf author copy here]).... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

::*comment do look at the sourcing in the MIT Press article though. "CUP 2013a" and "CUP 2013b". Graywalls (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

:::*So we've determined it's a secondary source. Sounds good! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.