Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force Training

:{{la|Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force Training}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Multijurisdictional_Counterdrug_Task_Force_Training Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force Training}})

This article was accepted in this form from being an AfC draft despite objections as the topic is entirely sourced with non-INDEPENDENT sources. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

: Not to mention after a check it is a spliced together copy and paste copyright violation. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. The article could certainly use more independent sources, but with respect to {{u|Technical 13}} I disagree strongly with his interpretation of "independent source." The article in the Bangor Daily News is most definitely a reliable secondary source. WABI-TV is a reliable secondary source. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is a reliable secondary source. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• The WABI-TV link never mentions the MCTFT, The Bangor Daily News article is mostly about the specific officer and only makes a passing mention of the MCTFT (so I'm not sure it counts as WP:SIGCOV), and the UN link is an entry in an indiscriminate list of all NGOs, which isn't significant coverage, and the text there was taken from the MCTFT website, which makes it not independent. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete since it's also a G12. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• : I just spent a couple hours and it's not a copyvio anymore. Still largely unsourced and lacking in {{User:Technical 13/Templates/IRS}}s. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per T13. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:Retain, potentially Stubbify. No-body is suggesting that this programme isn't notable or important; we appear to be arguing about the sources used. Therefore the article should not be deleted outright. At the very most, this should only be reduced as far as a stub, and a mention included at Florida Army National Guard. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me how the sources I have listed are not 'reliable' or 'neutral'. How are 3rd party TV and newspaper sources not reliable or neutral? How is a United Nations source not reliable or neutral? I used a unique source for every single sentence in this article. Please give me a hypothetical source that would satisfy all the requirements. If you google mctft you will see hundreds of different sources that can be listed, I just don't seem to be finding what you all are looking for.Briansmith451 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:The TV station never mentions the MCTFT, the newspaper only mentions it in one sentence, and the UN link is a directory entry that uses text provided by the MCTFT. The first two aren't significant coverage, the third isn't independent. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bangor Daily News article has several paragraphs discussing MCTFT. As for the United Nations page, MCTFT didn't provide them any text. They copy/pasted the text themselves and we had nothing to do with it. Regardless, how is it that when a highly respected organization like the UN decides to use our words, they are suddenly not a reliable source. They are still choosing to discuss/advertise MCTFT. If President Obama got up in front of Congress and used our exact words to praise MCTFT, would he also not be a reliable source? Is there no common sense applied in these cases?Briansmith451 (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:The UN is a "reliable" source, but if they are using text taken from the MCTFT website they are not an independent source. It's no different than when a respected news organization such as Forbes reprints a press release on their website. It's reliable, it's just not independent. It's not enough just to have reliable sources, notability needs to be shown through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So basically if I had been smarter and created this page with words that were different from what the U.N. listed (ie my own writing), this would all not be an issue because you would never have known that what they have on their page is my writing? Is this not true?Briansmith451 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Briansmith451}} No, not at all. The fact that the UN page is a directory entry prevents it from being significant coverage in a reliable source. If you look at WP:ORGDEPTH, you will see that "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" is not considered significant coverage (you will also see that "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization", as in the Bangor article, doesn't count either).

:But beyond that, the text on the UN page sounded as if it had been written by the organization (per WP:ORGIND, "works in which the ... organization ... talks about itself—whether published by the ... organization ... or re-printed by other people" are not considered independent) and a quick search of the text on the UN page showed that the same language appeared on the MCTFT website. I didn't even realize that you had written that text in the article as well.

:Every article on Wikipedia must be about a notable subject, and in this case that means that it must pass the standards of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This means that, among your references, you should have citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Having sources that are not independent is okay for making the article verifiable in some cases, which is also important, and you don't get any "points off" for having them in the article. However, this deletion discussion is centered around whether or not notability can be shown for this organization, which needs significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Before I declined your original draft I had gone through the steps at WP:BEFORE and looked for significant independent coverage of the organization itself, and it didn't seem that such coverage existed. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. One more question. We have a reporter for ABC-7 news Tampa that's coming out to do training with us and US Marshals in mid-May (forcible entry & search/seizure stuff). She will be doing a newscast on her experience. She doesn't know us any more than you know us right now. How should I play this so that she can be considered an independent source. By previous explanations, as soon as she participates in the training, she's no longer an independent source since she will be "involved with us" as you once said.Briansmith451 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:No, there's no conflict of interest there, so the reporter would be an independent source. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13 didn't seem to think so. He wrote "Needs to be sources that aren't the topic and have not interacted directly with the source." It would really help if there were a list of concrete examples that are and aren't independent sources because several of you all have differing opinions. Briansmith451 (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:I think T13 was oversimplifying a little. The definition of an independent source is covered by WP:INDY. "Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)." An organization planning an event with MCTFT has a conflict of interest, a reporter, as long as there's editorial independence, does not (T13 can correct me if I'm wrong here). I wouldn't expect that one news report to save the article, however, as per WP:ORGDEPTH "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:* My understanding was the reporter was part of the agency/department that was being trained and as such was not their independently as "only there to report" instead of "reporting since they had to be there to participate anyways". — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahecht Can you please edit this sentence, I can't understand because of the grammar. "An organization planning an event with MCTFT has a conflict of interest, a reporter, as long as there's editorial independence, does not."Briansmith451 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:An organization planning an event with MCTFT has a conflict of interest, and is there not an independent source. A news reporter that has editorial independence does not have a conflict of interest, and therefore would be an independent source. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. A program that has trained more than one million people is manifestly notable: [http://www.floridaguard.army.mil/programs/counterdrug/training]. The actual rubric of N is that GNG and SNG create presumptions of notability. They do not work in reverse. A topic that is clearly "worthy of notice" within the ordinary meaning of that expression is not excluded merely because it fails to satisfy GNG and the (hopelessly incomplete) SNG. In any event, the article cannot be deleted because the nature of the topic is such that adequate sources are likely to exist, perhaps offline (WP:NRVE). And deleting this article would, in view of the nature of the topic, violate WP:IAR, which is the main policy of the project. In any event, as the school is located at the campus of St. Petersburg College, Florida, it is a plausible redirect to that college and ineligible for deletion on grounds of notability (WP:R). James500 (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2015 (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.