Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sock Monkey Ministries

: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 delete. The independence of the DoD source is dubious; there is no other significant coverage by reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Sock Monkey Ministries]]=

:{{la|Sock Monkey Ministries}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Sock Monkey Ministries}})

Unremarkable non-profit. Fails WP:GNG and lacks significant coverage in any reliable sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep: When [http://www.ourmilitary.mil/Content.aspx?ID=44769672&SectionID=1 the Department of Defence] thinks it's notable, who are we to say different?

:I wouldn't exactly call that source "independent of the subject". --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

::Really? Is there some connection between the DoD, American Forces Press Service and SPM that is not obvious? These appear to be independent. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

:::How is a Department of Defence Community Relations Press Release a suitable independent and reliable source for establishing the notability of an organisation who's prime claim to fame is supporting Department of Defence Community Relations? Some would argue the source is nothing other than propaganda. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

:Fallacy of the excluded middle. SMM does not exist to serve the DoD CR, and the DoD CR does not exist to serve the SMM. Unless I am mistaken, they are independent organizations that just happened to do some work together. Am I mistaken? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

::They may not be officially connected as organisations, but I don't regard the source as being sufficiently independent and reliable to establish notability for the reason I have stated. That is my view. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

:::In your first post here you state your opinion that you don't consider them independent. However, you didn't post anything about why you claim that. IDo you believe that this S&S article [http://www.stripes.com/news/africa/star-wars-becoming-real-1.103623 about Boeing's ABL] falls into the same category? If not, why not? I'm not being an ass here, I'm seriously trying to understand why you believe this does not meet the definition of independence. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

::::I did state "why" in my second comment. We are looking to establish notability, not merely verify a fact. You have to ask yourself does the DoD have any interest in promoting the subject? Is there a close connection given that SMM participate in the DOD America Supports You program - is there any COI there? --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::You've answered a question with another (series of) questions. Apparently nothing to see here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::I've already answered your original question twice. I'm not going to respond to your unrelated analogy. How about we let other editors make up their minds? --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge to Sock monkey. Doesn't meet WP:ORG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. I see two Google Book results, one has significant coverage but appears to be a self-published book, the other one is more reliable but appears not to contain significant coverage. A few news results are mainly brief mentions, one longer article in Tuscaloosa News but that sounds like a regurgitated press release which such local newspapers are notorious for. I am not seeing the widespread depth of coverage or multiple independent sources required by WP:ORG--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment a few new references added to article[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sock_Monkey_Ministries&action=historysubmit&diff=408866594&oldid=405867663].     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     22:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete 1200 sock monkeys is not a sufficiently substantial contribution to the world worth an encyclopedia article.. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment found and added a better ref[http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/features/5031746.html], from Houston Chronicle (Note: found this by searching for 'ministry' instead of 'ministries')     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     23:14, 19 January 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.