Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Logic

: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. Consensus that the article does not meet the notability guideline due to a lack of significan coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Urban Logic]]=

:{{la|Urban Logic}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Urban Logic}})

New York-based organisation. You have to read several paragraphs before you even get an hint of what it does but it seems to be mapping utility cables and pipes. Spammy in tone. The author, {{user|Bbcesq}} is Bruce Cahan one of the founders. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth {{toolbar|separator=dot|talk | contribs }} 15:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • This article should not be deleted. In this case, the policy is wrong because it prevents founders of not-for-profit organizations from "kick starting" their Wikipedia entries as authors. The policy should allow this, demanding that the article clearly make clear the source is the founder. Then, let the community decide how to handle. -- Cary Rosenzweig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cary9944 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with the @Cary9944 - this article should NOT be deleted. It seems natural that the founders of a small not-for-profit will be the ones to start that organization's entry in Wikipedia, as they have the best knowledge base from which to write. The community can then participate, as with any other wiki entry, but there needs to a starting point. As for Gene93k's comments that this is "spammy in tone" and that the organization has "no evidence of notability", I respectfully disagree. The page is not selling anything or requesting any donations, so I'm not sure how it qualifies as spam. And notability? Urban Logic's founders are working to make the world a better place in numerous ways, and provided critical support to first responders in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. If that doesn't qualify as notable, I'd say about half of wikipedia's pages should be deleted for non-notability! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.97.123 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Lacks signficant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 2011-01-11 21:36:21
  • 76.16.97.123 and Cary9944 seem to be making a cogent case for deletion without any further help. Apparently this organization is undocumented by anyone other than its founders, who are writing more such documentation firsthand into Wikipedia, in contravention of our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. The usual misconstruction and distortion of notability, along with other-bad-writers-exist-so-we-should-be-allowed-to-write-unencyclopaedically-too, is then being argued to defend the indefensible and an article about something that the world outwith the subject's founders simply hasn't noted. A quick search for sources confirms their argument. So, too, does checking some of the non-press-release sources pointed to via external links in the article, which turn out not to mention this subject at all. As far as I can tell 76.16.97.123 is entirely right, and no-one independent of this subject knows about it, let alone has written that knowledge down and published it. Which of course excludes it from a systematization of verifiable, already published by reliable and independent people, general human knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why can't a founder make a submission and then have the community support or refute the what is written?

Good Bank is a dawn good idea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.131.216 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete, per UncleG, there's no evidence of notabilty. 184.77.131.216, with respect, that's essentially what is happening here. Anyone can edit here, but they need to follow policy. WP isn't here to act as a venue for promotion of an organization, no matter how notable it is. Please take a gander at the links UncleG posted above, esp. Wikipedia:Verifiability, and feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:59, 16 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.