Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Censored (2nd nomination)

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. "Keep" arguments were not entirely policy-based and did not compensate for lack of independent, reliable sources on the subject. Killiondude (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Project Censored[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page should be deleted for the simple reason that 'Project Censored' is not notable. This is shown by the lack of RS coverage. The sources are the following: (1-3) Publications by Project Censored, (4) An Alternet op-ed from 2000, (5) A Mother Jones op-ed from 2000, (6-10) Sources that no one has heard about, all from 2006-2007. Note that to what extent these sources do cover Project Censored, it's to note how fringe and meaningless the organization is (e.g. the Alternet and MoJo op-eds). The most recent secondary source is from 2007 (!). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all reasons to improve the article, not delete it. More to the point, this article has been here since March, 2003. It was notable then, and notability is not temporary. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But how can the article be improved if there is zero substantive RS coverage? For example, I've searched for any and all mentions of "Project Censored" on the Washington Post, NY Times and CNN, and there have only been off-hand mentions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need to be changed only if the public information about the topic changes. If information is not changing, then the article does not need to be updated. Project Censored was a much bigger deal 10 years ago than it is now, but again, notability is not temporary. If you think this policy is wrong, take it up with the Editorial Board. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any RS that substantiate that it was ever a big deal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TechBear:, your understanding of notability is backwards. You must first establish WP:SUSTAINED notability in order to demonstrate the topic is notable in the first place. Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, evidence of whether an article topic was ever notable may be reassessed at any time, even years later. The argument being put forward is that this topic is not notable, and never was, based on the lack of past or present WP:RELIABLESOURCES that can be found on the topic. I'm inclined to agree (my !vote is recorded below). Shelbystripes (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I quote: If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Basically, if something is notable only in the specific context of another event or topic, it should remain in that context and not be given its own article. How would this apply to this article? What is the one unique context without which Project Censored has no significance? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TechBear: Again, you seem to be getting your understanding of notability backwards. You must explain in what context Project Censored has encyclopedic notability in the first place. Also, the language you quoted is really about whether an article should be framed as about a person rather than an event; this organization is neither a person nor an event. For this organization to warrant an article, you must show that encyclopedic notability exists for this organization. That means showing sufficient reliable sources that discuss the organization over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time. Where is that? I haven't seen it. Where is the evidence of encyclopedic notability? Shelbystripes (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There isn't really much evidence this "project" ever had notability. The few sources in the article critically describe it as a fringe independent media project. The entire article body basically just describes repeated condemnation and dismissal of Project Censored as any kind of valid initiative. Scattered dismissals of a project's relevance or validity do not indicate the project's lasting notability. I can find nothing in my own independent searching to indicate encyclopedic notability either. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How many books were published by Project Censored? see here for a start: www.worldcat.org/search= "project censored" How many interviews on the radio, TV and the internet? How many millions of Americans have read these books or seen/ listened to these interviews about censored news? How many people read the original articles before their re-publication in Project Censored? Future headline?: "Wikipedia censored Project Censored"- I don't think so. A ri gi bod (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the near-complete absence of RS coverage, the answer to most of your questions appears to be "not many". If there is any substantive RS coverage, please demonstrate it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Project Censored is part of the nonprofit Media Freedom Foundation, a 501(c)(3) educational organization, that has been around for over 40 years. It is the oldest and longest contiguously existing media watchdog in the US. In addition to winning numerous awards (including more in just the past few years), the Project is regularly featured on alternative media outlets, and has been featured at RT, Al Jazeera, among others, along with scores of local newspapers and alternative weeklies every year for their annual release. The Project has a weekly radio show that is broadcast nationwide on over 40 stations (started in 2010, originating at the historic Pacifica KPFA studios in Berkeley, CA), has trained thousands students in critical media literacy, which is part of their mission statement, and runs a successful campus affiliate program that brings media literacy to over 20 colleges and universities in the US. Two years ago the Project helped found the Global Critical Media Literacy Project, holds and participates in annual academic conferences, and continues to publish a book a year with the notable Seven Stories Press in NY. The Project continues to have a large following as evidenced in their social media presence, and their directors speak across the us on public lecture circuits. One can say they continue to be very notable.CapatainArmstron (talk) 2:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with the organization in some way? I ask because this is your first edit on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources that address the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:NORG. Does not meet WP:NFRINGE either. Not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.