Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Changers

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Changers[edit]

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

Local organization, with local references only. Such references are not reliable for notability , because they are indiscriminate, covering all local charities and the like, and tend to be mre notices or events, or promotional write-ups. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already contains two non-local sources (a book, and the Huffington Post) (three if you count the PBS feature that discussed the organization), and there are additional non-local references out there, including U.S. News and World Report; Marketplace; and U.S. Catholic magazine. In addition, it's well-sourced, neutrally written, and non-promotional. Dohn joe (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) I believe this organization meets WP:ORG. The program has received heavy coverage (significant coverage, not just passing mentions or notices of events). Already cited in the article is major coverage from six different major Reliable Sources in San Diego; that includes KPBS and the San Diego Union-Tribune which are regional sources. (The usual feeling here is that purely local coverage is not enough for notability, but regional coverage can be.) The program also got a mention from the Huffington Post, and I just added the U.S. News reference to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2015 (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.