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 no consensus. I'm afraid we just don't have much agreement around the extent to which these sources should help it clear the GNG hurdle. Go Phightins! 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onward (housing association) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unsourced; I can find nothing except announcements and placements of lists and PR DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps you should read Inside Housing more often. Rathfelder (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the first ref from that source is a mere notice; the 2nd is trivial. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Coverage is limited to mentions in passing, press releases and their rewrites. Fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major regional social housing provider. Its activities are regularly reported in the regional media. I've found more than 20 in the last year. Rathfelder (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: And can you provide any example of that? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added them to the article. Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is borderline as many of the sources are local news items on incidents in which Onward is mentioned, but is not the topic, and some are press releases. However, the articles in Place North West are detailed. But Place North West is a specialist regional publication which doesn't provide much in the way of notability. All those things combined, plus that the article gets few readers, point to deletion. SilkTork (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Place North West is a very respectable independent source. We do not have a policy of denigrating regional publications. Our coverage of housing is pretty weak. Taking this out will not improve it. They provide housing for disadvantaged people. Its not surprising that the article doesnt get a lot of readers, but we dont have a policy of deletion on the basis of lack of readers. Rathfelder (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points Rathfelder. However, while we don't have a policy of denigrating regional publications, we do consider the independence, reliability, relevance, age, importance, etc of a source. This is not Animal Farm, and all sources are not equal. The more that other reliable sources use a particular source, the more we ourselves rely on it. That a source is written by a respected author, gives it, for our purpose, more reliability than a source written by an unknown author. The more recent, the more widely read, the more respected the source, the more we trust it. And the converse is true. So sources that are written by unknown authors in little known publications with limited readership tend not to inspire the confidence of sources written by widely known and respected experts in widely read and often cited publications with a global audience. It's just a matter of scale. Place North West would be an acceptable source for providing facts about housing in the Liverpool area. But as regards the establishing the notability of a housing business in the Liverpool area it is fairly limited because of its narrow interest and narrow audience. We would expect such a publication to cover information about a housing business in the Liverpool area because that is what it does all the time. And it is hard for us in such journals to separate an article prompted by a press release from an article prompted by the author's or the editor's genuine interest in the story. I am not running Place North West down in this, just putting it into context, and explaining why I felt that it being a specialist regional publication doesn't provide much in the way of evidence of notability for our purpose. Does that seem fair? Also, of course: WP:AUD.

And while the amount of pageviews isn't in itself a rationale for either keeping or deleting an article, it is a factor to be taken into consideration. I would not suggest an article is deleted purely on few pageviews; but, few pageviews, coupled with a subject which appears to have a limited local interest, leans me toward delete on what is - as I say - a fairly borderline case. I hope that helps flesh out my rationale. SilkTork (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onward is not confined to Liverpool. It's probably the biggest social housing provider in the North West of England. And as i pointed out above it gets a lot of coverage in Inside Housing. I have never seen it suggested before that lack of page views should be taken into consideration. Rathfelder (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its a good deal bigger than most of the rest of Category:Housing associations based in England and gets plenty of independent coverage. It's not surprising that regional housing providers get most of their coverage in the regional press. Bigwig7 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a business listing not an encyclopaedic article. Sources all are mentions of the association, not about the association. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2021 (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.