Talk:Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful

COI

COI note was added recently after my recent changes. As a note, I do not have any involvement with the organization. I’m connected with the leadership on LinkedIn and emailed the Executive Director to confirm the published name change information. Stevejewett (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. For the avoidance of doubt, I added the "COI" tag to this article (and COI notes to this article Talk page) because, well in advance of your own edits as you note, the article was created by an editor who shares a username with a (former?) employee of the subject org. And because the article was expanded by an editor who shares a username with a (former?) CEO of the subject org. Beyond this, when created, the article was written entirely in the first-person plural ("we", "our", etc) and with an overtly promotional intent. And, albeit no longer with the MOS:WE overtones, much of the "overview" section retains this promotional tone (in particular relative to WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTMISSION). Otherwise, to confirm, the intent of that tagging was not lay any of these issues at the feet of any particular editor. And certainly not one who only started editing the article with a few to addressing other/unrelated issues. Guliolopez (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and all good. I’ll take a look to remove some of the promotional content and update wording. Stevejewett (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful appears to be notable and is backed by a number of outside references that are not press releases. Their organization appears in a number of notable news events in Northern Ireland and quotes are used from more than one individual. These include global news outlets like the BBC.

They appear to be notable.

Comments?

Does anyone from Northern Ireland Stevejewett (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. As with the COI tag, I am the editor who added the "notability" tag.

I added this tag because none of the references (all bundled together alongside the same 14-word sentence in a way that is evocative of WP:REFBOMB and WP:REFCLUTTER) deal with the subject as a primary topic. In a way that supports WP:ORGDEPTH. All, instead, are substantially about other topics (like the BBC reference which deals with plastic pollution in general, the Belfast Telegraph piece which refers to the exact same thing, the "northernirelandworld.com" webpage which barely mentions the subject in passing, the DAERA source which (in addition to being 100% a press release) provides almost no information on the subject of this article. The org). In short, none of the sources provide an "overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the [..] organization". As expected by WP:ORGDEPTH.

Put frankly, not only do these refs not support the text they are placed alongside, they do not support a claim to notability either. It is possible that other refs (that do support a claim to notability) can be sourced and added. But, as of right now, and per the Template:Notability tag, the article needs "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention". Guliolopez (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Nicely stated and I’ll take a deeper look for references. You may be right on notability…I’ll see if there’s better references. Will leave notability up. Stevejewett (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)