This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

I understand the concern about this article relying on a single source (ntaforum.org). However, I have now fixed that by adding and citing references to multiple other reputed sites.

Hopefully this will alleviate the concerns.

I appreciate the effort. However, I must note that the sources that aren't ntaforum.org look to be all either reprinting of press releases from the NTAF, summaries of press releases from the NTAF, or written by the chairman of the NTAF. This still all sums up to being what the NTAF is saying about itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Given that NTAF is a relatively new body, there aren't that many external references we can cite just yet. Do you have any suggestions on what else we could do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameya barve (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

If the NTAF is a rather new body, and hasn't had enough of an impact that the only one who is talking about the NTAF is the NTAF itself ("Steve Holt!"), then it seems to me the real question is: is it notable enough yet that it should have an article now, or might it be better to clear this out, and once it has an impact that folks are talking about, be able to build an article around that? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Waiting to have a page until NTAF becomes relevant seems kind of backward to me, as we in NTAF are hoping that having a Wikipedia page should actually help us become more relevant. The fact remains that NTAF is a body that indeed exists, and all of the events on the page did occur. We will be happy to clean up anything on the page that is objectionable or not true, but I don't know what else we can do beyond that. Ameya barve (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The sources that are not explicitly from the organization itself seem to be largely press releases (or edited down versions of such releases, as the Embedded reference is edited down from this.) Article has always lacked sufficient reference to show notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply