- 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. postdlf ( talk) 22:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Dream House for Medically Fragile Children
- Dream House for Medically Fragile Children ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established for almost 6 years. Puffin Let's talk! 20:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:ORG. all I could find is one line references referring to fundraising for this center. LibStar ( talk) 05:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 15:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I added some material, with references, including documenting that the organization surpassed $1 million in revenues annually, in 2011-2012. I don't know of any proposed dollar value serving as an indicator of notability, but $1 million works for me. More can be added from other Google news search hits, i think, too, and this is an ongoing, legitimate organization, so i think it should be kept. -- do ncr am 01:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- many non profit organisations have more than $1M annual revenue. I don't see that as a criterion for notability. Nor is being a "ongoing, legitimate organization". There is a lack of significant coverage in third party sources.
LibStar (
talk) 12:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have added more additional material with references. Like I said already, $1m is not accepted as a bright-line rule for significance of a nonprofit, for wikipedia notability, I never claimed otherwise. But for me that level seems significant; I personally feel I would be willing to do some investigating and help support coverage about charitable nonprofits of that size and higher. Being an ongoing, legitimate organization is relevant also to there being a wikipedia article (because a temporary nonprofit that was created but failed is likely less important to cover in an encyclopedia), and also bears on my and others' likely willingness to develop this in the future. I stand with "Keep" !vote. Thanks. -- do ncr am 22:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- many non profit organisations have more than $1M annual revenue. I don't see that as a criterion for notability. Nor is being a "ongoing, legitimate organization". There is a lack of significant coverage in third party sources.
LibStar (
talk) 12:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 01:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Meets GNG; I added three more sources to article, one's a little thin, but the other two are specifically about this organization. There are more in Newsbank. Obviously a lot of crap remains to be cut out of the article (I got some), but that's neither here nor there regarding notability.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 20:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- 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.