Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children with Cancer UK

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Children with Cancer UK

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable nonprofit. Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article has seven references, suggesting the charity does have some notability. Vorbee (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The existence of references does not form part of the criteria for establish notability, rather the quality of the references. The guidelines on which references meet the criteria for establishing notability are described at WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several articles discussing the subject directly in detail (e.g. 1, 2). --Pontificalibus 16:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The first is not considered intellectually independent as it relies extensively on an interview with the founder and fails WP:ORGIND and the second is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:ORGIND and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the sources given in the article are poor (Sun and Mirror should not be used), but the organisation is undoubtedly notable, and their activity is widely reported (fundraising, its funding into research, etc.). The number of sources on the fundraising efforts for the charity is huge [1], so I won't give them, here are some of the other articles on the various aspects of the charity (the work it funds, etc.) - [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Hzh (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. They are either based on announcements, are mentions-in-passing, or are based on interviews with company officers. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these are the work they funded, so perfectly valid information about the charity and not just passing mentions given that they are the one directly involved in such activity. They are also not routine announcements, nor simple interviews (this is one of most misused rationales - there is no blanket ban on interviews). There are also a lot more sources out there. Hzh (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you think articles about organisations are going to come from if not for announcements? Its the fact that someone thinks they are notable enough to be published that matters.Rathfelder (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseIf it comes from announcements (in that the information comes from company sources), the source doesn't meet the criteria for establishing notabilty - see WP:NCORP especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Not a "blanket ban" on interviews per se - just Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion of the sources posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable article(WP:ORG).--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You've to provide reasoning. This isn't a !vote counting exercise. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 9 January 2019 (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.