Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danson foundation

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 delete. ansh 666 05:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danson foundation

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

They may do good work, but there is not the type of coverage that demonstrates notability agtx 17:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is useful (which is why I began it) because it has considerable resources to dispense and Wiki should be a source for people to check whether to approach an organisation like this. I came across the organisation in the course of other enquiries. It is authenticated by media articles. As for whether it is "notable" - we could mark hundreds of thousands of Wiki entries for deletion is this was the only criterion! Good works are pretty notable, as far as I am concerned! So I plead its cause. Synopticus 29 september 2017

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Aside from one article about a disbursement from this charity, there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a directory of charitable organizations, legitimate or otherwise. That's what sites like Charity Navigator are for and they do it much better than we can. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm sure other stuff exists. I delete it when I can. This subject does not meet GNG, lacks RS, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2017 (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.