Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SightLife

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SightLife

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

A local organization, with almost entirely local references and local very minor awards. The purpose is presumably promotional. I make this assumption for every article on an organization that bothers to list "best companies to work for" as an award--such awards are mere PR and that includes human interest stories is small local papers among the references. An actually notable organization has no need to do either. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The included article in The Hindu already establishes it has some world-level impact. It is greater than U.S. $19 million in revenues and 9m in net assets, with CEO earning 298k and CFO earning 190k, per its 2012 charitable nonprofit 501c3 filing available for free from GuideStar. Seems important, bigger than $1 million rule of thumb notability threshold for charitable nonprofits that I've posed occasionally. --do ncr am 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep Some coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The assumption should be that Wikipedia editors are objective and make their edits in good faith. The interest in SightLife is not just local as the nom. indicates, but global as do ncr indicates. Also By 2009, SightLife was the leading eye bank in the United States. Norton, Lisa (2012). So You Want to Be a Global Nonprofit?: Legal and Practical Guidance for International Activities (PDF). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-118-45222-6. --Bejnar (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't understand the motives of DGG's nomination, because it is wrong on all levels, the charity has a global focus as, for example, demonstrated by The Hindu article (which is certainly a major non-local newspaper). I don't really see promotionalism either, the article (when it was moved from AfC) was fairly succinct. I do agree that being in a list of 50, or 100 organisations is not of tremendous note though, taken together with the other evidence, points to clearly meeting WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. Sionk (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2014 (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.