Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artists for Charity (2nd nomination)

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. – Joe (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artists for Charity[edit]

[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)

Received a little flutter of coverage in 2009, but not enough for WP:GNG. PepperBeast (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see any past or present indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the outcome of a previous AFD discussion was delete. PepperBeast (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first AFD happened in 2006 prior to a bunch of news coverage of significance. The Washington Post article from 2012 is quality RS and the most significant source. And there is another Post article from May 15, 2016 I found entitled "For Ethiopian expatriates a rough homecoming" which also features Tamerat and her charity. In addition the article contains several sources from 2009 that are quality RS as mentioned by the nominator above. Altogether, this is enough quality RS over a period of seven years to show sustained significant coverage. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Washington Post articles are enough for significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2021 (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.