Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheyanna's Champions for Children

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyanna's Champions for Children[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)

essentially advocacy. The usual personal story., with the usual promotional coverage. WP is not a tabloid DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks the level of coverage needed to pass WP:GNG or a criterion such as WP:ORG. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization received a commendation and resolution by the Texas State Legislature [1]. Not every 503c, even those fighting noble causes, receives that. There is substantial local, regional and state level media attention when doing a BEFORE search. Nothing in WP:N says the coverage must be at a national or international level. It does receive mentions from national media outlets and organizations as well. The bottom line is that the amount of sources, both mentions and lengthy coverage, coupled with the resolution means it should be included. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide links to some of the media coverage? For some reason, my searches have come up empty, aside from what amounts to "here's a fundraiser"-type mentions in local media, so having that information would be helpful in potentially reassessing my position. Thank you in advance. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Keep in mind that there is often other information about the foundation and its effects in the community within those "here's a fundraiser" articles. As long as it is written about the foundation in a reliable/verifiable independent source then it counts. Wikipedia is not as concerned about the significance or content of the source written piece as much as whether the source is reliable or not and whether the foundation receives significant enough coverage in the piece or not. That is the only requirements. That's why we have an article on a guy who attached balloons to a lawn chair and took it for a flight.

These are three media sources, local, regional and national. There are plenty more secondary sources that give this charity significant coverage when searching. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CBS article
Austin American-Statesman newspaper article
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal newspaper article

to have "received a commendation and resolution by the ___ State Legislature" merely shows an active PR agent, not actual significance. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements for notability say nothing about significance other than the more significant the more likely it is notable. However, significance is not a requirement. The only requirements for notability are that it receives significant coverage in reliable or verifiable secondary sources. The Texas State Legislature is a verifiable if not reliable secondary source. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the other sources above, The first is not the national CBS, but CBS Austin, their local coverage. The second, the Austin American, is a good city paper, but it is not a national paper--one could possibly argue it's regional. I cannot see the article. The third, Lubbockonline, which is certainly local, even says in its headline : "Life of local child affected by hydrocephalus" - (my italics).

we use the term "significance" to mean a lower level than notability. When I nominated it for CSD, I nominated only for G11, advocacy. not for G7, no indication of significance. It has some degree of local significance. That's enough to bring the discussion here, but not enough for incl sion in WP. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a subject is not significant to you does not mean it should not be included here in Wikipedia. All of the sources provided are verifiable independent sources that cover the subject significantly in the specific source, as opposed to simply mentioning the subject. That is what GNG says. Nothing else matters, period. Not your opinion and not mine. If there were no independent verifiable sources I would most likely agree with you. Because there are I disagree. GNG says nothing about local or national or international "significance". --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my query above. The CBS Austin article barely mentions the charity, as it is primarily about her participation in Miss Texas Teen, and is ostensibly of the type of human interest story that local news is filled with. The Statesman article is literally the type of event/fundraising notice I mentioned above, and barely mentions the charity as well (caveat: it is paywalled, so I'm basing it on the OCR text of the link you provided). The Avalanche Journal article, while about the founder and namesake of the charity, does not even mention the charity itself. I fail to see how these sources show "significant coverage" per WP:GNG and thus I have decided to let my !vote above stand. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know what you are reading but the CBS article is completely about the pageant platform of Miss Teen Texas which is part of what the organization is about and picks out a little girl that the charity organization is helping. The Lubbock article is about the namesake of the Charity itself. It is telling you the backstory on why the organization was started, hence Cheyanna's direct name being mentioned. Keep your vote the same, that's your prerogative. We obviously have different views on the purpose of Wikipedia, what constitutes notability, per WP:GNG, and the inclusion of articles on notable organizations like this 503c charity. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This very argument is a perfect example of advocacy . Notability is not the only reason for deletion Advocacy that cannot be removed without destroying the article, or that makes up the larger part of the article, is an equally good reason. (As an example, I've just made an effort to clean up the article, by removing material based only on unreliable sources or not encyclopedic, not to destroy it but to do whatever could be done. It still leave the article as advocacy primarily. But since it's just as an example, I'm reverting for the time being to what it was before it worked on it. ) If we didn't follow this rule, Wikipedia would be not an encyclopedia, but a website for advertisements for notable things. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not for "article cleanup". The organization IS notable, even if regionally. That should be the only concern in regards to Wikipedia. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete they do good work, but not sufficiently notable for inclusion. I see no evidence of significant, in depth coverage. StarM 02:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2020 (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.