Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children Awaiting Parents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. only primary references, I did a search and was unable to find secondary prior to closing this AfD Tawker (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Children Awaiting Parents[edit]

Children Awaiting Parents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently there is no independent third party reference and I think this article doesn't pass WP:NGO. Jim Carter (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just added a reference and some info from its publicly available nonprofit Form 990 filing to the IRS. It is of significant size, above $1m in assets, and growing, and seems significant. I agree the article should be further developed with more sources, but that is for tagging and for Talk page discussion. --doncram 23:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 5 April 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, The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only sources are primary. I can't find any news coverage (even passing mentions) of this charity. Pburka (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in depth independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:37, 13 April 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.