Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaf Children Australia

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. even if would being for procedural reason, there is enough consensus to keep without the sock reason JForget 02:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf Children Australia[edit]

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

~~Although a organisation with good intentions, that does not justify the lack of nobility or well known third-party sources. <redacted> Kalakitty _talk 22:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck, sock Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (Assume that nominator meant "lack of notability" and not nobility!) On the face of it, a charity which has been in existence since 1860 would seem to be inherently notable, although the article does a terrible job of establishing that. Still, the quality of the article is not determinative of its suitability for the encyclopedia, so this should stay and someone should adopt it and give it the working over it needs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 07:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It didn't take me long (about 2 seconds) to find enough sources upon which a verified article could be built. I think it meets WP:CORP. I also agree that the size, scope and history of the organisation make it notable and we have enough information to verify those matters.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: I am happy for my keep !vote to be disregarded in the final analysis. While I think the subject of this article is notable, I have no objection to this article being deleted for the reasons given by Mattingbn. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an advertisement masquerading as an article that would require a complete rewrite to turn into a encyclopaedic article. See WP:ARTSPAM. If someone wants to completely rewrite it, then I may reconsider. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Bad faith nomination by vandal user. The organisation's website maintains a comprehensive list of media coverage running to several pages (here); I'm obviously not suggesting the organisation's website is a reliable source but the coverage it's linking to is, and it's simpler to direct you there than repeat it here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is notable per press coverage, article is fixable. Thparkth (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2010 (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.