Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FosterClub

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. The only user suggesting we keep it doesn't seem convinced. That it's not the kind of group that gets written about is actually a strong argument to delete. While AFD is not for cleanup, the spammy tone combined with the lack of substantial sources attached to the article means that our best move for now is to delete, without prejudice towards recreation as a properly sourced article with a neutral tone. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FosterClub[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement. And I couldn't any reliable sources. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 09:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [1]. Fails WP:ORG. Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now: the article is written like an advertisement and needs to be changed, however, if the organization is serving 27,000 people, than it is a significant entity. Per Joe Chill's point, this is not the kind of group that gets books written about it; I am not surprised he only found one. That said, I checked google's archived news stories and found FosterClub covered by the SF Chronicle, Tampa Tribune, and AZ Daily Star. They seem reliable enough for me. I suggest the article be kept but that it be tagged, asking the editors to bring it up to language and tone standards. Failing that, it should be deleted. Tobit2 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe Chill. Maybe the subject is notable, maybe not. If it is, starting from scratch might be the least of evils. Chutznik (talk) 01:34, 29 January 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.