Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love For Our Elders

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 no consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love For Our Elders

[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)

Trailed from the AFD of Brighten A Day, Love For Our Elders appears to be suffering from similar problem - lack of sustained coverage. Most of its coverage are concentrated in the year 2013 only. There are some sporadic coverage since then but nothing significant towards not considering as WP:NOTNEWS. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP. I see that there are a few reliable sources to verify this. And the fact that coverage is 2013 should not diminish the notability - notability is not temporary. Lightburst (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The word "featured in ..." in the press section actually means, mentioned by, including articles with such titles as "31 Ways to Give Back This Holiday..." or ". "50 Ways to Have as Much Fun as ever" or "Five ways your small business can..." Any more substantial coverage is tabloid or promotional , though it's hard to tell promotional from real in this sort of subject. We all immediately recognize an attempted adverisement for a businees; it takes a little detachment to do it for a charity--which is why most of our articles on charities--even notable charities-- are not quite NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC) .[reply]
On balance, Keep. We do seem to have enough coverage for notability, I think. I do think this is a borderline case, but we aren't limited by physical paper, so I'm inclined to retain this. RomanSpa (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:ORG indicates significant coverage is necessary, which the organization seems to have. There seems to be other in-depth coverage available online like this one from AJC or this one from NextAvenue (which I just found with a simple Google search) which is significant. Jollzar450 (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~ Does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. Probably a project this cm kid did to get into college. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Lots of mentions do not add up to actual coverage. TJRC (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With due consideration, Keep. Albeit not the Oprah mention, sig coverage spans 2016-now, meets WP:SUSTAINED. Can't find any coverage from 2013 so I'm uncertain if Mamushir diligently researched before nominating or read past admin's prior deletion discussion on notability. Result was keep. Looks like org has increased in notability since then. Mayamarks (talk) 21:31, 26 October 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.