Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building a future

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Building a future[edit]

Was an expired WP:PROD. After deletion an IP came to my talk page and asked me to restore it. — Aitias // discussion 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - I'm not clear on notability/inclusion criteria for NPOs but this one seems pretty marginal. A google search for "Building a future" Tegucigalpa nets a bunch of hits but most of them seem coincidental. Above and beyond the NPO website I see a facebook hit and a Digg hit that match but thats all... My mind can certainly be changed by good arguements. Usrnme h8er (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per new sources and article rewrite. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep [1] claims to be a 3rd party source (though copy is on the NGO's website) and [2] lists what appear to be further sources. I've not hunted them down to the original publications (which may not be on-line and are in Spanish (which I don't speak). Even with all that, coverage is mostly of one event (getting 1/2 million dollar check). Consider this a "pure" keep !vote if someone can verify at least one of the 3rd party sources. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources seem acceptable now. Verifying that the sources _are_ what they claim to be, rather than a hoax, is difficult as they are hosted on the NGO's site. But given the other sources meet WP:V, I'm good. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the original author, and I'd like to build a case for keeping it. When I first created the page, I didn't have the references setup correctly. I have fixed that and added an external reference to The Battalion, the official campus newspaper from Texas A&M University, to explain how the project began. Would this along with the A&M Insight magazine article mentioned above (sourced from our website becuase the magazine is print only) suffice? I can add references to three articles in Spanish newspapers in Honduras, but those also would be links to scanned pictures of articles on our website.Robfurrball (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a next step I should follow to move this along? This is my first AfD discussion, and I haven't heard anything for the last few days. Thanks.Robfurrball (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait. It should close after 5 days (or perhaps be relisted for another 5) by a admin. Given the holiday things are likely a bit behind and this one isn't exactly easy to close at this point. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a well intentioned group doing good work, but it doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines for wp:notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep since the addition of Spanish sources.~~Delete~~--I don't see that this subject is notable. Spanish sources might help, but I can't find them, and so until then I am forced to vote against keeping it. As it is, the article does not establish notability, since the references given are not very independent or broader than regional (a student newspaper and a university magazine, the kind sent to alumni). Sorry, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of any problem with "regional" news sources. I also think a student paper covering a student is making the same editorial decision about notability any paper makes. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't have WP:N memorized..."regional" isn't the right word, "local" is. I cite from WP:N, Organizations, Primary criteria: "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." A campus paper is local, and thus their inclusion is not a (strong) marker of notability. BTW, I'm not sure I agree with you on the sameness of the editorial decision. I've worked for and with campus newspapers, and without wanting to disparage them, decisions are sometimes made on different grounds (such as anything happening at all, like on my campus ;) for instance). Drmies (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I forget that WP:ORG has that in there. I still think the other sources listed (in other countries) make it not local (or local to two places I guess). But now I understand, thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop. Johnfos (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per creator. And I will remember to NEVER ask nominator for help. travb (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update from original author (Keep) - I added two additional references from newspapers in San Pedro Sula Tegucigalpa, Honduras. They are scans of the print articles hosted on the organization's website, because the newspapers' online archives do not reach back that far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfurrball (talk • contribs) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete local group of no substantial importance yet. DGG (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2009 (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.