Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CARE Indonesia

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 merge to CARE (relief agency). ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 22:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CARE Indonesia[edit]

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

No individual notability, created by SPA -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in multiple independent sources.

Government urged to protect child domestic workers 02/16/2010 Jakarta Post

Borneo project aims to yield lessons on saving forests, Reuters

Aid workers grapple with infrastructure damage after Sumatra quake Reuters AlertNet 01 Oct 2009 13:41

NGOs in new plea for Java funds= BBC

I note that SPA is a distinction that always runs the risk of violating WP:AGF. In this case it has no bearing at all; to the contrary, this is a case that is more accurately reflected by the fact that most of our content comes from editors with knowledge in a limited area, and possibly professionals with little time on their hands, as should be no surprise to anyone who has thought for a time on the basic concept of Wikipedia: many hands make light work.

Anarchangel (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know about the notability of this topic, but "created by SPA" is not a valid reason for deletion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge to CARE (relief agency)). Not independently notable: Anarchangel's links do not offer significant coverage of the organisation but merely a quote or brief reference in each case. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very disturbing when WP editors vote on the basis of what appears to be faulty scanning of the material. The Reuters Borneo article, in particular, only stops talking about CARE Indonesia and its work and focus when it is directly talking about or quoting another agency with the same work and focus. That's like saying an article is trivial coverage of a baseball team because it mentioned the team they played against; only more so, because the other agencies are cooperating. Anarchangel (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article needs significant refs to be justified as notable. Also, bearing in mind WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:BALANCE and WP:NGO, there are quite a few CARE ancillary organisations that are potentially more notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verified, encyclopedic information to CARE (relief agency). After searching yesterday, wasn't finding much significant coverage, so the topic may not warrant its own article. However, a merge would satisfy WP:PRESERVE. The links above are basically mentions to various degrees, which provide some information for verification purposes. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Northamerica1000. Also, I agree with Anarchangel on the subject of the SPA distinction and its use. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NGO (and I had cleaned up CARE (relief agency) as per the suggestion in the guideline). Also, as per the guideline and WP:BALANCE there is no need to merge anything. Come on people - quality not quantity! 4,000,000 articles is not a target!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to CARE (relief agency). Stuartyeates (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2012 (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.