Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Network Projects

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community Network Projects[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability of this charity. The only reference is to their charity registration, which is WP:ROUTINE coverage. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources now added to the article to establish notability these include National Health Services (NHS), The Express newspaper and the Phone Co-Op part of the Co-operative Group. The charity was established with a name back in 1990 which has become words in increasingly common and in popular use. This is one of the reasons I believe they need an identify and presence on Wikipedia. I can add further relevant content and improve in time, but request this is not deleted for the above reasons. Craig Barnshaw (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: probably a bit premature. This article was created by a first-time editor at the Barclays Editathon, who is just getting to grips with what we require for notability. There is now a reference to a Sunday Express article where the CE of Community Network comments on social isolation and the article name-checks the Community Network website and phone contact at the end. Community Network gets a brief paragraph in the NHS "Loneliness in older people" article. There's also an article in charitydigitalnews.co.uk about Community Network's tie-in with The Phone Co-op. It's possibly still short of the significant coverage we ask for, but it's looking like waiting a day for the original author to add the extra references has improved the article substantially. --RexxS (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has improved and notability getting established, per RexxS and Craig Barnshaw. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The charity supports a number of other charities as a key enabler, I will continue to add sources. I was keen to publish my first entry, in retrospect more time should have been spent on draft. Have now added further source and links for Seaman's Hospital Society and Seafarers UK. I have also found links to UK Gov sites e.g. http://www.dumgal.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=9786&p=0 but need to complete research before adding. Craig Barnshaw (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are notable $AHLM13$ talk 11:37, 18 June 2014 (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.