Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kids for World Health

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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kids for World Health[edit]

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

Non notable school group--all or almost all the references are from the local paper & similar sources. It's written like copyvio, but I did not find the source. I've tried editing it to make it less promotional and give it a chance, but they reverted me, saying , when I removed a list of their two dozen founders and officers, "no reason for removal of helpful list. Next time, please do it correctly". DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Is this article too local to be considered independent? ^Bongo_matic 01:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an international group. It has chapters in the US and in other countries. It has built over five clinics in Africa and participated in global conferences. It is no meager school group. I will make the article less promotional. Once that is done, the article should stay. Thanks.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. Any more objections? Thanks.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 08:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

relist rationale. There have been substantial changes made to the article that may or may not address the nominators concerns. The community needs to have another chance to look at a substantially different article before this can be closed. Ged UK 09:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think the sources are a bit borderline but they do establish notability. This is an area where sourcing can be difficult - Kids Doing Something Worthy is local newspaper fodder but a lot of charitable work in Africa has very little web presence. bobrayner (talk) 05:11, 3 December 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.