Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Orphans

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 delete. While there is sourcing that can verify information, there is a consensus that only the Inc article satisfies our criteria to establish notability. As such there is a delete consensus at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Orphans[edit]

[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)

I think this fails WP:NCORP but it's arguable—hence this sitting in CAT:NN since 2016. There was indeed a 2-page article in Inc about it in 2007: basically, World Orphans did not do its due diligence with overseas partners and ended up out $70k. Beyond that, there's not much else significant I can find. There's this in the Gaylord Herald Times (small local newspaper) and this (maybe an RS, but just a namedrop). I think this calls for a deletion discussion. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence. Not very notable beyond the Inc article, although that article is not insignificant because of the controversies/issues raised. The article in Gaylord Times, a relatively weak source, reads like a puff piece and Blue & Green (also puffy) probably isn't WP:RS. Maybe a weak keep if the content leans mainly on Inc. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the above sources, particularly the Inc. piece already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep agree there is multiple reliable sources covering this topic in sufficient depth, even if there's only two. - Scarpy (talk)

18:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Weak keep. Borderline but just about makes it. Johncdraper (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing has convinced me. Change to Delete Johncdraper (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The INC piece] referred to above fails WP:ORGIND as it relies entirely on an interview with Mr. Wiseman and has no "Independent Content". As stated above, the blueandgreen reference is really a profile about Wiseman and only mentions this company in passing. The HeraldTimes reference relies on interviews with people involved in the company, fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The inc piece has about four paragraphs of prose so does count for WP:ORGIND imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, littered with phrases which make it clear that the information was provided by Wiseman. For example, how could the author know whether Wiseman was "surprised" or not, or what he "wondered" about, etc. It fails WP:ORGIND because none of the prose is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Sure, the references are somewhat deplorable, one is primary, but the organisation has both detected and cleaned up fraud in a charitable area were all too many are quick to engage in fraud. Recognise their cleanup efforts. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm just not seeing the multiple WP:RS we need to meet WP:NORG. Looking at what's in the article now, guidestar is a directory listing, mlive.com is a college paper article that's mostly about a student, and World Orphans is largely a name drop. The Inc article is a good solid source, but it's just one, and I'm not seeing anything else in my own searching. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2020 (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.