Talk:Wishing Well Foundation USA

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because the subject of this page has recieved overwhelmingly negative coverage by secondary sources. Although this article may seem like an attack page, Wikipedia's NPOV page states that subjects covered negatively should be treated as such. Additionally, the page on G10 criterion says that it usually applies to unsourced and entirely negative claims, which is not true in this article. The template on this page says that an attack page "includes libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to."

Libel: Nope. All information provided is backed up by reliable sources.

Legal threats: None. The controversies section was describing a case that was brought against the foundation; I never personally made a legal threat.

Material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person: I did not create this article with intent to harass or intimidate the foundation; I do not think the article appears such either.

An article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced: First off, this article is clearly not about a person, it is about a charity. Second, the article is not entirely negative in tone either. I have included statements made by both sides on the controversy. Third, this article is not unsourced, as I have provided sources that meet Wikipedia's policies.

The opening line of the template states "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject or some other entity." To the contrary, this article neither disparages nor threatens the subject. --Joshualouie711 (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be correct, I was erring on the side of caution, we'll let an admin decide one way or the other. Theroadislong (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have declined the speedy nomination as suspected - I would still count an article as meeting G10 if it was cited to an attack feed on Facebook and / or Twitter, but citations to USA Today don't fall under this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)