Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Better World


 * 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) Sam Sailor Talk! 02:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A Better World

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local charitable organization that fails notability guidelines of WP:ORG. Kelly hi! 17:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * keep. This isn't even close. WP:ORG says an org is notable if it has received non-trivial independent coverage. One of the refs is an article about the org's 20th anniversary, and a few of the others currently in the article are also non-trivial coverage. There's even a book about it by a local journalist. Regionally notable is still notable. Gimmetrow 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I respectfully disagree with the "keep" argument above; what WP:ORG actually says isn't an org is notable if it has received non-trivial independent coverage, it's attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary which is clearly not the case here, and there's no indication that this is anything other than a tiny local group of minimal significance. "One of the refs is an article about the org's 20th anniversary" is a totally spurious argument; I can find equally legitimate articles in my own local paper about the 20th anniversaries of the Midhurst Community Bus Association, the Hemel Hempstead branch of Specsavers, the Ballymena Birdwatching Club and the West Dean Gardens Chili Fiesta, but it doesn't mean they qualify for Wikipedia pages by virtue of age. It's certainly possible for small local organisations to be notable by Wikipedia standards, but it needs to be demonstrated that they've had an impact significant enough to warrant the attention of those outside their local community, which this article singularly fails to do, and while it's a difficult name to Google I can't find any evidence that anyone else has noticed them. &#8209; iridescent 19:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rajah's order of Alberta article is mostly about ABW ; it's been covered on Canoe   - "Having a world-class humanitarian organization in your community presents some great opportunities for news coverage..."; and there's . Gimmetrow 19:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly not a fan of the creator, but, to be fair, I have to speak in favour of keeping. The organisations unambiguously meets WP:GNG. Has received non-trivial independent coverage. The cited book above clearly adds weight. AusLondonder (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Satisfies WP:ORG. There's an awful lot of local coverage and enough national/regional to push it over the top. Adventist World magazine (cover story), founder (via org) one of CBC's Champions of Change, Edmonton Journal (Canada.com), Red Deer Advocate (2 3), LaCombe Express (2 3), Alberta Order of Excellence (primary source, indeed), Canoe.com... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep from what I can see, the nominator has taken it upon himself to mass delete a good many articles in Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Canada, with cookie cutter and in some cases deeply flawed or misleading rationales. In this case, A Better World is not a "local" organization - a favoured term of his in nominations, even if when it's not the case - and even if it were, being "local" is not a policy-based reason to delete. It is not the same as merely being a WP:BRANCH. Anyway, we have enough refs to meet notability requirements. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This organization has received good press, lots of good connections and even though I live 12 hours drive away I'm familiar with their work. Notable. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Again, this is not even a close call. There are multiple examples of significant coverage in independent, reliable, mainstream media sources linked on this page above to satisfy WP:ORG and WP:GNG.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rhododendrites' links to national media coverage, satisfying WP:ORG. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - GNG seems to be fulfilled here. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP Passes WP:GNG. My searches found lots of reliable sources that can be used to support notability and improve article. Nom fails WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - What is being missed is the type of sources here. Really, you have references from two publishers and both of them are local.  Every high school football team gets local coverage from two different sources, so policy demands we raise the bar a bit higher for corp notability.  WP:CORP says it plainly: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.  "At least regional", meaning regional coverage is not preferable, but is the minimum bar to useful in demonstrating it passes WP:GNG.  When you only have local coverage, they can be used to verify facts, but they can not be used as proof of notability.  The sourcing outside of the local doesn't seem to be strong enough. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Like the CBC: ; Radio Free Europe:; Adventist Review is also a more-than-regional publication, here:, as is Adventist World: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Adventist World distributes 1.5 million print copies across multiple languages that are then passed around between members in churches, plus who knows how many web subscribers. I'd guess that 10 million people minimum see every monthly issue within 3 or 4 months of publication. The problem here is Neelix was interested in promoting She Has a Name so 2/3rds of the article focuses on a loose connection with that play choosing the charity to raise money for, not on the 20+ years of humanitarian work they have been doing. I'll do some fixing to give things balance later.    Legacypac (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic clearly demonstrates WP:SIGCOV in the article and in a WP:BEFORE search. Mkdw talk 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.