Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyondblue (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (WP:SNOW). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Beyondblue
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Highly promotional article. They have gotten some significant press coverage, but most of the article deals with advocating their cause, not describing the organization. Would need to be started over from scratch with a NPOV.  DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to have enough media coverage to warrant an entry. I am not seeing much promotional content to warrant that criticism, but a) I just scanned the article so I am not saying this too strongly and 2) while I have no objection to this getting tagged with advert,peacock or such, this is not enough to warrant the deletion. I think the article passes notability, so while we could tag it with issue-tags, I am not seeing enough reason to get this deleted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It's certainly a notable organisation, which gets lots of media attention, but the article could be an awful lot better. It and the organisation seem often to serve the function of promoting the image of two failed politicians from the same party at its head. I am concerned that the media has not done much real analysis of what Beyondblue is really doing, so I don't know how we will go finding great sources for a deeper look at things. There needs to be some quantitative indication of what real successes Beyondblue has had, if any, rather than just platitudes abut what its aims are, and how great it is that these ex-pollies are involved. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article isn't great, but this is among Australia's best-known NGOs and has a strong public profile. A search of Google Scholar also shows that it has been the subject of a number of scholarly articles, which will probably provide some material relevant to addressing HiLo48's concerns about assessments of its impact - these three articles in particular provide evaluations of the organisation and/or individual programs it runs:, , . Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Keep, close the AFD, allow editors to develop Wikipedia.  Sure, tag whatever you wish.  But AFDs on notable topics seem not helpful to developing Wikipedia, they seem to throw a wrench into it, instead, IMHO. -- do  ncr  am  02:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, one of Australia's better known NGOs, and the subject of extensive third party coverage as demonstrated by User:Nick-D. The article itself can be improved of course, but that's no reason on its own to delete.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep, a well known organisation in Australia, and the article should be improved. Trankuility (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs improvement not deletion and it is very well known within Australia, though perhaps not outside of the country.  --BenM (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2014 (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.