Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighten A Day


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Brighten A Day

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't think this should have been accepted, despite the references. This is trivial human interest, published for the customary human interest reasons of being connected with attractive young people doing something t interesting at an unusually early age. That's enoughfor a newspaper, but not an encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This organization received a significant amount of media coverage from multiple large news outlets (abiding by WP:ORG) across a period of more than a year. Also, the organization has a global impact serving seniors and frontline workers according to the news stories. There is also more recent media coverage about the work as well. Juyster (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the "global impact" consists of " sent out hundreds of thousands of cards to nursing homes and hospitals". This is not a basis for notability . What it is a basis for, is tabloid-style human interest coverage. The basic policy here is NOT TABLOID, the fundamental WP policy for what gets included and what does not. Exaggerating the importance of the trivial is the stock in trade of newspapers. it is not part of encyclopedias. The GNG is a guideline for what usually gets included, but it's based on WP:NOT, the policy, and if there's an apparent incongruity or conflitct, w go by the policy.   DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The nonprofit did not receive trivial tabloid-style media coverage. Its work and impact were covered extensively on highly reputable news sources like CNN, The Washington Post, CBS This Morning, ABC, and NBC, with not just passing mentions but full articles and news segments. There are more media links beyond those included in the citations of the page, such as this CNN article from May 2020 and Fox News from April 2020. This coverage was extended over a period of more than a year, so it was not a one-time tabloid-like coverage. Also, there are similar organizations with no/little media coverage/recognition (see here - and the Wikipedia page for this organization's founder here - and another organization here) with articles on Wikipedia. The Impact section can be trimmed if needed to improve the article quality. Juyster (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. This is essentially a human interest story that drew national attention during the Covid pandemic. While the organization has gotten significant press coverage, the topic is lacking sustained coverage. In order to prove notability for an encyclopedia we need to show more coverage across time (as in over several years). I would also be ok with draftify per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  04:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC) *Keep (DOUBLE VOTE) The media coverage was not one-event news as discussed in WP:SUSTAINED. The organization did receive extensive sustained global media coverage from April 2020 (see this Fox News article) to September 2021 (see this article). There was coverage across different months in this time period. Also, there are other similar organizations on Wikipedia with little or no significant media coverage: see here for one organization, here for the previous organization's founder, and here for another similar organization. The organization being discussed here received more significant and sustained press coverage than these organizations. Some media links not included as references are this Good Morning America link, LITE Breakfast Podcast, and this CNN Brazil article. There are also other links on the web. Juyster (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * AFD policy forbids double voting.4meter4 (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete please read OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Though I nominated all three articles pointed out by you for deletion, viz. Cards for Hospitalized Kids, Jacob Cramer, Love For Our Elders. Per  and  Brighten A Day doesn't show required sustained coverage to become an encyclopedic entry. ☆★   Mamushir   ( ✉✉ ) 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:SUSTAINED says that a topic must have "attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time" and coverage must not be "in the context of a single event." The news articles provided as evidence of notability span over a period of more than a year and a half, so it is not one event that was covered, as previous users in this discussion have claimed. WP:SUSTAINED is met through coverage from April 2020 to September 2021. WP:ORG is also met through these significant, independent, and reliable sources. Also, notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP. Juyster (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2021 (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.