Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Autism Foundation


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

California Autism Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG. All the references in the article are self referential. I found a few independent articles  but they are from a single source - the San Francisco Chronicle or its blogs - and thus they don't fulfill the requirement for significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Tagged for multiple problems since September 2013 with no improvement. Proposed deletion withdrawn by proposer. MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a major organization.  With significant coverage in SF Chronicle, yes, and also other sources if search on "California Autism Foundation -chronicle" just at main google search page.  Among 5,240,000 hits:
 * Apr 2, 2013, 11:33am PDT "John D. Rockefeller takes helm at California Autism Foundation", Renée Frojo, San Francisco Business Times, ,
 * same story also covered in "Cloverdale man leads national autism foundation", MARTIN ESPINOZA, THE PRESS DEMOCRAT April 2, 2013
 * Reuters, carrying business press wire story:
 * According to Guidestar's copy of the nonprofit's financial report, it is a $5.6 million size organizatin (revenues, a bit more than its expenses), with 6.988m assets less liabilities to have 2.4 m net assets. Seems major enough to be covered here.  I'm sure that there's lots more in other sources.
 * The fact that the article hasn't been edited to respond to tags is a matter for editing, not AFD. -- do ncr  am  01:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep because of the sources discovered by . Thanks.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks for your research, Doncram, but I'm not impressed by coverage from the San Francisco Business Times, the Press-Democrat (which got a basic fact wrong in the headline - it's a Bay Area foundation, not a national foundation), and a press release. My nomination stands. Anyone else want to weigh in? --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the sources found by Doncram, which appear to be independent, reliable, and cover the subject in detail. Those sources aren't in the article yet so we need to get them in there, but that's a matter of clean-up not AfD. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 00:08, 10 May 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.