Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CanDo4Kids


 * 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, consensus to keep, delete concerns noted but dismissed due to age of charity, coverage in national press and assertion of oldest charity Fr33kman talk  APW 20:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

CanDo4Kids

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nonnotable Austrailian charity organization. CSD G11 was declined because of the assertion that CanDo4Kids is South Austrailia's oldest children's charity. When you take away the promotional language, history section (nothing special there), services (same as any hospital), and spammy external links there is nothing left to the article or charity itself to write about, let alone establish notability. No hits on google news and one irrelevant hit on google scholar. Themfromspace (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep per the above supplemented by this, although the book doesn't have a preview available. There's probably more available as well. TravellingCari 20:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Being a bonified charity that helps children (and the blind) and has been around since the 1870s may be enough to be notable due to the longevity alone, including being the oldest in S.A. Granted, the article absolutely needs work, but since the organization has been around over 130 years, I am betting there are plenty of references (and other notable events) available, even if more are buried in a library.  If this was a 10-20 year old charity, I might be more inclined to agree with nominator.  Since they are not, I think you have to give an ample opportunity to develop.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 19:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I get 18 hits on gnews. Are you confident you selected "all dates" when doing the search?-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  19:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has passed the prime WP:N guideline test with a secondary references that could be added with Google News finding 18 refs, and the book reference above. If anything, this article just needs a cleanup, wikifying, adding citations.--Takver (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have done some tidying up of the article, removing POV marketing/promotional information, wikifying, adding categories, an info box, and the citation to the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry on William Townsend. The Secondary refs from Google News still need to be gone through to see what else can be added.--Takver (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2008 (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.