Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carter BloodCare


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  02:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Carter BloodCare

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Giving this one more week in the hope that we can get some analysis of the sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine, United States of America,  and Texas. UtherSRG (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This should probably be kept in my opinion, the referencing is not great but does have quite a number of mentions from publishers considered to be reliable sources, as well as local sources which is to be expected. Subject is a nonprofit fulfilling a critical function, so "promotion" in this sense is not for profit but rather for obvious philanthropic need. - Indefensible (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Borderline on whether the coverage is significant enough, but there's plenty of it and it's definitely independent, reliable local news.
 * https://www.kwtx.com/2023/08/30/waco-fire-begins-collecting-donations-battle-badges-blood-drive/ - Independent, reliable, significant coverage.
 * https://www.fox44news.com/news/local-news/bell-county/killeen-battle-of-the-badges-sees-record-number-of-donors/ - Independent, reliable, significant coverage.
 * https://www.crosstimbersgazette.com/2023/09/04/licardos-life-saving-mission-former-navy-seal-leads-sixth-annual-blood-drive/ - Independent, reliable, borderline significance
 * Their website lists off every time they've been mentioned in the local news. Many instances aren't significant, but it's pretty clear they're a community staple in Texas and get lots of coverage of their annual blood drives.
 * https://www.carterbloodcare.org/who-we-are/newsroom/in-the-news/ BrigadierG (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete
 * https://www.kwtx.com/2023/08/30/waco-fire-begins-collecting-donations-battle-badges-blood-drive - not significant coverage, just a passing mention/press release
 * https://www.fox44news.com/news/local-news/bell-county/killeen-battle-of-the-badges-sees-record-number-of-donors - not significant coverage or independent content, just a press release
 * https://www.crosstimbersgazette.com/2023/09/04/licardos-life-saving-mission-former-navy-seal-leads-sixth-annual-blood-drive/ - mentioned twice in passing
 * I'm really not seeing any in-depth, independent coverage here, just a bunch of scraping of the bottom of the barrel that isn't sufficient. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this article? I grant that it's really primarily about the behavior of the Red Cross in this period, but it does underscore the significance of the article subject as a competitor in the field (and was published in a different state). BD2412  T 18:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I really don't think that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep or draftify. A newspapers.com search yields over 5,000 hits, some of which seem more substantial in coverage than the sources put forth so far. BD2412  T 01:04, 20 September 2023 (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.