Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Child Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable organization and I haven't found any reliable third-party sources at all. I found zero results with Google News and Google News archives, there is nothing to support this content aside from the group's website. SwisterTwister  talk  02:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This charity seems like it ought to be notable; it claims 50 employees and four offices, and their webpage lists decent sources . However, it appears that the group was investigated and raided by the feds, and three principals were indicted for a number of things involving misuse of foundation money to make investments in Iran and support a radical ayatollah there. These charges, rather than their charitable activities, appear to be their main "claim to fame" and should be in the article, but IMO the coverage hasn't really been enough to be able to add it to the article in a fair and NPOV way. Plus there are BLP issues with writing about charges as opposed to convictions. Probably best just to delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete bur with no prejudice against rep\creation if they can find material to support notability. I don't want to say for certain that there won't be any, but I haven't see it. The charges  are just charges, unproven, and cannot be made the focus of the article -- and are not of sufficient importance to justify an article if there would not be one otherwise. If an article is justified by their work, then they should be included in due proportion.  DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete . Unable to find any reliable independent  sources that  would satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ORG in  number, depth, and scope Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2012 (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.