Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christel House International


 * 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. It appears as if the G11 ship has sailed and there are no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Christel House International

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

Does have coverage but is an advert There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep &mdash; A quick Google search tells me that the article is borderline-notable. If it is kept, it seriously needs a rewrite. —Animum (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Animum got it right. Google news shows some notability here but it needs to be rewritten.--RadioFan (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I trimmed some of the promotional language. As written the article is now quite stubby and needs filling out. It seems an article could be written based on sources but expansion is necessary. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article has already been speedy deleted four times in the past two days, as you can see here. Bmg 916 Speak 18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * wow buddy what you been smokinh? LOlThere is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. There seems to be clearly material to write an article. The same admin did all the speedies, with the reasons f, A7 and G11 -- and both of them are wrong. Indicating it serves a large no. of people is an indication of notability, & there was an informative core.  It was also marked for copyvio of http://christelhouse.org/ --some of it was, but not all. DGG (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the assertion that G11 was wrong. G11 states that the article "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic", which I felt applied to original incarnations. TN X Man  19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is notability when covered by Forbes and The Hindu; the Reuters piece is PR as is the Perspective magazine article, but Gnews shows coverage in Times of India, Indian Express, Indianapolis Star etc. Also, since it's a non commercial organization (as it is a non-profit org), WP:CLUB should apply, and both criteria are satisfied. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Spaceman7Spiff. There are notable reliable sources. Tree Karma (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. But the creator of the article probably has a strong WP:COI and needs to be counseled about it. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:00, 2 July 2009 (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.