Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diabetes UK


 * 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 that there is sufficient reliable coverage, even to pass WP:NORG (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Diabetes UK

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail the requisite depth of coverage for corporations and organisations. Being a national charity founded by somebody who was notable does not make an entity inherently notable, it must still have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The only two sources which weren't either affiliated or local in terms of media or news that I could find are this and this, both of which are recent articles about the impact of Brexit on diabetics. A spokesperson from the charity is quoted, but the charity itself is not the primary topic of coverage.  SITH   (talk)   16:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  17:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  17:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  17:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  17:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have done some work on this and added some secondary sources. Everything I have added looks non-trivial to me. I agree it still needs independent sourcing of some of the claims in the article. There must be more out there - it is a very well-known charity.Tacyarg (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article passes WP:GNG as this is a well known UK charity that does receive media coverage. A Google News search generates sources, some as yet not used in the article. This is Paul (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , can you give me an example please? My Google News search brings up only local sources.    SITH   (talk)   03:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you need to look a bit further. Yes, there are loads of local sources there, but just about every daily national newspaper is also represented. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Here's some Google searches to get you started. These are from The Independent, The Guardian, The Telegraph, and BBC News. I don't think they're local links. This is Paul (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per common sense, or if you don't like common sense, then per the sources cited in the article and available via the searches linked by the nomination, including, etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2019 (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.