Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream House for Medically Fragile Children (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Dream House for Medically Fragile Children
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional article for small charity, complete with promotioanl quotes form the various press releases about them.  DGG ( talk ) 09:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now and restart later if conceivable as I found some links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam but also nothing convincingly better. Pinging taggers and  and past AfD users, , , ,  and .  SwisterTwister   talk  20:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping; I have commented below. The salience of the 2008 coverage by People Magazine and in the ABC Person of the Week is enough to make this a clear Keep, IMHO, and there are more supporting news articles along the whole life of the organization.  Compare this to a football player who played in one game (one example given in a recent SignPost editorial, i think it was).  -- do  ncr  am  00:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I could find nothing to suggest it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Laura Moore and the organization (you can't separate the two, it is one article) was covered in People Magazine and featured as one of ABC News' "Person of the Week" along with the likes of Randy Pausch.  I just added more to the article.  I could add more based on two more years of 501c3 financial reports (Form 990) available since the last AFD, and I believe there are more sources.


 * The article is about a compelling story of a nurse profoundly affected by one sick child, who created a home for that child (who she eventually adopted) and others, and who took on a much larger goal of creating a series of homes. The organization rose and fell, going over 1,000,000.  It built an private charitable organization that raised and spent more than $3 million (maybe 4 or 5) cumulatively.  It is certain that the organization made a huge difference in the lives of the 100 orphans and other "worst of the worst"-situation children directly served in its house;  it is possible (my speculation) that it saved hospitals and governments more than it cost.  It is likely (my speculation) that the organizations' success with weekend programs that assisted families in coping with the needs of fragile children saved more, and it is probably a dam shame that it did not get any significant government support to match with the private fundraising and allow it to continue and expand. I have not found post-mortem type interviews but offhand I guess that there will be book(s) about it.  It does not serve Wikipedia to delete the article, at all.


 * The article was fine when I voted Keep in the first AFD even before another person added more. It is more fine now.  I don't think DGG's AFD nominations of articles like this help;  I think they hurt Wikipedia; DGG is not out of line in any policy terms and has indicated willingness to discuss this previously, which I appreciate.  I think this one hurts; it is offensive to suggest the article is "promotional" to benefit the insiders of the organization.  Besides the fact that it is closed, it was an organization that paid its last Executive Director less than $40,000 per year and where no board member ever received a dime; they were all no doubt significant donors.  I really am offended that this kind of organization is being compared to the trash of the truly promotional, self-serving, policy-violating kind.


 * And it's discouraging to come back to this again after one AFD. Don't people have better things to do (the nominator, the voters for deletion, the voters for keeping, all of us)?  In this case I don't know if the nominator performed wp:BEFORE or assumed that there was no more coverage since the first AFD, which would have been incorrect.  -- do  ncr  am  00:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. In course of this I note the topic of ABC Person of the Week is missing from Wikipedia and it is pretty clearly a valid topic, perhaps largely to serve as a list of the awardees who seem to be incredibly inspiring. I checked about 15 awardees' names and found only one who does not already have a Wikipedia article (and she deserves one);  awardees have passed a vetting process with higher BLP standards than Wikipedia's.  Most will deserve coverage in separate articles and as list-items;  there may be a few which should be covered only as list-items.  If the list-article existed we could consider arguments towards redirecting this Dream House article to its list-item, keeping the article history at the redirect and enabling restoration and expansion depending upon future developments.  But I would oppose that for this topic, and that is not an option now.  Currently in this Dream House article I have put in a section covering the Person of the Week topic more than should stay within this article;  what I wrote could benefit from editing now and will need to be edited further when there is a separate article (which I am inclined to start drafting at Draft:ABC Person of the Week.  One way that AFDs like this are damaging is that they cause deletion of items that should be covered in list-articles instead.  Building list-articles is done more productively by other means than consuming goodwill in AFDs. -- do  ncr  am  00:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Question - Do you have a link for the People magazine article and/or the NBC News clip?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I say NBC somewhere? It is ABC News, and the clip is here used in the article now as a source and also is included in External links.  It is my source to know that the story was covered in People Magazine;  I have not obtained the People Magazine article.  How to present the PM coverage will need to be revised once that is obtained. -- do  ncr  am  02:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article mentions both national coverage on both ABC News and NBC News, although the NBC reference is sourced to a Youtube video of the ABC Nightly News story. It may be a typo.  After futzing with the kludgey People online archive search, I managed to find the January 8, 2007 feature article about Laura Moore and Dream House: .  Please incorporate it into the text with an appropriate footnote.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a clear pass with significant coverage in The Atlanta Business Chronicle, which is the very influential specialist newspaper for metro Atlanta's business community (paid twice-weekly circulation of 30,000, with over a half-million online article views per month), the People magazine feature article (January 8, 2007) linked above, and the ABC News national "Person of the Week" feature story, combined with the coverage in other local publications. The coverage is more than sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG.  With the national feature coverage, this is not even a particularly close call.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. References seem fleeting, and I cannot get away from the promotional aspect. Furthermore, any article DGG is minded to delete is most unlikely to be worth keeping. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your reasons are completely irrelevant to AFD. Notability is not temporary;  if there was undue promotion (which I don't agree to be the case), it would be addressed by editing not by deletion;  everyone, including DGG, has been wrong. -- do  ncr  am  13:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC) SBaker43 (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a local topic, but it clearly has gotten national attention on more than one occasion.
 * Keep - seems to have been covered in various media so meets the notability standards. Needs a good ce though. JMWt (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the mix of national coverage and local news profiles, I think this meets notability. I agree that there's some quote reliant sentences in the page. The headings could also be revised some it doesn't look so promotional. I would tidy those things. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Mostly local coverage, yes, but sufficient national sources (People and CBS News) to justify keeping per WP:GNG. I think it's likely appropriate to Rename to Laura O. Moore as both of the major national sources are more about her than the organization. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:47, 18 November 2015 (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.