Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Windham


 * 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The result was withdrawn. Withdrawing as consensus appears to be that this is notable. (non-admin closure) --  Dane talk  00:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Graham Windham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I was on the edge with nominating for G11 - article is very promotional in tone and would require a rewrite to tone it down. This seems to be chalk full of issues with the sourcing as well as a general question of "is it notable?" -- Dane 2007  talk 18:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, my friend here's my two cents:

I was adopted through Graham Windham. I wouldn't be where I am today if it wasn't for Graham Windham. To put it short, let them be "promotional" in tone. I mean, how could they not be? Who lives, who dies, who tells your story?- George Naranjo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.211.188 (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - notability is met for this charity, the oldest nonprofit, non-sectarian child welfare agency in the USA. The "multiple issues tag" is sufficient. AfD is not cleanup. —Мандичка YO 😜 11:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Мандичка. The New York Observer goes into detail of its long history and multiple other sources published over the years go into detail too. --Oakshade (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are sufficient reliable third-party sources to establish notability. The article also relies on the organization's website for substantial additional information, but it's noncontroversial factual information – that does not destroy or detract from the subject's notability. Some editing for tone or NPOV is warranted, but certainly not deletion. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2016 (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.