Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen's Trust


 * 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. Courcelles 00:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Helen's Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No sources, appears to be non-notable local charity. Kelly hi! 20:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have removed some 1100 bytes of copyright infringing text from the history section of the article as per WP:COPYPASTE. Guoguo12  --Talk--  22:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Doing something noble is not the same as being notable. No independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. I found many reliable sources at Google News and added half a dozen to the article. So if you were judging the article in its previous unreferenced state, please take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Relisted since it now appears people after MelanieN's work and those before were examining different articles. Courcelles 00:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. All of the sources that were added- Derbyshire Times, The Star, Bakewell Today- are local sources. In WP:CORP, it indicates that at least one "regional, national, or international sources is necessary". I have not found any evidence of coverage in any non-local source. WP:CLUB, which applies to non-commercial organizations, states that the scope of the organization's activities must be national or international. However, since the organization operates only locally, the secondary criteria also does not apply. Therefore, I am in support of deletion for not being notable. --Slon02 (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per MelanieN's rewrite; seems to pass WP:GNG and the coverage seems widespread enough to rate as "regional" (moreover, I'm not sure I agree that regional/national coverage is an absolute requirement for this kind of activity).--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or else change WP culture so that policies are really followed. I think that too hard a task because the mental state of many of WP's most productive editors (I am assuming good faith) does not enable them to understand how policies such as cited here apply to articles they like. This organization is far more notable than some minor rock band or a character in a popular video game. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2011 (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.