Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hephzibah Children's Association


 * 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 delete.  Citi Cat   ♫ 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hephzibah Children's Association
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Survived an earlier AfD, but I'm not quite sure how. Yes, there are sources, but all they seem to do is prove the place exists — I can't see how this warrants an article. Orphaned stub article, and seems to have been since its creation, with no sign of anyone expanding it for a year —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 
 * Delete Non-notable. I don't see any hope of justifying this one. MarkBul 02:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, just doesn't seem to be notable. Realkyhick 17:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I added the WP:ICU tag. I think it's possibly notable if the article could be extended. I'm somewhat reluctant to see a child charity deleted.  1 redrun  Talk 18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an organisation which was founded in 1897 and was covered in Time Magazine which said "Hephzibah Children's Association, named after a biblical benefactor, operates a small facility funded by the mostly well-to-do citizens of Oak Park; it accommodates children ages 3 to 11 for however long it takes them to be adopted, thus sparing them the foster-care shuffle. Even more unusual, it allows them to veto adoptive parents they don't like. "They stay here until they find a place they are comfortable with," says executive director Mary Anne Brown."  There's also this story  about a man who was raised in the orphanage in the 1930s who talks about it at length and this  from the Jewish World Review. An organisation which has been running continuously for 110 years can't be judged on google hits alone but this one does get 34,500.  I don't really understand the nomination rationale, it admits there are multiple independent sources for this association but says they can be discounted because they merely prove it exists.  It's an orphanage and foster care association which does a lot of work in the local community as all the sources attest, does it have to have its own space programme to get in wikipedia? Nick mallory 01:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment All the references - those you've given, those on the article and those I can find on Google - just mention the orphanage tangentially; thus — as I said in my original nom — this undoubtedly passes WP:V in that there are plenty of sources to prove it exists, but I'm unable to find anything to satisfy WP:N ("the source addresses the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content"). Incidentally, you need to go to the last page of the Google search to get the true number of Ghits - the number on the front page is always wildly out. In this case, the true number of Ghits isn't 34,500 but a rather less impressive 242 —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  09:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 23:04, 10 September 2007 (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.