Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Children Assistance Network


 * 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. JForget 00:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

International Children Assistance Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:ORG. in 10 years of existence it gets 13 gnews hits some of it passing mentions. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 08:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and added a number of links. Not everything is on GNews, sometimes you have to dig. Silver  seren C 08:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * many of these external links added are merely passing mentions like and, and not in depth coverage that establishes notability. articles like this  merely verify they do work in vietnam but is not coverage primarily about the organisation. This is merely a press release with major input from ICAN so it is not an independent third party source. This is merely a directory listing of a whole lot of organisations and really stretching it as actual coverage.  This qualifies as indepth coverage of Quyen Vuong and suitable if you want to create an article about her. LibStar (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The article looks okay to me right now, and the references added show the organization is notable enough. Omirocksthisworld( Drop a line ) 23:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD shows results. Plenty of links added to the article.  I read through some of them.  This is clearly a notable charity.   D r e a m Focus  11:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a weak article that can and should be improved. An infobox with logo, location, and other information would be a good start.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * please provide evidence of how it meets WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It meets WP:GNG, clearly. Read through the news summaries at least, and you can find something that should indicate notability to you.   D r e a m Focus  04:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * hardly, 13 hits in 10 years of existence, some of these hits merely verify its existence (one hit is a reader letter) and are not in depth coverage, Wikipedia is not intended to cover every organisation in existence. clutching at straws to say this meets WP:ORG. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Many sources are for 1 newspaper, this organisation claims to be International but gets no real international coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per those above - the coverage indicated above seems to be ample is establishing notability.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 14:21, 1 April 2010 (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.