Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kids Change the World


 * 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. clear consensus; may be re-created if--and only if--further reliable sources are available.  DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Kids Change the World

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Coverage of this organization is limited to a singular reference to Huffington Post, and Google News returns no results. The weight of the two presidential awards appear insignificant, as the Daily Point of Light Award has been given to over 1,000 community groups and the Obama award has over 2,000,000 recipients. Due to its lone source in the Huffington Post, the subject fails WP:CORP, criteria 2 and both additional considerations of WP:NONPROFIT, and WP:GNG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 20:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - All the sources are unreliable like blog posts, forum threads, etc. Seems pretty unimportant to me. --Madison-chan (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan


 * Looking into Kids Change the World, it has many awards if you look closely, including awards from Prudential Financial, the Nestle USA (2011), and has even had influence at the United Nations. They have even funded thousands of dollars of lung cancer research and provided thousands of cleft surgeries in overseas countries. Most uniquely of all, this is a youth-led nonprofit, not like most other nonprofits that are adult-led. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Familytreeusa (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)  — Familytreeusa (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment We need reliable sources to prove these claims. No offense, but it's easy to claim that not many groups are youth-led or that they've had influence at the UN, but we need reliable sources to prove that these are real or exemplary enough to merit an article. For example, I could claim that NASA has sent a pony into space, but I'd have to provide sources in order to prove that it actually happened and that the experiment was noteworthy enough to be included on Wikipedia. A silly example, but the premise in both situations is exactly the same: you need reliable sources to prove notability and all claims. Please see WP:RS to verify what is considered reliable sources. Coming on and saying that the group has done this or that and saying "keep" does not prove notability. This is not decided by a vote. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Keep I agree with Familytreeusa that this article should stay, but definitely needs more development. From a Google search, it is obvious that this is a worthy organization for its unique work and contributions. Worldvanguard (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Worldvanguard (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I was unable to find any additional sourcing outside of that provided in the article. The organization is mentioned a few times in the HuffPost article, but certainly nothing constituting significant coverage.  Furthermore, let's look at these awards in terms of why they are given, as opposed to how many people they are awarded to:
 * The President's Volunteer Service Award is given to groups or individuals based on their own self-reported hours of community service, and therefore, is not inherently selective or prestigious.
 * Daily Point of Light Award is given to orgs on the following criteria:
 * Community needs and solution — Activity must meet a community need or concern and serve those who are disconnected from the larger community.
 * Connections building — Hands-on service that results in building connections between the community and those who may be isolated from it.
 * Ongoing involvement — To be eligible, an activity should be at least six months in duration. One exception is the category of disaster relief. Nominations that do not meet these criteria may be held for later consideration.
 * Impact — Demonstrated real impact from the activity. How many funds were raised? How many people were impacted by the nominee's service?
 * Innovation — Activity should reflect innovative or unique approaches to solving serious social problems.
 * From that perspective, the Points of Light Award actually seems decently predictive of notability. However, there really isn't any coverage of the organizations activities per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:ORG, and no general coverage of the organization per WP:GNG.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Additional research should be done in this topic, and the key leaders that lead this organization. The organization itself may not have won many awards, however, a Google search on the executive director, president, and other board/advisory members may significant recognition from presidents and other major companies. Combinatorymath (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Combinatorymath (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Saying things show up in Google doesn't bestow notability. Showing links to reliable sources (WP:RS) shows notability. Also, that recognition might not grant notability unless it was in a situation where it received notable news coverage and that recognition was given because of work done for the organization. If it's for something that they did outside of the KCTW, then that doesn't count because notability isn't inherited from the people who run or support the company. In other words, the recognition would have to be pretty special to give notability. I want to again emphasize that you need to show reliable sources. This is not decided on a vote- it's decided on the weight of the arguments that each person presents. In other words, signing up for an account just to vote on this debate (without giving reliable sources to back yourself up) doesn't really accomplish anything.(Not trying to be mean, just trying to make sure that you know how the AfD process works.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Delete. I held off on voting and did some searching, but couldn't find anything to show notability for the company. No matter how noble the organization's intentions are, there's not notability in the here and now to merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * 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.