Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion’s Heart


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Lion’s Heart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional and non-notable. The group runs a volunteer program in various localities, with the extremely vague objective to “serve the community in meaningful and fun ways.” The only evidence for notability is a scattering of routine notices from local papers, which are totally unreliable as a source for notability of local events, because they are altogether indiscriminate.

The article further gives the impression the group sponsors the President's Volunteer Service Award, whereas it is merely one of the many groups that recommend people for this totally unimportant certificate--being a "certifying organization" is insignificant, when I see from the article on the award that "a Certifying Organization .. is any group that wishes to be able to award the President's Volunteer Service Award" and that "Any program would qualify for the award".

As for promotionalism: There is an excessive use of quotations, especially displayed quotations,  for things that just need plain statements or add no information, where at most a reference link would serve--that's a characteristic of advertising prose, not encyclopedia articles. The use of routine local press mentions to show significance is another promotional technique--and what hey mention is very minor.

There are two reasons for using promotional content, and I think both are applicable: first, in order to show how good an organization is, instead of describing it. Second, because there is insufficient objective material.  DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There have been a few edits made as to your points- removal of improper quotations, for example. Edit to the section about awards. I'll see if there are any better references or citations to be had other than from local sources. Editing shall commence! Absolutelyang (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Move to user space It may have been premature to move this article out of the user's space. I left some information on the author's talk page about changing the tone of the article and finding more citations. This is a very recent article by a new editor, and rather than delete it outright it is probably a good idea to give the author time to continue to edit it. However, that might best happen out of the public area, and in fact the article may not in the end prove notability of the organization. LaMona (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. [[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png|25px]] Ascii002  Talk   Contribs  04:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. [[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png|25px]] Ascii002  Talk   Contribs  04:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Userfy (changing to keep, see below) to User:Absolutelyang, the author and principal editor. The article needs a lot of work, but I think the subject shows promise. They can ask me for help with it, if they want - or I see that User:LaMona has already given them good suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your feedback. I have been trying to make some suggestions such as LaMona made. I'm still looking for better references, but I have removed some of the information that should have been cited, yet wasn't. I've gone over it and tried to remove unnecessary adjectives as well, while adding qualifiers to possibly fluid information. I'll spend a few hours today snooping around formatting pages, and see if I can't have a much better version by the end of the week. Absolutelyang (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am unsure what changes have been made since the original nomination, but the references now show that the organization has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The coverage is not just regional but national.--Rpclod (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at it again, the article does contain two references that are fairly impressive: major stories from a Los Angeles television station and from the main newspaper in Atlanta. In addition there is coverage from more local sources like the OC Register. So I believe this does meet WP:ORG. I encourage the author to keep adding to it but I think it should be kept. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I like the range of operation of this organization. 23 chapters in California (21 active and 2 apparently in archived status), chapter in Colorado (active with 6 classes of 2015 to 2019), chapter in Connecticut (active from class of 2014 to class of 2020), active chapter in Georgia (classes from 2016 to 2020), 3 chapters (all active) in New York, 1 chapter in Texas (active with class of 2019) and 1 in Wisconsin (apparently status is archived). --EarthFurst (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Solid sources from multiple states and extend coverage time-wise makes this a keep, I'd say. If this is kept, it is necessary that we work out some sort of disambiguation page or parenthetical descriptor for the title of this page and the title of Lion's_Heart, which only vary by a different form of apostrophe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upjav (talk • contribs) 19:10, 12 September 2014‎
 * Weak Keep Newbie page creator has demonstrated willingness to accept and apply feedback given by nominator. I'd be more concerned about possible conflicts of interest, some of the material added by page creator not being supported by given sources. Sufficient number of the sources themselves, however, meet WP:IRS and demonstrate more than a local effort (California, Georgia, Connecticut). BusterD (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2014 (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.