Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nebraska Innocence Project


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Nebraska Innocence Project

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The individual state groups of this project are not independently notable--just aa with all other similar organizations  DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability. Music1201 (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:VAGUEWAVE. North America1000 01:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, with as much justification, one could wave WP:NOTPOLICY at you ...   Ravenswing   04:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This is a very early stub for an entity that is notable -- it just needs to be built up and developed. Also, a quick search of Wikipedia shows that there are similar pages for different Innocence Project Network member organizations. I hope that by linking these it doesn't lead to their demise as well in this process - so please be kind. I would be happy to work on this page but wanted to let the University of Nebraska-Lincoln new editor continue their initial work. As far as nurturing valid articles, see Illinois Innocence Project for what this article could and should develop into. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:NOTAVOTE. North America1000 01:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete perhaps and Draft if needed as there's certainly noticeable links and information here but solid independent notability is still questionable. SwisterTwister   talk  05:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Innocence Project. This probably should be done for other similar articles about state affiliates of this organization. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument. --Randykitty (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nice amount of source coverage, as seen at . &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I think the second point of WP:SSEFAR applies here. Even though the "similar articles exist" argument isn't enough to warrant keeping an article, this covers a finite amount (Innocence Project subdivisions) and we have other articles on those which have not been deleted. The fact that NIP were involved in the first DNA exhonoration case in Nebraska also adds notability in my opinion. If there's going to be a merge it should be with all the subdivisions, but I think I'd prefer subpages, especially since there's room for expansion. Best Regards, InsaneHacker (&#128490;) 11:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NONPROFIT, which states that a not-for-profit organization's achievements should be assessed when determining when the organization passes WP:NORG's notability guidelines. The sources cited in this article substantiate the fact that this group's work has had a significant impact, and we should therefore keep this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. considering WP:NONPROFIT in evaluation. VanEman (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG DaltonCastle (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * indeed, do consider WP:NONPROFIT, especially the section ofn branches of a nlarrger association, ) --although I think it's technically independent its branch of a larger movement. Also see the criteria "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." and that the local references do not meet the qualifiers of " Nationally well-known local organizations:"  DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 16 April 2016 (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.