Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nehemiah Corporation of America (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Article's not perfect but as proven by NA1000 notability's there. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 17:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Nehemiah Corporation of America
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating again as the current article is speedy & PROD material and my searches found nothing better than this, this, this and this so it would be nice to have another consensus after 2008 especially because this was extensively edited but subsequently removed in December 2009 (not to mention this has existed since November 2005). Pinging past nominator and also notifying  and. SwisterTwister  talk  06:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources.--JumpLike23 (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and copy edit. Passes WP:ORGDEPTH, as per news and book sources, some of which include:, , , , , , , , . North America1000 15:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Because I find this interesting, I volunteer to userfy this article. I've never done this before, but my understanding is that there needs to be a consensus here to permit this to happen. I expect that I could get the article back to main space in about a month. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy. This case is interesting.  As it stands, the article is under-sourced and overly promotional in tone, but sourcing and clean-up are not the real problems here.  There is a reason why the organization's web site hasn't been updated since 2010 -- its primary activity was effectively shut down by the (US) federal government via regulations and changes in law.  The mortgage down payment 'gifts' that the subject organization provided to homebuyers came from the sellers of those homes, who then received their 'donations' back as part of the purchase price (minus a fee that was collected by the subject organization).  More detail on the process can be found at  and .  According my initial reading of the sources, the subject organization was the first to develop this arrangement (though it appears to have been quickly copied by others).  All in all, what we have here is an organization that is quite notable, but whose article is silent about its chief claim to notability.
 * Keep It needs work but NorthAmerica's sources are compelling. I don't think it really needs to be userfied, but NewYorkActuary can certainly work on it in the mainspace. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 16:20, 9 October 2015 (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.