Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Child Born To Die


 * 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   no consensus. Definitely no consensus to delete, but whether it should be merged / where to merge it is unclear from this discussion. As it is an editorial decision, it can be decided later on. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No Child Born To Die

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Part of a publicity blitz initiated on 24 January 2011 on behalf of a new organization. Deleted prior as G11 CSD and re-created. When G11 was reinstated a second time, it was subsequently removed. Respectfully, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.  Cind. amuse  03:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. this page was created in order to share knowledge and awareness of the issues around child survival and the MDGs - i have used the same approach as for the Stop Violence Against Women page, which seems to be deemed appropriate content by the editors, so not sure why this one should be treated differently. The phrase "no child born to die" is one which is becoming very well known in the public sphere and, as such, i feel it merits a page on wikipedia. This is not purely about promoting a campaign or a cause, but highlighting key issues of humanity on a global level. Please do not delete this.

To note your own guidelines around non-profits at ORG, "a company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject" - and "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability". There is much coverage of No Child Born to Die in many such sources, and this will continue over the coming months and years

In short, the aim is NOT to advertise or promote which i understand why wikipedia must be careful about. If you have suggestions about how the entry can be further edited or amended to satisfy your requirements on such issues, I would be happy to incorporate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickcapeling (talk • contribs) 10:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into Save the Children. Not nearly enough depth of coverage to justify its own article at the moment. If that changes, it can be split out again.-- K orr u ski Talk 11:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a Save the Children UK initiative, not a Save the Children initiative, so it wouldn't be appropriate on that page. No Child Born to Die is a new project, but this page will grow as it evolves. I'm assuming that creating a Save the Children UK page would not be appropriate, especially as there are 28 other Save the Children organisations.Evelyn727 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the distinction. The current Save the Children article appears to cover the entire international organisation, including the UK. Why not include it here?-- K orr u ski Talk 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep . Save the Children is not one international organisation, it is 29 different organisations which loosely bind together under one "alliance" - therefore the options on Wikipedia are either to have one page for this loose "alliance" or to have 29 seperate Save the Children entries. As it is currently the former, it would not be appropriate to use that page for information about a campaign which is only by Save the Children in the UK. Setting up a seperate article for Save the Children UK would enable the merge suggestion to be possible, but as this new article would only duplicate much of the content already in existence on the current Save the Children page, wouldn't this be more inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickcapeling (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note, you cannot !vote twice. I would suggest that you merge this content into the article about the 'loose alliance' under a new section headed something like 'Save the Children UK'. This seems like the best option.-- K orr u ski Talk 23:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Keep - It is notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merely asserting notability without reference to policy or to the article is not a useful argument. See WP:JNN-- K orr u ski Talk 12:31, 31 January 2011 (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.