Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAN Foundation


 * 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. The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet evading a block. Sockpuppets have no standing on this wiki so I ignore their argument. As for the rest, while I note concern about sourcing, I see consensus to keep the article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

PAN Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

sources are basically primary. WP:GNG is clearing not met. Viia o Lanti (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Relies nearly on self-published sources. Does not demonstrate much that it meets WP:GNG for inclusion. Multi7001 (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concerns. As the author of the article, I'd rather it not get deleted, and I feel it does meet notability standards. Similar to how any film in the Internet Movie Database is probably notable enough to have a page, I feel anything in Forbes top 100 list of charities should get a page.
 * However, in case that's not persuasive, I added a bunch of sources. Justice.gov would probably be the most reliable source, with Businesswire and the American Journal of Managed Care coming in second. Not sure how notable Yahoo news or InfoMedNews are, but I included them just in case. Cheers! Ph03n1x77 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ph03n1x77, the Forbes 100 article is a good, reliable source. And so is the DOJ news release. However, after taking a second look, and disregarding the PR and self-published sources, the subject may actually be notable but more references are still needed. I changed the consensus as a result. The article should be a keep but a cleanup tag indicating that the subject may not meet the criteria for GNG should be added in its place for the time being. Multi7001 (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: There seems to have ignorance of the WP:EXIST WP:NEXIST quideline in the nomination, with a possibly inaqduate WP:BEFORE. Sources identified by Ph03n1x77 incl Justice.gov  The book Physcological Aspects of Cancer (Carr, Steel,pp392-393) probably meets RS but don't have access to the book.  Seems absolute daftness to be trying to delete the page for a significant charity, though that is not to say I am concerned about the operation of some "charities" and if they are run more for the benefit advertising sales bonus than the core objective of the charity, though there is no indication that is the case here. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC) & Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2021 (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.