Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Lifesaver


 * 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. Events changed significantly in the last relist after Cunard found sufficient sources to persuade Rathfelder to change his mind over deletion. Combined with the improvements by L3X1, this left us with a split opinion as to whether the sources presented are sufficient to sustain an article. As the AfD has already been relisted twice, I think the discussion has run its course for the time being. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Project Lifesaver

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional and unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Blatant spam. Should have been tagged CSD-G11. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete needs independent sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per TNT. Do not confuse with Operation Lifesaver. Passes the GNG, was in the news a lot lately, including ABC news. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  14:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added many sources, and today I removed a lot of unnecessary text so the article isn't too big for its britches. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  19:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Basically promotional.  DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * it would be better if the sources were attached to the words they support. Rathfelder (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss whether changes made by L3X1 might support a different outcome.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  07:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Col. Gene Saunders Jr., the retired Chesapeake police officer who runs Project Lifesaver from a modest headquarters in the city's Great Bridge section, is reaping the results of the national publicity his organization has generated over the past three months. Since February, Project Lifesaver's high-tech locating system has been featured in the 'Dear Abby' syndicated advice column, Reader's Digest, Parade magazine and CNN. The exposure has prompted 2,500 inquiries from as far away as England, Spain, Japan, South Africa and Australia, Saunders said last week."  The article notes: "The idea for Project Lifesaver originated in 1998 when Gene Saunders, now its chief executive, was a member of the Chesapeake Police Department in Virginia. “I went on a number of searches for Alzheimer’s patients, and some ended well and some did not,” he said. ... In 2001, Mr. Saunders retired after 33 years in the Police Department and started Project Lifesaver. There are now 558 agencies participating in 40 states and Canada, he said, with about 22,000 people wearing the bracelets. There have been more than 1,450 rescues, and no one wearing the tracker has been found seriously or fatally injured, he said."</li> <li> The book notes: "Project Lifesaver is a national program that provides trackable bracelets to families and communities. Units can be sold to individuals caring for a loved one with Alzheimer's disease or furnished to communities through sponsored donations. Sensitive tracking receivers are provided to member law enforcement jurisdictions. Each bracelet has its own frequency and emits a signal which can be located by a receiver (mounted in a police vehicle or helicopter). Project Lifesaver also works with local law enforcement to help find lost wanderers and trains police personnel to use the equipment and conduct the program. In addition, families can purchase compatible distance monitoring alarms that will alert caregivers when their loved one, wearing the bracelet, wanders beyond a pre-programmed distance from a base unit located within the home. Portable, hand-held tracking receivers are also available that will 'point' in the direction of the missing person up to a mile away. Project Lifesaver has completed over 1,200 successful search and rescue missions for wandering victims of Alzheimer's disease, autism, Down's syndrome and dementia-related disorders. All persons were found alive and returned home—most within half an hour."</li> <li> The article notes: "There's nothing more frightening than having a loved one with Alzheimer's disease, Down syndrome or autism wander away and get lost. Disoriented adults and children are at risk of injury or death due to the elements, accident or predators. Such tragedies can be prevented with the help of a national non-profit organization called Project Lifesaver. Project Lifesaver uses radio technology and specially trained search-and-rescue teams to help find people. Adults and children in the program wear personalized wristbands that emit a tracking signal. If a caregiver reports a person missing, the team responds to the wanderer's area to search with a mobile locator tracking system. Recovery usually takes place within 30 minutes. The lifesaver teams train not only in search and rescue but also in methods of communicating with the disoriented person, who may be anxious and mistrusting when found. Project Lifesaver was established in 1999 in Virginia and now operates in three countries and 33 states, including Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan."</li> <li> The article notes: "'It's getting to be more costly for agencies to deal with these issues,' said Gene Saunders, founder of nonprofit Project Lifesaver International, which works with local law enforcement to use radio transmitters and GPS technology to find people. Search-and-rescue operations can easily cost thousands of dollars every hour. Saunders, who started his career in law enforcement, founded Project Lifesaver 16 years ago. Back then, the only technology available to track people was primarily used for wildlife. The first time he used the Lifesaver transmitter, which is locked onto a bracelet, it took only 90 seconds and two people to find the missing person. When that man had gone missing before, it took 70 officers nine hours to find him. Project Lifesaver technology is now used by 1,400 agencies in 38 states."</li> <li> The article notes: "New Jersey doesn’t have senior alerts, so the Morris County Sheriff’s Office is trying something different, joining more than 700 other local agencies in 43 states that take part in Project Lifesaver. The program allows primary caregivers to outfit their elderly relatives with a radio transmitter worn on the wrist. When people are reported missing, one or two officers can usually track them within a few minutes. Last week, Project Lifesaver recorded its 1,700th rescue, according to the nonprofit Project Lifesaver Foundation, which was established in Chesapeake, Va., in 1999. Costs for Project Lifesaver vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction — Morris County charges $285 for the transmitter, plus about $15 a month for batteries and maintenance — and it covers only those people who are wearing the bracelet."</li> <li> The book notes: "Project Lifesaver The Project Lifesaver uses technology consisting of a small transmitter attached to the wrist of an Alzheimer's patient and a receiver that tracks a signal transmitted from this wristlet over radio frequencies. It is in use by search groups in several states, in some areas in conjunction with the Alzheimer's Association's Safe Return program. It is relatively expensive (current estimated cost is over $2,000 for the receiver and about $300 for the transmitter, with a small monthly maintenance charge). This technology may perform better when the receiving equipment is operated by a central law enforcement or search and rescue agency."</li> <li> The article notes: "Here's how Project Lifesaver works: A person living in a community that has a Project Lifesaver participating agency is enrolled and given a personalized wristband to wear. The wristband emits a tracking signal on an individually assigned FM radio frequency. Caregivers notify their local Project Lifesaver agency that the person is missing and a search team is dispatched, using a mobile locater-tracking system. Project Lifesaver trains participating agencies on how to use the tracking system and provides information on conditions like Alzheimer's, dementia, Down syndrome and autism. Funding usually comes from state or federal grants. Recovery time for Project Lifesaver clients averages 30 minutes, 95 percent less time than standard operations."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Project Lifesaver to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * I reviewed the article and consider any promotional issues to be minor and fixable with light editing. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Much improved. I'm happy to withdraw my proposal for deletion.  Rathfelder (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as regardless whether or not a withdrawal has been noted, our fundamental policies are still considered and they're WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Indiscriminate and WP:Promo given the current information and sources are promotional like a business listing, of which we're not and the first paragraphs of our policies note this quite clearly; see one of the quotes above for example (it's the person's own words therefore not independent, regardless of the article publisher) and there's next one, while NYT, would not be enough for substance itself alone, the 3 is then literally a guidebook (WP:Not guide) hence the name "Workbook", but there's also the contents  and the next one, Chicago Tribune, is actually heavily similar with  (WP:Not webhost and WP:Indiscriminate), but we have several others:  (CNN, literally the same as the guidebook) and subsequently (NBCNews,, (2nd guidebook now:  (WP:Not webhost and WP:Indiscriminate),  (WP:Not guide, WP:Indiscriminate, WP:Not how-to and WP:Promo). Every single source can and will be discounted by policy if shown to simply be replastered business information, wherever published since GNG actually says: independent nor significant coverage nor if still primary. We've of course allowed Draftspace if there's at all chances for an article, but since Wikipedia is not a webhost, we cannot guarantee articles should stay in mainspace in unacceptable state especially when WP:Not a company extension is policy. " any promotional issues to be minor and fixable with light editing" is unfortunately what can fully outweigh these policies especially when there's still the general concern of organized webhosting.  SwisterTwister   talk  19:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- notability is not established by the sources provided by Cunard; they fail WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:SPIP. For example, the NYT piece includes:
 * "...Gene Saunders, now its chief executive, was a member of the Chesapeake Police Department in Virginia. “I went on a number of searches for Alzheimer’s patients, and some ended well and some did not,” he said."
 * Another piece includes:
 * "...In addition, families can purchase compatible distance monitoring alarms that will alert caregivers ...!"
 * These are not truly independent sources, but instead rely on "human interest stories" from the CEO or look like republished press releases. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject has been covered in four paragraphs of a Purdue University Press–published book, which passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP. Cunard (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why include such obviously re-warmed press releases as I quoted above? Perhaps a better approach would be to focus on two or three really good source and discuss them? This may simplify the process for all participants by allowing the discussion to take place focusing on the best sources one could fine. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I consider the other sources like The Virginian-Pilot and The New York Times to be good sources as well. I do not believe these reputable publications would publish "re-warmed press releases". I placed the Purdue University Press–published book as the third source in my list because I wanted to highlight that Project Lifesaver has received significant coverage in multiple reputable publications in that it was "featured in the 'Dear Abby' syndicated advice column, Reader's Digest, Parade magazine and CNN" (The Virginian-Pilot) and that it has been covered in the American newspaper of record (The New York Times). Cunard (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:Indiscriminate, WP:Promo, WP:Not webhost and we are not a publicity platform. Sister Twister and K.e. coffman have shown this is the same press kit being recycled over and over in press outlets and does not qualify as independent coverage. As these two have shown, the main source is the CEO of the company. This is wp:churnalism and employs the same strategy as Video news releases. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH because the coverage is not independent, the coverage is regurgitated. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2017 (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.