Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Share Our Strength


 * 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 -- (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC).

Share Our Strength

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NPO with no assertion of notability. Article creator blocked for what I would imagine was a promotional username. MSJapan (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * keep It probably was created as WP:PROMO, however, article makes a claim that this charity (U.S. based, aka: Share Our Strength No Kid Hungry) raises $12 million annually. Article has been up since 2012 without secondary sourcing. But even a quick news search turns up an awful lot of article like thisse :, .  To me, it looks like a notable charity, with a lousy, self-sourced Wikipedia article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean "namedrop articles" I agree with you that that's the extent of the coverage, but that's not a reason to keep. I really would like to know why you think a trivial mention is always a reason to keep, when policy explicitly says otherwise.  Are you perhaps WP:WIKIHOUNDING my AfDs, as you like to accuse others of doing to your edits? MSJapan (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * MSJapan, I admire your energy and your willingness to look at articles like this one, articles that have sat, inadequately sourced, for years.  However, Wikipedia has lots of inadequately sourced articles and a lot of WP:Promo.  Many need deletion, but  others  are inadequate articles on topics that support notability.  The other day, going down a topic list (authors) of articles at AFD as I often do, I came upon Articles for deletion/John Susman, a minor playwright.  I did a quick search for sources and enough came up that I argued for keep.  I only noticed that you were Nom after you re-entered the discussion.  My first edit was accurate: [].  I am not arguing here that he is Eugene O'Neill, only that Susman looked to me like a writer with enough notability to pass.    Your responding edit was not, I think, an accurate description  of the argicle form the Chicago Tribune, because Susman's was indeed discussed in the article I cited.  This and your subsequent responses on the John Susman page prompted me to source the Susman article. And to look at the new AFD nominations in your list of recent edits.  The two I clecked on and read, this one and Articles for deletion/Casino hotel, both appear to have been brought to AFD when a more thorough WP:BEFORE would have led an editor simply to tag them for sourcing, improvement, editing out the hype and so forth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I tried to find sources for this organization. See the article talk page. They have minor press coverage, and proper IRS filings. It appears to be a legit organization that doesn't have much WP:RS coverage, but does have some. Searching for news under "No Kid Hungry" (their main program) turns up more hits than searching for "Share Our Strength". I'd suggest trimming the article down to a bare-bones organization article, removing the info that's sourced only to the organization's web site, and building up again from reliable sources.   John Nagle (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Where in policy does it say "IRS filings = presumption of notability?" This is an area I am familiar with, and IRS filings are wholly irrelevant - anyone who pays the fee and fills out the forms can be a 501(c) organization, even if they have little to no revenue. Almost every local chapter of any fraternal organization in the US has an IRS filing.  There's no "lower bar" for NPO status, and it doesn't make them notable.  If you want to get picky, IRS filings are inadmissible as meeting GNG because they're primary sources created by the organization. The fact that you're finding only "minor coverage" seems to be more of an issue, don't you think? MSJapan (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The AfD submission note says that the "Article creator [was] blocked" as "a promotional username". Just to clarify: the recent block of User_talk:Sharestrength was a relatively recent editor, not the original article creator. The organization has a history of using employees to edit the article, i.e., see User_talk:ShareOurStrength. I was an employee of the company in the 2008-2009 time period, and was instructed to edit wikipedia during that time as well. (I was a new editor at the time; I've since learned about the COI rules, and have thus not edited the article since 2009.) I'm giving this information as background, though I'm not sure if their tendency to try to edit their own article has anything to do with whether the article itself should be kept or deleted. (I'm not voting on this AfD due to possible COI, though it's been 7 years since I had anything to do with them, and so don't really feel like I have a COI with them anymore.) &mdash; Eric Herboso 03:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just did a minor rewrite/source of 2 sections. Sources do exist and it sounds like a real charity, at least, notable chefs famous big hotels volunteer to do the fund raisers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources, searched WaPo since this NPO is D.C.-based, Share Our Strength attracts corporate dollars, ; New effort to get more students in Maryland eating breakfast,, With one change, this school doubled the number of kids eating school breakfast, . There are more, some as you scroll down the page of hits:  are stronger than these first few.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per EMGregory. And $245 million is huge. My username is doncram, thank you. -- do ncr  am  04:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * may be keep looks like a legitimate charity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachin15 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable charity, many hits in reliable 3rd party sources as stated by E. M. Gregory. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:23, 3 August 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.