Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supported Fostering Services


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Supported Fostering Services

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Regrettably I can find no substantive sources for this organisation. It feels as if it ought to have an article here, and the topic of Supported Fostering Services appears in search results, but the actual charitable trust that this article is written for only appears to be verified as existing, not as being notable. As it stands the article is about a non notable entity.

A valid outcome might be to broaden the article to deal with the concept rather than the charity itself, but this is unlikely to fly since all fostering is supported. I considered a redirect to or merge to Foster care but this is not appropriate either.

I'm forced to conclude that this charity is not yet notable, and thus an article is too soon. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No mention in reliable sources. Probably created in good faith, but... WP:NOBLECAUSE. --Drm310 (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete owing a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I'm unable to find any when carrying out a Google Books search and a Google News archive search. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a local charity operating in 2 or 3 London boroughs is hardly notable. The lack of response to the repeated relisting of this AFD also suggests that it is NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2013 (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.