Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Alliance for Safe Children


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Alliance for Safe Children

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:ORG. most of the coverage merely confirms its existence rather than indepth coverage. . LibStar (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Five Years 03:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to Strong keep, if there really is such a thing. The influence of their research, reflected in the 2004 conference and the 2008 report, and the founding of the International Drowning Research Centre in Bangladesh (all of which are now verified in the article), have convinced me the organization is doing important work which is being recognized by UNICEF, the United Nations, and the Australian government--not to mention the children of South East Asia. Weak keep. Yes--but the very fact that they have hits in Google News, that they are cited and mentioned, suggests to me that we are dealing with at least a moderately notable organization. I found the same thing that you did, and I wish I could find more significant stuff--maybe others can, so I'm going weakly here. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * question is, can you build a decent article out of 1 line mentions? LibStar (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I probably can't. And LibStar, as valid as that question is, it doesn't matter. None of the content in Creepmime is, and the only verifiable content is that they recorded two albums--but they are notable by our standards. I maintain that this organization is notable per the coverage, but I realize fully well that I can only make a very, very weak claim, and that I will never get a DYK out of it. And I'm not going to go to war over this organization, or fuss if this ends up in deletion. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I managed to produce a text one sentence longer than my response to your comment; I'm surprised and pleased. It isn't much, but it confirms to me that the organization is notable. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is depth. I don't doubt it does great work, but it hasn't generated sufficient coverage so as to enable an article to be written. Figureofnine (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lack of in-depth coverage as required by the guidelines. Figureofnine (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This talks about their work at some length, as does this. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Both stem from surveys conducted by this organization with UNICEF. Neither concerns the organization itself, which in my opinion fails to show the requisite depth of coverage. Figureofnine (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To respond to both your comments at the same time: the organization is noted worldwide and has generated plenty of coverage, in my limited opinion. You have to realize that non-profit organizations don't generate coverage the way authors or pop stars do, but the effects of their work are easily measured by worldwide coverage. Stating that the results of a report done by the organization does not help establish notability for the organization that produced it, that's putting the cart before the horse and then calling the horse a bad name. And yes, one could write an article on it: I just did, and let's see how it fares at WP:DYK, where I nominated it. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a worthy organization, and certainly "notable" in the geopolitical sense. I'm just having trouble figuring out, as noted by another editor, how an article can be constructed around it. Certainly the world won't end if this article is kept, and it's not a self-promotion like some I've seen. Figureofnine (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The multiple reliable and verifiable sources about the organization establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have reviewed all of the cited sources and haven't found anything with coverage of the organization beyond "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization". In the latter case, I'm adding to the "such as" the organization's own data, not just personnel's commentary. Beyond that, there's mention of the purpose of the organization, but no in-depth coverage of it&mdsah;nothing that identifies its size, scope of its work, means of going about its work, etc. If I've missed anything, please let me know. Bongo  matic  22:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bongo--I canvassed you in hopes of getting a simple 'keep' out of you! And you stab me in the back? ;) Seriously, being cited at length on the BBC, with data from your study included, that doesn't count? Report cited and director quoted in a Danish newspaper? (Ask Favonian for a translation if needs be.) An interview on Australian TV? Research cited, partnership explained with notable Australian organization, Royal Life Saving Society Australia, in a Chinese/English newspaper? Swimming lessons noted in Pakistan's best-selling English newspaper? And don't let me hear that all those are just single-line mentions: they are not. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed again the references you cite:
 * BBC. Limited to quote from technical director referring to study. No reference to study in text of article. No information on organization itself.
 * ABC. Unable to ascertain, but appears to be an interview with the coordinator of the joint UNICEF / TASC study.
 * Epoch Times. Two mentions&mdash;one "according to data published by" and another "with partner". No information on organization itself.
 * Daily Star. Sole mention is "with the assistance from". No information on organization itself.
 * Just don't see anything that comes close to approaching the guidelines' threshold. Delete. Bongo  matic  02:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment. Rightly or wrongly, the articles mainly treat the organization as equivalent to a contract research provider for UNICEF, and not worthy of any further comment. It is the treatment in secondary sources&mdash;rather than its actual activities and merit&mdash;that are relevant to the inquiry as to (Wikipedia, not real-world) notability. Bongo  matic  04:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bongo, Michael Linnan is the technical director of TASC, per the [BBC. And those secondary sources, they cite the work done by the organization (and treat their numbers as authoritative), mention their founder and technical director, and confirm that they are prime movers in research and practice. For an organization, I think that's enough. I mean, ABC (Australia) says, "Peterson, founder of The Alliance for Safe Children (TASC) which sprang from a campaign that began in Vietnam, said there was a lack of data, prevention programs or research on injury in most developing countries," and then goes on to cite Peterson on the matter. But I'm obviously not going to change your mind. Later, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article has been significantly improved by Drmies since its AfD listing. It is "worthy of notice" per WP:N and has "multiple independent sources" per WP:ORG#Primary criteria. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and you will find that many major news sources do quote this organization. They consider them notable, and so should we.  Remember, the suggested guidelines are there to help you form a decision, not to do the thinking for you.  They state there are exceptions, and to use common sense.  AN organization is notable if major news sources quote it for stats, obviously.   D r e a m Focus  18:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there's a guideline stating that notability is not inherited. The notion that every publisher of a notable statistic is notable in its own right is far from obvious&mdash;so far that it's not even conceivably true. Bongo  matic  23:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Inherited? That means you aren't famous just because a family member is.  An organization that gathers stats, is notable if their stats and them are quoted in major news sources.   D r e a m Focus  07:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles that solely quote an organization's official are considered "trivial coverage" by WP:ORG. Figureofnine (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Exercise for the 'keep' editors: Can you find a third-party source that tells what year the organization was founded? I couldn't. Can you find a third-party source that discusses its budget? I couldn't. Can you find a third-party source that says how many employees it has? I couldn't. How about where its headquarters is located? I couldn't. It seems to me that if you reduced this article to information provided by third-party sources that was strictly speaking about the organization, it would contain two sentences:  "TASC does surveys on preventable child injuries, especially drowning, which it uses to advocate for instruction in swimming.  Former ambassador Pete Peterson founded it." This article—while certainly about a WP:NOBLECAUSE—is a violation of WP:V's "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." An organization's own website is not a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and the trivial, passing mentions in all of these sources don't form the basis of the article. Overall, I think we need to WP:MERGE this into a notable subject, or, failing that, simply delete it as WP:NOTADVERTISING, which applies every bit as much to noble causes as it does to local businesses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above keep sayers. i totally agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep A very promotional article. I would have simply deleted it as G11 and too thoroughly promotional to be worth the  rewriting, but  Drmies chose to try and rescue it, which is of course an option.  Even now, there are signs of promotionalism remaining writing: most of the references  are about the importance of the overall problem, not the work of the agency, there's still too much pathos, and too much jargon--without these, it would be a very short article.  It is very difficult to judge the notability of organizations like these, especially when their primary activity consists of sponsoring conferences and issuing studies.  Reliance upon the GNG is deceptive--it leads to  notability for those groups with the better press agents, and the various articles here, even from what we think of as reliable sources, seem derived from press releases, not reporting.  Organizations like UNICEF normally work in partnerships, and usually headlines refer to the best known group or the local group, so its hard to tell which is important and which is a mere mention. I prefer to judge by actual importance, but, since sponsoring conferences is not solving problems, the actual importance is hard to determine.    But this group does seem just over the bar.    DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * DGG, feel free to edit for tone. I don't agree (but then, I wrote it) and I don't really see the pathos. A sentence like "The publication of the report generated interest from printed media..." is of course awful, but I needed a way to get the multitude of references, worldwide, in there. Besides that, I don't really see a promo tone at all, but I welcome edits for neutrality (Rlevse, that goes out to you as well!). Drmies (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above keepers. the promo tone can be worked on. — Rlevse • Talk  • 14:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   babble 14:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: should this end up as delete, consider merging it into Pete Peterson. The content is relevant enough. If you don't agree, then please userfy it to me. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep leaning towards snowball strength, per improvements by Drmies which easily establish notability. Very important charity, good informative article with plenty of room for expansion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Pete Peterson (with options on Drowning) or weak delete. Look, I know that there are 19 sources named in the footnotes, and that quite a number of editors have assumed (without looking) that all these sources actually say something about the organization.  But the fact is that they don't.  Almost half the sources say nothing more than "Look at these statistics on drowning, which we got from TASC".  That makes drowning notable, not TASC.  The other half say, "This group partnered with TASC, and now let me tell you about the other group."  That makes the other group (e.g., UNICEF) notable, not TASC.  Notability is not inherited from your affiliates.
 * Primary sources are fine if the information is not in doubt. See WP:SELFPUB, which is on the WP:V page.  Also read the two tags at the top of the policy page. :This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  Notice the word normally links to the bit about common sense, telling you that Wikipedia isn't about following the rules exactly, etc.  Another tag says "This page in a nutshell: Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."   D r e a m Focus  21:38, 11 October 2010 (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.