Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Planet (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

United Planet
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreated shortly after a unanimous deletion discussion, by a new user. Still fails Notability (organizations and companies) - the article relies on the organization's own homepage or doesn't cite references at all; no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources is given: the cited CNN page contains merely a trivial mention of United Planet without any additional information, not a "feature" of the organization as the description suggests. "Hard facts" such as the funding sources or the size of the budget are still missing. HaeB (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:SPEEDY (Recreation of deleted material). -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep I can't see the previously deleted version so if this one is "substantially the same" as that than so be it but, if not the article is in desperate need of cleanup and better references but, seems on the surface to have coverage in multiple 3rd party sources per some of the results | here although, some of the articles are behind pay walls. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; I've had reason to look into the organization in the past, and all I can tell is that it charges fees to route people into mostly pre-existing volunteer programs. Robertissimo (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The only thing that I would consider a proper reference, ie being the subject of a non-trivial work is  and its more about the person than the organization.  The Christian Science Monitor piece and the Seattle Times piece are merely articles about volunteer vacations where the firm is just mentioned in a blurb as a provider.  Other links out there are to a reader blog, a Q&A where the org is mentioned.  If you want to consider the CNN Student Bureau piece as a proper source, feel free.  Its not cutting it right now for me.  Montco (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:27, 21 August 2008 (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.