Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uplifting Athletes


 * 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. Tone 22:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Uplifting Athletes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable charity supported by college football players. I'm sure they do good work, but that doesn't make them notable. No third party references to support notability, as required by WP:N. Does not satisfy any WP:ORG criteria either. (n.b. the "National Institute of Health Office of Rare Diseases" reference is about the disease, not this charity GrapedApe (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the criterion for keeping articles, and I don't really understand what constitutes notability, but Uplifting Athletes is recognized all over the country, and is mentioned in many places, including USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Petersburg Times , The New York Daily News , the Washington Post , the Philadelphia Inquirer , and even the Wall Street Journal . If you read these, you'll see that Uplifting Athletes is no longer a Penn State operation, but rather, has events held at schools all across the country. I myself have no connection with UA, and only have learned about them in the past few months from my reading here on Wikipedia (Jerry Kill), but it seems to me we have articles on less significant things here, so we should keep this. HuskyHuskie (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 21:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per research above by user HuskyHuskie, topic meets WP:GNG. Here's a few references I added to the article:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per above. The article can be expanded. — Ed! (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I saw this article a few months ago while browsing and thought it was notable. The sources I have seen are definitely enough to pass WP:GNG. GrainyMagazine (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2011 (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.