Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wishing Well Foundation USA


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 12:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Wishing Well Foundation USA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Literally a trivial and unconvincing article, and it shouldn't have been accepted from AfC since, not only are the listed sources trivial and unconvincing, I've found exactly the same, and that's not surprising since there's simply nothing for actual notability and substance; the history itself suggests this may have been started for business listing uses as it is. SwisterTwister  talk  05:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is no indication that this article went through the AfC process: the history simply shows it being developed as a draft on Nov 19th and then moved to mainspace on the 20th. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete: The article text predominantly concerns public discussion on the high proportion of this organisation's fundraising which goes to administration. My searches find only more similar coverage (New Orleans CityBusiness 2014 "Metairie-Based Wish-Granting Nonprofit Spends Little on Goal" ). Leaving aside public-service arguments, which are not appropriate for either positive or negative coverage, there may be a question of whether the accumulation of negative coverage is evidence of notability, but as it stands I think this is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep -- notable for being a borderline scam. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage in both USA Today and Tampa Bay Times satisfies WP:GNG. Significant scams are notable if they generate sustained coverage, which appears to be present. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:05, 16 December 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.