Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidpower (organization)

:{{la|Kidpower (organization)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kidpower_(organization) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Kidpower (organization)}})

Does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and now we have a sock farm emerging to promote it. There are hits in a Google search, but nothing close to an in-depth, non-routine passage in a WP:RS. Tagged as non-notable since September, orphaned since November 2006. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

::This is a 2nd AFD; previous was under former article name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KIDPOWER. --doncram 02:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Per comment at previous AFD: "woefully inadequate nomination that brings the nominator's (sincere, but clearly not up to the task) judgement into strong question and suggests any other present and future nominations should be closely examined for possible removal as wastes of AFD time. --User:David Gerard." My quick look at Guidestar.org, source for free copies of nonprofits' financial filings with the U.S. IRS, is that the [California 501c3 part of the] organization has $545,000 net assets in 2012, received original nonprofit status in 1998, is a significant organization. Sure, the article can/should be developed, but that is not for AFD. As for allegations of sock-farming, i am not any part of such, and what evidence is there of any such issue? --doncram 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:*That was 2008, and standards have tightened. Your attack against me is not appreciated in the slightest. Nothing in your vote is policy based whatsoever; you've made no attempt to show it meets ORG or GNG, as a directory stating that they have a particular amount of assets (which is really not that significant an amount of assets anyway) does not count. Either make a proper policy-based vote, or just delete your pointless and unhelpful attack against me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

::*And looking at the previous AfD, almost all of the sources presented there were local sources, obvious PR sources, or clearly not in-depth coverage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:::*Sorry that the quote from previous AFD seemed like an attack on you personally. It was a strong statement then, but seems relevant now in particular about any present or future nominations being a waste of AFD time. Referring to the previous AFD seems relevant as it was not mentioned in the nomination (I just inserted link to the AFD above), and maybe that suggests the nomination was not properly done. Anyhow, it seemed by consensus to be a notable organization in 2008 and seems to me significant still now, and AFD is not for cleanup to force the addition of new references. Yes, it should be developed, but that is not for AFD. --doncram 02:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

::::*There is no evidence of this meeting GNG, and the sources in the previous AfD aren't close to showing that, for reasons that I've already explained. A company being worth $500k means absolutely nothing; in fact, that is quite a small company, and I'm pretty sure the company my dad used to work for was worth more before they got liquidated - owning a reasonable-sized property is immediately going to take up much of that value. Operating in numerous countries and U.S. states doesn't, by itself, show any notability either. David Gerard's vote, which you quote as being somehow relevant, was both a ridiculous personal attack and had no basis in policy either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The organization operates in numerous countries and through separate 501c3 corporations in numerous U.S. states. It was started in California in 1989. There is [http://www.kidpowerchicago.org/index.html Kidpower Great Lakes] and others, all having IRS 990 forms filed, so totalling to much bigger financial size than i cited above (which was just for the California branch). This is one article about all of them, and is certainly notable. --doncram 02:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe Wikipedia's notability guidelines should be changed to take into consideration facts such as "The organization operates in numerous countries" and having assets with a large value, but as the guidelines stand at present, those are irrelevant.

:Of the six references, three are on kidpower's own websites, two are dead links, and the other is on a personal website.

:I looked at the first four pages of hits from a Google search. First, it was necessary to weed out hits for "kidpower" that clearly have nothing to do with this organisation, such as an IMDb page for Kid Power (TV Series 1972– ), a page about Kidpower Park in San Francisco, a web page of "a support and information list for families whose children are mildly affected by cerebral palsy and/or other disabilities" etc. Once I had done that, I was left with pages on kidpower's own web site, the Wikipedia article, a Facebook page, YouTube, and that was it. There is no evidence, either in the article or anywhere else that I can find, of satisfying the current notability guidelines.

:I have checked the links to news items which were given in the last AfD discussion. Unfortunately, a few of them are dead links, but it is clear that those of them that are still active point to coverage which, as Luke says, are largely "local sources, obvious PR sources, or clearly not in-depth coverage". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment One of the organization's employees contacted OTRS asking for help. Since they got caught up in a socking situation and their accounts are blocked, I offered and was given permission to paste these references here verbatim for other editors' consideration. I am not offering a !vote or otherwise making a case for any particular outcome.

• This link is from Shattuck Applied Research and Evaluation, an independent evaluation firm that conducted an extensive study on the Kidpower program that was funded by the Ruddie Memorial Youth Foundation. Study of Kidpower International's "everyday safety skills" yields results demonstrating evidence of effectiveness: http://shattuckevaluation.com/2011/04/study-of-kidpower-international’s-“everyday-safety-skills”-yields-results-demonstrating-evidence-of-effectiveness/
• In 2002, La France Associates, which is a large evaluation firm in San Francisco, conducted a study about the impact of Kidpower training with parents and caregivers of 550 Head Start children that was funded by the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health. Here's the link to a summary of their study: http://www.kidpower.org/pdfs/kidpower-kp-lafrance-study.pdf
• This link is from Guidestar, which provides independent information about nonprofits from legal documents as well as reviews from the public. It shows that Kidpower has earned a Gold Star rating for transparency. http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/77-0226712/kidpower-teenpower-fullpower-international.aspx
• This link is from Journal le Progrès Villeray and is about our Montreal Center, which is called Pleins Pouvoirs KIDPOWER Montreal and states that this organization is part of Kidpower Teenpower Fullpower International. Pleins Pouvoirs means 'full of power" and has to be first because of French language laws in Quebec. La Fondation Pleins Pouvoirs encourage l' empowerment: http://www.leprogresvilleray.com/Mieux-etre/2007-06-10/article-815407/La-Fondation-Pleins-Pouvoirs-encourage-lempowerment/1
• This link is from CNN Living, which quotes me and Kidpower in an article called "I don't own my child's body": http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/living/give-grandma-hug-child/index.html?hpt=li_c1
• This link is from KKTV News and is about a child who used skills taught in our Kidpower of Colorado Center to escape from an attempted kidnapping. Child Uses Kidpower to Avoid Potential Abduction: http://www.kidpowercs.org/videos_KKTV3_Oct.htm
• We have many other links on our news coverage page about Kidpower International and a couple of our centers. We are now working with our different centers to get links from all of them, as we have had quite a bit of national coverage in New Zealand, Quebec, and Mexico as well as here. http://www.kidpower.org/about-us/in-the-news/news-coverage/
• This article was written by a reporter in July 2009: Kidpower Celebrates Two Decades of Teaching Life Skills: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_12839855?IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-www.santacruzsentinel.com
• There is also a quote from me and describing Kidpower as source towards the end of this USA today article in 2011, More Bullying Cases Have Parents Turning To Courts: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-09-11/bullying-lawsuits-parents-self-defense-courts/50363256/1
• Here is an interview with Kidpower North Carolina Center Director Dr. Amy Tiemann describing what Kidpower recommends to parents about how to teach kids to be safe with strangers and with people they know: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/stranger-danger-11653883

:It is their hope that this can be considered significant coverage that might help the subject past the WP:ORG guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

::*Thank you, to KidPower participant(s) and to OTRS volunteer FreeRangeFrog for that. I think that helps a lot (and have already "voted" Keep above). The above links and others from the news coverage page, document substantial coverage in my opinion. One quibble, about one item on the U.S. news coverage page: there is a summary for a linked New York Times article, which seems not quite accurate when you read the linked article. I would believe that Irene van der Zande was interviewed, and even was quoted in some version of the story, but the linked article does not include mention of her or include a quote, as the summary asserts, so it is not documented in the NYT. I zoomed in on that one because NYT is highly regarded. --doncram 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::*{{ping|Doncram}} Actually they do mention the org in [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/us/new-scrutiny-on-coaches-in-reporting-sexual-abuse.html?pagewanted=2&_r=5&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120415& page two], although I agree there is no mention of van Der Zande, but rather of Jim Thompson, the founder. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::*Yes, i had seen the mention of KidPower on the page 2 continuation, maybe i should have made that clear; my quibble/complaint was that the organization's webpage summarizing news coverage seems to have at least one incorrect summary, diminishing my willingness to believe anything else they claim. But still i did vote Keep above and stand with that, and I do think this article should be kept. It is a significant group of related charitable nonprofits, with significant coverage. --doncram 01:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep (Kinda sorta COI notice: Several years ago I was on the board of an organization with a similar program. I don't think it's a signficant bias, but the closer can determine that for themselves.) In addition to the provided sources, I found two more sources (and stopped looking at two) in HighBeam:

: Kids learn to establish personal boundaries

: The Gazette (Colorado Springs, CO)

: March 12, 2000 | Jeremy Meyer; The Gazette

: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-5946564.html

:

: BUILDING KID POWER

: The Record (Bergen County, NJ)

: January 18, 2001 | VERA LAWLOR, Staff Writer

: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-39739817.html

: I believe with the other sources already provided this is a pretty easy keep call, the two I've listed would be enough (barely) for me to argue for notability under WP:GNG by themselves. Both the two articles treat Kidpower as a primary topic, they're not one sentence or one paragraph shout outs. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:51, 17 March 2014 (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.