Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saving joy

:{{la|Saving joy}} ([{{fullurl:Saving joy|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saving joy}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

article with no assertion of notability for its subject, speedys removed by 2 brand new SPA's Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We are a small nonprofit. If I understand this correctly then if you don't have a newspaper source than on wikipedia it can't be true. Every organization doesn't seek adulation or press to feel that we make a difference in the community as well as the world. Every good deed or event is not documented. I could understand if we were not promoting something positive. It's volunteer work guys. The only payoff is that you help your fellow man. If that is not worthy to give a broader audience to in these days then I don't know what is.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atect98 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC) — Atect98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:Question: So you are saying flat out that an article on your organization does not have reliable sources independent of your organization? Wikipedia doesn't need documentation of every activity of the organization; the encyclopedia needs adequate documentation of the organization as an entity and its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A More Perfect Onion (talk • contribs) 17 June 2009

A non profit doesn't attract media attention. For example the majority of our year round programs are at shelters for battered women and children. You are not allowed to document these events. We also do events where we are a small group within a larger event such as the sprint for the cure race in DC. We are not the main focus point of larger events. Therefore, we would not have direct press association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atect98 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

::*That would be a no. Delete due to lack of verifiable notability, see WP:ORG. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, I'm sure you do good work, but if you do not meet notability guidelines then you cannot stay. Wikipedia is not your web host to get you a "broader audience". Charity is its own reward, Wikipedia is run by volunteers, who work for free, and who follow the guidelines laid down. Both User:Atect98 and User:Nichellebelle80 have registered solely to create this page, which creates massive COI issues. If you are notable then someone will create the article, and therefore there should be no need for you to do it. The thousands of volunteers at Wikipedia don't spend hours writing and improving articles so that others can come along and make a vanity article, no matter how good a cause they feel they are doing it for. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, While the organization might do great work, there are no independent reliable sources that discuss it. With out independent reliable sources, notability of the organization can not be verified according to wikipedia guidelines. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, due to lack of reliable sources, and contradictory arguments of opponent of this AfD. If you don't "seek adulation or press to feel that we make a difference in the community", why do you care if you have a Wikipedia article? Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment to the original rebuttal by Atect98, where you said "If I understand this correctly then if you don't have a newspaper source than on wikipedia it can't be true". It seems we can do a bit to help further your understanding. No one is saying the Saving Joy organization is fake, false, or made up. I know I can speak for myself, but I don't doubt that your group exists. However, the issue at hand is that it lacks the independant outside sources to show that the information provided is notable enough for inclusion. Volunteer work is great, and there are plenty of such organizations that do their part to help. But unfortunately not all of them are well-known enough for inclusion. This doesn't mean in any way that what they do is not meaningful, it just isn't verifiable by independant sources. I hope this clears it up for you a little. →^Jog_Con← 18:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• You could take it further than that. Wikipedia policy is about being able to prove to readers that content submitted by two people writing under pseudonyms is not falsehood or fiction. Readers don't trust us. We're just pseudonyms on a WWW site. They only trust (reliable and independent) sources. No reliable and independent sources existing therefore means no article may exist. This is deletion policy and notability in tandem. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. If the organization is notable enough, it will eventually receive media coverage and the article can be recreated. Just because it's a small non-profit doesn't mean media coverage is impossible. See Nashville Homeless Power Project for example. Kaldari (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I searched Google a couple of different ways and found no reliable sources or, indeed, anything beyond the organization's own materials and the article that is the subject of this AfD. There is no bar to reconstruction implied if the organization grows to meet the notability standards. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I am the original author. Saving Joy cannot be proven notable because it does not seek media coverage. Although we have been offered coverage we have always refused. We sought to provide information on the charity for those who might have questions. Our only goal is to provide for the needy and the homeless. Please delete page as the organization is not and never will be notable according to Wiki's standards. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nichellebelle80 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment A lack of media coverage of an organization's activities does not imply a lack of coverage in reliable sources of that organization. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2009 (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.