Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Oaktree Foundation

: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. postdlf (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

=[[The Oaktree Foundation]]=

:{{la|The Oaktree Foundation}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|The Oaktree Foundation}})

Nominated on behalf of User:Domenico.y per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Oaktree_Foundation&action=historysubmit&diff=453405960&oldid=440316850 these edits]: "AfD as not notable, most of the references are not referenced, peacock and cite check" edit summary. JFHJr (㊟) 18:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Ah, another charity (spent too long checking Voss Foundation). I believe a) Oaktree F. exists; b) it's not terribly notable; c) the citations are a bit of a mess but not fraudulent. Whether it fails WP:GNG is another matter: borderline Delete, I feel. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree with nominator's point that most content is not notable and poorly sourced. I also agree this is a borderline case. I think the org's greatest claim to notability can be summarized [http://www.sohe.wisc.edu/is/documents/SilbereisenandLernerchapter.pdf here] in one paragraph on page 250. It's apparently the first completely youth-run international aid and development organization. That's pretty neat, and there are plenty of press-release style articles, interviews with and books by its members. But 1) the org itself and its activities haven't been the subject of multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources per WP:NGO; 2) none of its activities seem notable (significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) per WP:NN generally. JFHJr (㊟) 20:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable at all and the citing is poor. Domenico.y (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
  • Comment 2 editors with no other edits expect the "The Oaktree Foundation" keep on citing The Oaktree Foundation references in the text, therefore, it is not notable, as it had not been the subject of multiple, third-party reviewed or even peer-reviewed documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domenico.y (talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - Easily passes GNG ([http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2009/08/oaktree-and-world-vision-claim-cadbury-fairtrade-victory] [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/young-and-ready-to-change-world/story-e6frgcjx-1111117502168] [http://www.abc.net.au/ra/innovations/stories/s1397201.htm] [http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/out-to-change-the-world/2008/03/14/1205472074139.html] [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-06-25/gen-y-not-tackles-world-poverty/1331410] [http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/brother-wants-foreign-aid-boost/story-e6frf7l6-1111114781477] all represent significant coverage). Could certainly do with a bit of a de-crufting and wikification, but in my opinion it definitely passes notability.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment "SimonP" or "Joseph Dunstan" is the The Oaktree Foundation's co-founder, I think, because it says "Was founded by Hugh Evans and Simon Moss" and 2 editor's edits are to this article, and nothing else. Domenico.y (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

:: Comment That could be true of Joseph Dunstan, but 'SimonP' has made edits to numerous pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep Of the article listed by Yeti Hunter, I consider the first one PR, and the last not significant coverage, but the other 4 seem acceptable for the purposes of notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep The sources provided by Yeti Hunter show that this passes WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable. --99of9 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - Availability of reliable sources qualifies notability for the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:58, 11 October 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.