Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WellChild

: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. Meets WP:NONPROFIT. The issue of the article being promotional can certainly be fixed. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 10:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

=[[WellChild]]=

:{{la|WellChild}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WellChild Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|WellChild}})

borderline notable at best and promotional. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete as this is also questionably notable for the applicable notability, with no better convincing signs. SwisterTwister talk 16:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep - If this article is deleted then so must the majority of articles listed under '[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Children%27s_charities_based_in_the_United_Kingdom Children's charities based in the United kingdom]' category. There are charities far less notable listed here and whose pages are far more promotional in content. There are thousands more like this for every country and charity type. Deletion would therefore betray a clear inconsistency in standards. WellChild is an established and important non-profit organisation in the UK with [http://www.princehenryofwales.org/prince-harry/charities Royal Patronage], which I believe gives it genuine notability. JAM2010 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep - The charity and it's award ceremony has received national press coverage in a range of newspapers and television outlets, has royal patronage, and is known and operates nationally. Therefore, complies with WP:NONPROFIT. I would disagree that the article is clearly promotional - though admittedly could probably do with a clean up and better sources, at most. Olly^{say hi} 12:14, 17 February 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.