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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 04:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Wish Foundation of Canada[edit]

Children's Wish Foundation of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a non-notable organization. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BEFORE - with two clicks, I found lots of potential sources]. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. A quick Google search turns up innumerable sources. Obviously meets WP:GNG. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 04:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable per WP:GNG. A google search turns up "innumerable sources", User:Tchaliburton? That's strange, because for me it only turns up seven hits: four to the organisation's own sites, one to our article, one to facebook, and one to twitter. It's actually hard to get as few hits as that on Google. Bearian's "lots of potential sources" are to the organisation's press releases. This is a self-sourced article. Delete with prejudice. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure what you're searching for, Bishonen, but I get tens of thousands of results. Start with these:

1. http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/09/07/first-ever-princess-prance-supporting-the-childrens-wish-foundation-held-in-downtown-calgary
2. http://globalnews.ca/news/1690712/childrens-wish-foundation-warns-of-fundraising-fraudsters/
3. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Lees+Brochu+completes+cycling+trip+help+Children+Wish+Foundation/10243776/story.html
4. http://globalnews.ca/news/1713251/music-marathon-hits-the-right-note-for-childrens-wish-foundation/
5. http://www.capebretonpost.com/News/Local/2014-12-22/article-3986496/Childrens-Wish-Foundation-gives-RV-to-Albert-Bridge-family/1
6. http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/4886902-children-s-wish-foundation-2014-wishmaker-walk-of-wishes-held-in-ajax/
7. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/01/24/childrens_wish_fumbles_granting_of_childs_dolphin_wish.html
8. http://www.cjob.com/2014/07/11/41720/

T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 19:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I searched for "Children's Wish Foundation of Canada", what did you search for? I'm not really impressed by the "depth of coverage" (see WP:ORG) in your newspaper articles, most of them local, but I could certainly be mistaken about how much is required. They're better than the press releases at Bearian's link . Bishonen | talk 20:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I searched for "Children's Wish Foundation of Canada". There are literally thousands of stories like this. I just picked a few at random. I have no idea why you can't find any. Per WP:CORPDEPTH " If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." That's what we have here. And when we have coverage in hundreds of local newspapers in different markets it's not local, it's clearly widespread. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 06:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More than enough coverage in newspapers & other sources to pass GNG.

• Keep: Significant coverage found (above). ~EdGl! 00:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per coverage above. Earflaps (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.