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 delete. Wizardman 03:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The George Nethercutt Foundation[edit]

Speedy deleted as both CSD A7 (no assertion of importance) and G11 (blatant advertising - org spam), then taken to a deletion review, then sent here by the deleting admin (me). Fails WP:ORG. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable foundation. Been in existence less than a year, sole interesting fact is awarding of 4 expense-paid trips to DC to local area students. Press coverage on Google News and Lexis (checking major US and world publications) nonexistent. RayAYang (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" are provided, as per WP:NOTE. All I can find from the article and my own Googling is a couple of mentions of the Foundation's January 22 press release [1][2] --Stormie (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to George Nethercutt. He is clearly a notable figure as a former US House of Reps member; this Foundation is clearly an activity of his which should be mentioned in his article; the content has been merged. So redirect it, and whether the content is excessive or overly advertisement-like in tone is an editing matter, not a deletion matter. --Stormie (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the original author of the article. I do not see how the fact that the organization is new militates against it's being notable. The efforts of persons such as Nethercutt, who are expected to run again for high office, are gnerally notable. There are articles about such insignificant organizations as the Constantian Society without issues. I do not have a dog in this fight except that I have spoken with persons who were involved with the organization who addressed a chamber of commerce meeting. The Leo Ryan award is allowed an article. It seems that this organization is being unfairly excluded.--Counsel (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the Constantian Society does indeed seem negligible. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on The George Nethercutt Foundation is longer than the article on Nethercutt himself, though. Why don't you start off with some information on the Foundation in George Nethercutt? --Stormie (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting to see if Counsel (Floridan? what the hell...) can come up with anything to show that this organization meets the notability requirements of WP:ORG. He/she seems like a smart fellow, I was expecting better arguments in this AfD than the fact that other articles exist. If specific notability assertations related to Wikipedia policy cannot be brought forward, I'm afraid the article will be deleted. (Or, at least, I will !vote delete. But that seems to be the direction of this AfD anyways.) Tan ǀ 39 02:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sole "media article" that's cited is something from "Talk Radio 950 KOZE-AM". But it doesn't read like something that was read (or "talked") on the radio; instead, it reads like a mere press release. Is there any independent coverage of this? -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no indication of importance or significance, just like yesterday when it was speedied. No reliable sources - existing sources are not RS, just like yesterday. ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. There is enough of an implied importance in awarding scholarships. Now, that's not enough to keep an article here, by multiple previous decisions, but still, not a speedy. DGG (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only as a way to highlight how takes on this kind of thing can be a bit offset (and with no worries about that), I don't think there's any implied importance in awarding scholarships. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved I moved the content to the George Nethercutt page as the writing is on the wall, as it were, here and that sounded like a reasonable solution. If someone is so inclined would he or she correct the redirects at Nethercutt Fellow and Nethercutt Foundation so that they direct to the section as it now stands. I Have been wikibonked for a while and do not remember how to do that.--Counsel (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2008 (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.