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. While sources are provided, they are not substantial enough to prove notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chako Rescue

[edit]

Procedural nom on behalf of User:Evangeline.a, who added the AFD template to this article but didn't complete the nomination. On the talk page, she wrote 'This is not an article. This is a promotional piece and has to be deleted.'; I take it that's the reason here. Robofish (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, as nominator. Robofish (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see this as promotional or advertising considering it's an advocacy group. The reference cited, coming from a secondary source, establishes sufficient notability for the organization if not for Dawn Capp herself. Though I think the parent organization Coalition of Human Advocates for K9s and Owners would be a more notable article to be created, and Chako Rescue can be merged into that. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 21:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is one source from a third-party publication, it does not provide the signifigant coverage that is required for determining the notability of organizations. Rather, the article simply contains a comment by the organization's founder, not anything about the organization specifically. The Earwig ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 22:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Of these "sources": [1] one is a forum, leaving three non-public English sources. But the outfit is mentioned. I also find this source: [2]. A tangential mention here in this book: [3]. All of these are just mentions, not any detailed coverage. I don't think this is enough for notability, but I don't feel particularly strongly about deleting the page either. Cazort (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete No real assertion of notability, though notability seems at least possible to me. I'm not terribly familiar with notability guidelines for advocacy groups. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing's for sure, A LOT of other stuff definitely exists: Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States. And I think that in cases where there is uncertainty or debate about notability we should default to keep due to no consensus. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 01:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an advocacy group funded by the same individual that seems to be the lawyer/spokesperson also of Coalition of Human Advocates for K9s and Owners (G.News Search) organization with very similar goals, maybe a rewrite and a move is what is needed here. --J^mundo 01:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is not substantial and not enough to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 04:45, 9 May 2009 (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.