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 no consensus. –MuZemike 22:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the article should be deleted, I see no sign of second person writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taddletheteddy (talk • contribs) 14:45, 8 August 2010
Delete - Childnet's main focus is on children, as you can tell by the name. And you can also tell by the name that its secondary focus is putting these children in nets. Poorly written, no indication of significance, absolutely unreferenced. Carrite (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article seems to contain erroneous information. This organisation is part of Childnet International although it doesn't say it anywhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we'd do well to go much easier on the author: "Childnet have developed a group of children called the Networkers. They are children who volunteer to give their time to Childnet to help make the internet safer. They help work on most of what childnet does. Unfortunately, the website is yet to be made. As a networker myself, Ellen, the education manager told me..." (emphasis mine.) Based on this, the author appears to be a child. If that's so, then I'd suggest the thing to do would be to help her improve the article, if reliable-source notability can be established, and to very politely explain why it must be deleted if it cannot. By the way, the focus of the organization doesn't appear to be censorship, but helping protect kids from predators and scams by educating them about safe practices online. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. looking at [1] , if even some of these are properly sourceable, they will meet the standards for notability. It might be a good idea to revise and rename the article to be about Childnet International,but I think the first step is to help the new editor improve the present article. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revoke below are obviously valid refs. Delete I tried to look at a handful of the /news entries on their server. It's all press releases about their founder dying, or they published a book, or the book they published got translated into Chinese. Organizations publish lots of self-press, where has any of it ever been picked up by major media?SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Keep Its needs improved, wikified, and linked, but see no reason for deletion. Its also wrongly named for some reason. scope_creep (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable organization focused on keeping kids safe from cyberbullying and online predators. Ten minutes searching based on DGG's excellent suggestion of trying to source the organization's press releases found these refs that unequivocally establish notability:
I'm sure additional searching would uncover many more reliable sources as well. This organization has advised the United Nations, the governments of Britain, Egypt, Germany, Finland, Malaysia, Jamaica, Malta, and probably some others I didn't see in my quick search, as well. Its educational materials are used around the world. I don't have time to add these refs to the article, or to copyedit it myself right now, but let's all help the author improve this article... Oh; I also checked offline sources briefly. The organization has been discussed or featured in articles in Evening Post ( Bristol, UK ), Sunday Mercury ( Birmingham, UK ), Belfast Telegraph ( Ireland ), The Times ( London, UK ), The Sun ( London, UK ), The Independent ( London, UK ), Evening Standard ( London, UK ), and a host of other mainstream newspapers. I'll quickly add some of those cites to the article's talk page. – OhioStandard (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2010 (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.