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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Agents Fund[edit]

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

Article does not comply with WP:N It does not list any reliable third party sources and I could not find any. Article creator has deleted tags and PROD without comment nor article improvement. DeVerm (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. DeVerm (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. DeVerm (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any coverage of this charity in independent reliable sources. That's kind of strange, but maybe it's too soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I found this online, which states; "The Fallen Agents Fund is a charitable organization with the goal of aiding and assisting the families of fallen Border Patrol Agents, weather they fell in the line of duty or off duty, weather they fell from injuries physical or mental. The Fallen Agents Fund has just obtained its 501(c)(3) status but has been working to improve the lives of the families of fallen agents for the past few years. With your help we can assist the families of those who have given the greatest sacrifice in service to our nation."

Notability, however, not determined just by that alone. Quis separabit? 14:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting pages like these always feels weird because we of-course support the goals of such organizations, but that feeling is explicitly not reason to include it in WP. In this case, your quote comes from the website of this organization itself, which can be considered self promotion, rather than a reliable secondary source. We need notable newspapers, magazines etc. publishing interviews, yearly donations and such before the organization becomes "notable" enough for WP. DeVerm (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Added a referance from bizpedia it gives founders names and some location information. Im not sure if thats the secondary source were looking for or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorleyhey (talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With regret. The 501c3 filing is available online, but I cannot find secondary sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's rather newly founded and simply nothing actually for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON by the looks of things - the sources we'd need to make an article on a charitablie initiative like this won't be available for a long time yet. Fosse 8► 16:45, 3 June 2016 (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.