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. The sources given in the discussion suggest that it ought to be possible to expand the stub somewhat; if that does not happen it can eventually be renominated. Sandstein 05:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OmniPeace[edit]

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

This charity used to be borderline notable, but it appears that the reason for notability no longer exists. In short, it was accused of being a fraudulent charity - but the fraudulent nature has since been disproven, and all the sources have vanished. I'm not sure the charity is notable anymore. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.

Comment. If they were ever notable in the past they are notable forever; which is why "notability" always means long term historical notability, and needs to be more about achievements confirmed by sources rather than simply counting sources. Almost all the Google News hits I find on this are about celebrity endorsements. (Hollywood actors, it seems, just can't give to the United Way like mere mortals.) I find nothing about the alleged scandal; the versions in history that mention it are referenced only to a website that now 404s. I tend to doubt it was ever notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the nominator is saying is that in this case our assessment of their long-term historical notability was mistaken and they were not in fact notable to begin with but the people that argued to keep last time formed a consensus. I agree that the consensus was incorrect then, because though I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume it had sources then, they seem to have evaporated. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...our assessment of their long-term historical notability was mistaken" - exactly. Well put. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SPAM. It is a company rather than a standalone non-profit humanitarian organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relisting comment. HominidMachinae seems to be suggesting that there was a previous deletion discussion for this article though I can't seem to find one. If one does exist under another name it would be helpful to see it before we punch this one "delete". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a prior AfD. The nominator talked of a prior notability discussion, perhaps it was on the talk page? HominidMachinae (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, although you'd never know it from this stub of an article. The charity/company gets a lot of hits at Google News Archive - many of them because of its patronage by Jennifer Aniston and Courtney Cox.[1] But aside from the celebrity/gossip type items, the organization itself appears to have earned significant coverage from the Chicago Tribune (behind a paywall), the Miami Herald, and U.S. News and World Report. Somebody should add this stuff to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2011 (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.