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 keep. John254 00:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redress (charitable organisation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable charity. No reliable sources cited. Some of the page appears to have come from an account with a conflict of interest. Prod removed by page creator without comment, article has stood with a ((notability)) tag for over a week. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sorry, the prod remover did leave a comment on the article talk page, just not in the edit summary. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While not a maor player this appears to be a serious and dedicated organisation; which seems to be growing. Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not doubt the intentions of the organisation, only their notability. If they have not been covered by reliable sources, it is not our place to write about them. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added links to the charity commission data and 2007 report lots of ghits including a mention in a UK parliament House of Lords appeal document [1] which gives them some notability. Article just needs a tidy up. MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep

I created this article when I saw the organisation mentioned in the Torture article. I had not heard of them before but referenced their aims and details from their website which is given as a link. I have no conflict of interest, although they may have subsequently edited the article, most of these have been reverted. I cannot see the problem - regarding notability- they are supported by the UN, Oxfam and other emininent bodies and undertake extensive casework regarding torture survivors and are invoved with sponsoring a parliamentary bill. Many torture survivors would be interested in such a service which is not, to my knowledge provided elsewhere , especially not by the British Government, which supports the rioght of Saudi Arabia to torture its citizens even when innocent- see reference from

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/torture-britons-lose-bid-to-sue-saudis-482372.html --Streona (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable enough to pass WP:N as said above. SoWhy 17:39, 24 August 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.