Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TunaHAKI Foundation

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 of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TunaHAKI Foundation

NN charitable foundation. Just founded in '06 so it would be hard for it to have done anything notable but the article also doesn't state how it is any more notable than other charity in that area of the world. Dismas|^(talk) 08:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep looks notable enough. Nearly Headless Nick 08:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Google turns up no reliable sources, just blogs, Factiva doesn't give me anything either. No incoming links, no assertion of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' as per nom Bwithh 10:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. A google search shows some web campaigning, some links from charitable index sites but currently little else. Whilst I don't see that the Foundation would need to be any more notable than any other, it does need to establish its notability in the article. Right now I can't find any evidence of activity outside its own self-promotion. I could be persuaded to change my recommendation if references were provided to demonstrate notability. Author, please see Wikipedia:Notability for guidelines regarding the issue this article has been challenged on. — Estarriol ^talk 11:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sam. No notability asserted. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. TunaHAKI has been a registered charity in Tanzania since 1998 and it has rescued over 100 orphans from the streets which may not be notable in Wikepedia world, but is quite notable in the real world? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfifer (talk • contribs) 2006-06-07 16:46:52.
  • I'm confused — the article says that the Foundation was founded in 2006. Are there two different entities called TunaHAKI? If you can provide verifiable references for the 100+ orphans claim, that may cause some reconsideration for some editors on this list. — Estarriol ^talk 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Taking a quick look around on google they do appear to be two separate, but loosely connected, organisations. The original TunaHAKI (based in Tanzania) was founded in 1998 and its official website can be found here. The TunaHAKI foundation (based in California) was founded in 2006 and though it says it supports the original TunaHAKI, it appears to be an entirely separate entity. Would it be worth moving the article to TunaHAKI and having an article for the both of them there? Road Wizard 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

      I have been searching through Google for about an hour now and whilst I believe the original charity at least is notable, I can't find anything verifiable. Road Wizard 18:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

      • I would certainly support an article for TunaHAKI, which could have a section on the new foundation. That would require a TunaHAKI article to merge into though. With respect though, I don't yet think the Foundation is notable enough on its own. — Estarriol ^talk 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I have now created the alternative article with the Foundation as the child section. Road Wizard 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the new article TunaHAKI. The Foundation should be a sub-section of that article until it achieves enough to become notable in its own right. Road Wizard 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge target has now been deleted through AfD consensus, so there is nowhere for this page to merge with. Changing vote to Delete. Road Wizard 22:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have nominated TunaHAKI for deletion as well, as it isn't notable enough for an encyclopaedia article either. So my opinion remains unchanged. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with TunaHAKI. Borderline notability but I'm OK with it in this case. — Estarriol ^talk 10:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Road Wizard. — Estarriol ^talk 23:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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.