Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheer, Dorothy, Cheer!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Eluchil404 07:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheer, Dorothy, Cheer!

Cheer, Dorothy, Cheer! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

small, non-notable fundraising group. There are lots of volunteer groups out there and this one is of no special significance. It also reads like an advertisement Sumoeagle179 11:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Its a registered 501c non profit org. Shabda 12:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
That does not establish notability.Sumoeagle179 14:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and in accordance with the correct statement by Sumoeagle179. Not every 501c organization deserves an encyclopedia entry. Fails WP:NOT and does not have "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." - Nascentatheist 16:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

*Delete - unless a number of serious secondary sources can verify this organization's notability the article has to go. As it stands there are no sources and so it fails WP:ORG--Cailil talk 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I've adding some references including an award they received. As a minority niche performance art troupe I wouldn't expect them to have a lot of notable coverage in such a short time. Now that they are a non-profit they are likely to get more traditional exposure and attention, especially once their fundraising efforts add up and are recognized publicly. p.s. aren't articles supposed to be improved by editing before deletion process? Benjiboi 02:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not think the one award from Lavender magazine is enough to be notable. Also, the scope of notability is a little too narrow for me Corpx 05:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I've had a look at the sourcing and although more needs to be done, I think this just about passes WP:ORG. The Article needs a clean-up but there seems to be some notability here. I do agree with Corpx that the notability is narrow but I think it just makes it--Cailil talk 19:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I found reference to the group's routines in several 'cheeerleading source' sites leading me to believe that they have made 'innovative contributions to a field' of cheerleading and performance art which satisfies the Wikipedia 'notability' requirement for entertainers.207.69.137.29 02:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability established by award and sources found by 207.69.137.29. Article could use an expansion of sources, esp. those cheerleading source sites, but that's not reason to delete it. --Ace of Swords 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep – Just enough notability, barely enough references. I don't like the YouTube one, but need for a cleanup is not need for deletion. — madman bum and angel 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Youtube refs were added as subject is a performance art group and both refs were backed up by secondary sources. Benjiboi 20:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A weak keep, but a keep regardless. Just passes notability (yes, it's narrow) and references, and needs more work. If I had seen before the good work by Benjiboy, I prolly would have voted delete. Agree that not all 501c3 orgs, per se, are notable. — Becksguy 09:00, 15 August 2007 (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.