Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergency Communities

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 Keep. Deizio talk 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency Communities

Reads like a Advert for non-notable organization, not very sure about prod so placing it here Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per rewrite, good job Muffuletta Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree it reads like an ad, at least as it is now. On the other hand I know from local experience that the group exists and has attracted a lot of volunteers, and the subject merits an article. If I have time in the next day or two, I'll write a new stub from scratch with two or three references. If not, I agree it should go. -- Muffuletta 06:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I rewrote the article, removed the npov and cleanup tags, but left the afd tag. I suggest we keep it, see if it grows. -- Muffuletta 19:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: The article has to keep the AfD tag until the AfD page is closed, whether it's rewritten or not. Kimchi.sg 10:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep sounds over-hyped but also sounds notable --MarsRover 07:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless someone rewrites this. Reads like a recruitment literature for the organisation. Kimchi.sg 10:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Keep, the rewrite was a good job! Kimchi.sg 10:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – unless rewritten, sounds like a copyvio and even if it isn't, the tone is inappropriate – Gurch 11:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising or POV at minimum. Social responsibility doesn't give immunity to WP inclusion criteria. Paddles 12:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Vote changed on the basis of Muffeletta's rewrite. Kudos. Paddles 15:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I guess we can keep it, as per Muffuletta. Kim Bruning 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep At this point doesn't sound exactly notable, but a rewrite might reveal potential notability and inclusion to Wiki.--Adrift* 19:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Sounds much better--Adrift* 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Paddles Bwithh 01:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's odd. Paddles wrote their opinion before the rewrite, and this "as per paddles" was made after the rewrite. Eh? Kim Bruning 10:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless author can provide verification that charity in good standing and that this doesn't violated WP:NN.---CH 08:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"The group began with assistance from the International Humanities Center, which provides 501[c](3) fiscal sponsorship." I don't know US law enough. Is that sufficient standing? Kim Bruning 10:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Article can and should be expanded and improved, but it is a legitimate subject. Along with Common Ground Collective, it is one of the most noteworthy grass roots oriented relief organzations involved in the biggest disaster to a metropolitian area in the USA in 99 years. -- Infrogmation 13:11, 19 May 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.