Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight4kids, Inc. (second nomination)

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 of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fight4kids, Inc.

First AfD closed undecided, but the company clearly does not fulfill WP:CORP nor WP:WEB; its turnover is $1700 in two months according to [1]; Google shows only one independent hit; article has been created by the owner of the page; despite the apparently good purpose of the organization, we should not break the internal rules of WP Ioannes Pragensis 14:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Thank you, Fan1967. I think that the previous debate was closed too early, without mentioning some important facts, i.e.

  • It is one-man company;
  • Starting in Spring this year;
  • Without media coverage (1 independent hit in Google, not 28 hits as asserted);
  • Extremely small turnover;
  • Nobody asserts notability.

Therefore I decided to revoke the case and try to reach a decision. --Ioannes Pragensis 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a nonprofit organization rather than an investor-owned company, so WP:CORP doesn't apply. Text from site: "Fight 4 Kids, Inc. is a membership based nonprofit organization designed to provide parents throughout the United States with the convenience of internet-based support. We do this through providing information regarding relevant topics for parents and by presenting our members with opportunities to get involved in online discussion forums and small group coordination." I think that's an assertion of notability. --TruthbringerToronto 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Commment: "Inc." means that this is a privately owned company. The text from the site were indeed sign of notability - if it only were true. Their financial report from June reveals that they had no one single paying member and no sponsors so far.--Ioannes Pragensis 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Another Comment Whether the company is non-profit or for-profit or investor-owned is totally irrelevant. Corporations do not have to be for-profit. To be incorporated just means an organization is defining itself legally in certain ways, it does not imply it is necessarily for purposes of profit or commerce. TruthbringerTornto, please see non-profit corporation. Also I don't understand why you think that statement is an assertion of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 03:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure that this is a very well-meaning organization, but indications appear to be that it's brand new, barely off the ground, and hardly seems to have attracted any attention at all. It may assert notability, but I don't see that it's achieved any. Fan1967 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Spam, but at least well meaning spam. Seriously though, very small organization ($1700? Most charities lose that much playing craps) thats pretty new. Yet to establish any notable imo. With regards to Truthbringer's arguments, that would be quite a stretch to call that a claim of notability. A company/organization can't be considered noteworthy just because they have a well-meaning goal. Wickethewok 18:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wickethewok. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a non-notable non-profit; promo. KleenupKrew 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:SPAM and WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk 21:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. How on earth did the first AfD get tagged "no consensus"? Of 10 comments, 7 were in favour of deleting, and one of the remaining "keep" votes was weak. Sure looks like a consensus to me... — Haeleth Talk 22:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB. It is non-notable to date. Maybe later. TedTalk/Contributions 01:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a nonprofit organization rather than an investor-owned company, so WP:CORP doesn't apply. Apparently, the concept of the "non-profit corporation" hasn't reached everyone. In any case, it fails basic notability standards, regardless of the wikilawyering, so delete for now. --Calton | Talk 02:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A7 Nonnotable corporation, fails WP:CORP. Wikipedia is not a marketing billboard. Bwithh 03:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Although I hope I don't burn in hell for saying so... OSU80 00:27, 4 July 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.