Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ONE Family Fund
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 keep as revised during discussion. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ONE Family Fund
Currently a thinly-disguised vanity article about Kady Goldlist, who does not appear to meet WP:NN standards. Marysunshine 03:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the vanity aspect is a result of a merge from a previous AfD (one that, in my opinion, should have resulted in the article being deleted instead). The information on Kady Goldlist should be removed, but the topic of the article seems to have quite a bit of press to back up its inclusion. Ziggurat 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete wow, that's a pretty sad trick to pull to cover what seems to be a vanity article. --Bill (who is cool!) 04:24, 29 May 2006
*Delete Vanity, not notable, seems to be gaming WP per Bill (who is cool!). Ande B 04:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Change "vote" to Keep new stub Newly rewritten "stub" article resolves prior complaints, provides basis for expansion. Ande B. 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete looks like vanity to me. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment are you guys reading the comments? Vanity aspect the result of an inadvisable merge rather than an attempt to pull a trick or game the system, but the main topic (unrelated to Kady Goldlist) has merit. Ziggurat 06:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Reply I actually did read the comment about the previous merge and don't know what to make of the rather odd decision to put this vanity piece into an otherwise contentless article about an organization. Perhaps a delete without prejudice to recreate the page when and if an actual article about the organization is drafted. But this, along with its odd history, should just be gotten rid of and let future editors have a clean start if they want to give it another try. At least, that's my two bits (and it may not be worth even that ;-) Ande B 07:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please excuse my comment - I was just a touch irked at what I thought was an unfair representation of whoever wrote the original article's intentions (I doubt they promoted the merge themselves, that is). In any case, I'd be happy with a clean start seeing as the original article was so very small. Ziggurat 07:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- You needn't apologize to me (though I can't speak for others). If my comments don't make my reasoning clear, then I need to make sure they do. Otherwise I'm wasting my own and other people's time. Ande B 08:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please excuse my comment - I was just a touch irked at what I thought was an unfair representation of whoever wrote the original article's intentions (I doubt they promoted the merge themselves, that is). In any case, I'd be happy with a clean start seeing as the original article was so very small. Ziggurat 07:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Reply I actually did read the comment about the previous merge and don't know what to make of the rather odd decision to put this vanity piece into an otherwise contentless article about an organization. Perhaps a delete without prejudice to recreate the page when and if an actual article about the organization is drafted. But this, along with its odd history, should just be gotten rid of and let future editors have a clean start if they want to give it another try. At least, that's my two bits (and it may not be worth even that ;-) Ande B 07:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nonnotable, vanity Bwithh 07:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 15:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
*Delete. One sentence and some info about a nn person? Yeah. --UsaSatsui 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep. The revision helps. --UsaSatsui 00:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
*Since the ONE Family Fund article is not about the ONE Family Fund, delete. If you delete the Kady Goldlist section, it would leave the article with one sentence, and as I often write in these AfD's, one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per B.Wind. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)- Keep and expand. I have deleted the vanity paragraph and put in a bit more information about the group. This is a significant charity that has been in the news a good deal. -- Mwalcoff 23:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Changing my "vote" per Mwalcoff. It's now a worthwhile stub that asserts notability. I'm looking forward to the time that this gets fleshed out. Keep stub as it is now edited. B.Wind 23:56, 29 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.
