Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Doe Fund

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 Delete George T McDonald; halt AFD for The Doe Fund due to cleanup - may re-nominate without prejudice if concerns haven't been addressed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:14Z

[edit] The Doe Fund and George T McDonald

The Doe Fund (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

George T McDonald (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article about a New York charity and its founder written by single purpose account user:TDFNY. Blatant COI. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 08:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - no evidence of notability, and probably a failure of WP:AUTO/WP:COI as the nominator says. Delete unless independent sources can be found to demonstrate its notability. Walton monarchist89 11:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - As per arguments above, I wasn't sure whether to speedy delete or keep--Janarius 14:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep charity (but needs tremendous rewrite...sounds like informal prose not an encyc article). I added some notability cites to the article. Weak Delete the founder, lots of people found things and serve on government task forces/etc, not sure his make him notable enough for own page vs just mention in pages about his work. DMacks 19:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both no notability established and no sources provided. If independent, reliable sources can be given I'll reconsider my opinion. Nuttah68 14:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. NYTimes article, govt-official quotes, and 3rd-party awards aren't enough? Or is it just that it's the group's own page listing the awards instead of tracking down links for the awards themselves? DMacks 08:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both. Notability not established in either of these spammy articles. I don't see the New York Times reference that DMacks mentioned above. A Train ^{take the} 19:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's on the talk page. I didn't have a chance to work it into the article (which is indeed horribly written, and tagged as such). DMacks 20:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Article has been substantially rewritten to begin to address tone and PR-feel issues. DMacks 21:47, 7 February 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.