Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hope Loves Company

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Loves Company

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. I cannot find any independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability for this organisation: Google hits are limited to the organisation's own website, plus its own pages on Facebook, Instagram, GoFundMe and similar. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Jodi O'Donnell-Ames based on the available sources in a Google News search. TJMSmith (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mind providing links to such sources if they actually do exist? Also, Jodi O'Donnell-Ames article was just deleted due to lack of notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a supposition as we don't know why that article was deleted and does not mean this article should be deleted just because that one was. Multiple arguments were made for reasons why to delete that article and the closer did not elaborate as to which was their deciding factor. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite what the nominator says there is significant coverage from multiple independent sources if the nominator would care to actually look at the search engine and dig a little deeper. Multiple universities, reputable news organizations and specific media outlets for ALS community (I would take their word on what is verifiable in their community over that of a wikipedia editor) have given this non-profit organization significant news coverage. This is an attempt to wipe out an article because of a perceived and unconfirmed notion of COI by a paid contributor. Again, unconfirmed to the point no one has even attempted to ask the creator if they are a paid contributor or research the facts other than throw their opinion around and try to pass it off as expert analysis. Opinion doesn't carry the same weight as policy--Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to any potential closer of this AfD. I ask that seven additional days be allowed, after whatever decision is made, for the original creator of the article to answer my requests for comment on their talk page. I will endeavor to determine whether this person is a paid contributor or there is a COI issue regarding this article. IF that is the case then I move to have the article on Jodi and this article on the organization be draftified and allow myself and other editors to bring it to a place where it can be merged into one article for inclusion in this encyclopedia. The organization is most assuredly notable and there is precedent for inclusion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory in which the argument was made that the organization didn't deserve to be included because they are "a bunch of fakes". That is not reason enough for exclusion. Neither is the argument that this is a COI PR stunt article based on opinion. Few verifiable sources were provided but it was enough in that case. Likewise there are enough verifiable sources to conclude that Jodi and/or this organization she founded is notable and worth inclusion in the encyclopedia. I will make the same request on the AfD for the organization.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Great cause as ALS is truly a horrible disease. However, sourcing is terrible (mainly primary cites) and article sounds too promotional. No reliable third-party sources found in a Google search. On a side note, Tsistunagiska, please refrain from putting huge walls of text in a discussion and let folks decide for themselves. Thanks. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beemer69: Is this a personal request or have I violated some Wikipedia rule that says I can't speak my opinion?--Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - I have given this AfD a lot of thought. While the organization's cause is noble, article fails notability per WP:NCORP/WP:ORG/WP:GNG. Article is WP:PROMO promotional, may be COI based on the recently deleted article of the director (same creator). Sourcing is extremely weak: Citation #1 a blog-magazine from Capital Health (a medical company) promo, not a RS; #2 MercerMe a self-described hyper-local news site; #3 local Indiana news "send us a news tip"; #4 MercerMe "hyper-local"; #5 local news cover story (so far this is the only item that may pass as SIGCOV); #6 local Chamber of commerce promo; #7 their own website (primary); #8 Sponsored content (paid advertorial); #9 unverifiable info from a printing company, not RS; #10 primary source (org director's book published by vanity press; #11 another self-pub vanity press book by org director. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON; maybe in a couple years. Netherzone (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote based on new citations SIGCOV in RS found by Ritchie333. Netherzone (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone The fact that the organization, reputable universities, and local/national media sources state that this non-profit is the only one in the entire United States that provides educational and emotional support to children and young adults who have or had loved ones fighting ALS is hugely significant and notable on its own. While MercyMe does state they are hyper-local that only adds credence to the notability of this non-profit because they live in the same community with them. The site also speaks about their reliability and they are accessible for verification at any point. Today.com (The Today Show) ran a piece by Eun Kyung Kim on this non-profit which also adds to credibility and notability. All of the other sources mentioned, and there are tons not listed, may not prove notability on their own but they add up to it. Nothing in our notability policy precludes the use of local news or media when sourcing the notability of a subject. It does require significant coverage, which this non-profit passes, and must be verifiable, which all the sources combined can confirm. While it is discouraged to use self-published sites and personal websites it is not forbidden and does not preclude a subject from, being notable, so long as it, alone, is not the only source. WP:COMMONSENSE is a thing. All of the sources combined proves this non-profit passes WP:GNG. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ALS Association has an entire branch of their organization devoted to children and young adults [1], as does the National Institutes of Health, ALS Worldwide and others. This organization could be mentioned in the main ALS article, or listed in External Links. As above, this article is WP:PROMO likely created by a COI or UPE and does not meet NCORP. Please refrain from bludgeoning me, this is not the first time. Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per many news hits such as this, this, this and this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ritchie333 has posted what appear to be several good sources that are not yet used in the article, I'll relist one more time to allow others the opportunity to comment on any reason why those may not be sufficient to pass WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, especially based on the reliable and verifiable sources identified above. Alansohn (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG with People and Today. Also, there's regional RS coverage in multiple regions, each of which is the size of a small country: New Jersey [2] [3], Pennsylvania [4], Illinois [5] and Massachusetts [6] [7], which, combined, is good enough to make WP:THREE. h/t R(3²*37). Le v!v ich 04:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Complies with NORG and GNG, particularly with the good sources found since nomination by Richie333 and others. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.