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 and potentially merge some of the material. Will move it to the creators user page. Let me know if you wish the preexisting text. Have added a redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SaveCRS[edit]

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

Fails notability criterion. This organization has not received significant coverage from independent secondary sources. The few sources that speak on this organization are local, with one regional example. Additionally this entire article seems to be written and maintained by a member of this organizations board of directors that has cited their own documents. Criticality Incident (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I am the author of this article. There are five independent sources for six of the ten references for this article. Those sources include the major radio and print outlets in the region in which Camp Rising Sun operates (two newspapers and one radio station), and the independent Charity Navigator which reflects the organization's valid 501c3 status. Most importantly the New York Times, a globally recognized news source, covered the situation in depth and fairly, and recognized the existence and role of SaveCRS. Documents from Camp Rising Sun's own website have been included to provide a complete and balanced portrayal of the facts and history.

This wiki article has far more information and independent sourcing than many nonprofit wiki pages.

Lastly the Wiki editor who suggested deletion is an alumnus of Camp Rising Sun who has edited no wiki pages except for Camp Rising Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Criticality_Incident and the suggestion for deletion is politically motivated.Rsarlls (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly with selective merge into Camp Rising Sun (New York)) - There isn't evidence of encyclopedic notability for this organization, other than material that relates to the camp and thus can be covered on the camp page. I make no opinion on whether the camp page is notable (since it's not up for AfD) but if this camp-related non-profit has any notability at all, it's in relation to the camp and can be covered on the camp's page. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Camp Rising Sun (New York). The New York Times article discusses this group only in the context of longer coverage of the camp, its history, its alumni and its financial crisis. Charity Navigator listings do not confer notability. The motivations of the nominator are not relevant if their reasoning is otherwise sound. This article fails WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Perhaps merge some of the article with the section on financial difficulties in Camp Rising Sun (New York).) The newspapers are local, not regional, and I agree with Cullen328 that the NYT coverage is in the context of their coverage of the camp itself. Yes, I came out of lurking to work on the camp rising sun page, but almost exclusively to delete sections without npov (there were times when the article looked like it came straight out of a brochure) and to delete attacks on the board members. The fact that other articles on non-profits have even less attention from independent secondary sources is a sign that those articles should also be put up for deletion, not a sign that we should add to the pile. Criticality Incident (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - SaveCRS is a legitimate spin out from the CRS LAJF community and should enjoy notability no different than that of the Protestants or splintered off political groups. Attempting to silence hundreds of dissenting voices has not, and will never work to resolves any differences. Here is an example of a group that was born out of similar circumstances, albeit on a larger scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Woman_Suffrage_Association. An even more recent and relevant example of groups splintering off as a result of an organization's financial missteps can be found on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_Union_financial_crisis_and_tuition_protests#Free_Cooper_Union, which is separate from the main Cooper Union page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_Union. Are we going to start deleting and/or merging pages of every organization in history that has branched, spun, or otherwise splintered off from an established or larger group? TigerJackson (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2017 (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.