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. As always, arguments with a solid basis in Wikpedia policy were given more weight. A single deletion discussion cannot overturn one of the core principles of this project. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elder Helpers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the applicable notability guideline at WP:ORG. I am not seeing any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hard to imagine that an organization counting more than 10,000 volunteers around the world should have no entry in Wikipedia. All the independently registered volunteers on elderhelpers.org are outside sources. Wikipedia has a duty of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 05:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This source verifies the claim about Intellicorp: http://www.4-traders.com/VERISK-ANALYTICS-INC-5628469/news/Verisk-Analytics-Inc-Intertek-Forms-Strategic-Alliance-with-IntelliCorp-to-Offer-Pre-Employment-14389625/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 05:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - (1) According to WP:ORG size of membership is a relevant factor. However, there are no guidelines about what constitutes a large size. 10K members does seem large to me. (2) International in scope is also a relevant factor under WP:ORG. --Lquilter (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the size requirement of WP:ORG We can't expect all independently registered volunteer organizations to have large media coverage. --Artene50 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only place that size is mentioned in WP:ORG is the following: "Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive." What coverage in independent sources have you located? VQuakr (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't expect all independently registered volunteer organizations to have large media coverage— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk • contribs)

• Weak delete While I still think this voluntary organization merits an article on wikipedia, the lack of reliable sources is a problem in establishing its notability. --Artene50 (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is an innovative question for what seems to be an innovative organization: Is social media considered media by wikipedia? the organization's page seems to be getting more than 30 new likes every day and that is indeed media coverage... social media that is: http://www.facebook.com/elderhelpers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 02:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Facebook likes would not qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources. There is deeper discussion WP:SOCIALMEDIA and WP:SPS for the reasoning. WP:GNG covers the nature of the sources that are used to determine notability. VQuakr (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than the existence of a facebook page for the organization I was pointing out the rapidly growing number of "likes" (more than 1,000/month at this rhythm). An empty search on elderhelpers.org will also return over 1,000 pages with ten unique profiles on each page. Why the media hasn't covered this organization is quite a mystery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 04:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The organization does have a media room for any media professional to use: http://www.elderhelpers.org/media/media.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIGNUMBER. Number of Youtube subscribers, number of Twitter followers, number of Facebook likes - none of these can be used at all to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• I think it's a very good organization, but due diligence does require that we verify all claims, particularly for anyone or anything or any group dealing with, or purporting to deal with the elderly or with any vulnerable class of human beings. MaynardClark (talk)

I believe that they are in the process of editing the article including more information about the parent organization, i.e. the Campaign for Aging Research since it has some notable board members and such other information that might help the efforts that are being made to meet Wikipedia's requirements to see this article published and validated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this article previously had a lack of third party references (i.e. The Campaign for Aging Research and its partners had/has no affiliation with the references that state facts objectively) that have now been added by highly reputable sources and questionable claims in the history section have been deleted, I think that it is fair to come to a compromise to keep the page under the circumstances that we are in the process of having an article published to additionally support the facts and will build upon the page as we obtain more independent sources to back it up. We want to and will comply to your rules and respect the professionalism of the online encyclopedia, thus I believe that adherence to your policy should be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.219 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Please review the policy on conflict of interest; this is not the place for promotion of your organization. Most the additions appeared to be inclusion of names of individuals involved with the organization; but notability is not inherited. Can you explain why you believe this organization is notable in the context of WP:ORG and WP:GNG? VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mmm I haven't reviewed that policy and I understand the no "big number" policy but if Wikipedia doesn't get that an organization strong of more than 10,000 volunteers is "notable" I give up. Done, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyyears (talk • contribs) 15:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. I can find no reliable sources that support this article and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause seems to cover the rest of the assertions made above. I'm sure the closing admin will be able to sort through the assertions of SPAs and interested parties and rely on policy-based arguments. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can sense the assertive bitterness of the professional critic. Unfortunately for you "Policy" changes has people of goodwill realize that it might be incomplete. Wikipedia is a great organization obviously looked after by people who care about informing the people about a "noble cause" as you rightly pointed out, with a public pull powerful enough to attract over 10,000 volunteers across the globe. Policies are adapted according to situations whenever possible so that the best outcome can be reached. This is not about advertising, this is about the worthiness of the information presented. We obviously have a team of people more than willing to bend over backwards to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements and reason its editors into seeing that our very noble cause is indeed worth of being featured and impartially presented in an informative format on Wikipedia.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend Ad hominem to your attention. As has been repeatedly pointed out here, policy-based arguments are the only ones that carry any weight; if you and your "team of people" want to contribute to Wikipedia within the boundaries of its established policies, and/or work to change them so that they will indeed include your noble cause, you'll be very welcome. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the conversation with "Ubelowne" is going very far. This user is ignoring the very valid point that I am making. Policies are written by people who allow their policies to evolve and improve over time as new situations occur. Common sense is the best policy as it allows guidelines to be challenged and occasionally benefit from a positive change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policies can be changed with consensus, but it is unlikely that the tenet that content should be verifiable will be changed much. This is the major reason for only having articles about notable topics - if secondary sources have not discussed the subject in depth, how can the information in the article be verified? VQuakr (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I do not see the harm of allowing such an article to stay on Wikipeidia - it is not the only one relying solely on primary sources. This is a tax-exempt corporation which is (hopefully) closely watched by the tax authorities and Wikipedia should not stand in the way of providing it maximum public exposure. It is also an article that concerns one of the key demographics that is now very under represented on Wikipedia, namely seniors. We should be working diligently to improve this area of Wikipedia to draw more readership from older people instead of removing the little that already exists. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first suggestion is covered by a combination of WP:NOHARM and WP:OTHERSTUFF.; (I agree, by the way, that no harm would be done; it's just that there is a policy that covers this argument.) For the second -- I can't quite see how keeping this article about a non-profit translates into more usage by seniors, and I can't think of any policy aim that would be served by encouraging one group of users more than another. I'm also curious as to what facts or statistics might underlie your assertion that seniors are under-represented on Wikipedia; does this have a basis in research, or is it more of a feeling? Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded by VQuakr (for which thanks) that I have mistakenly cited WP:NOHARM/WP:OTHERSTUFF as policies. They are, in fact, parts of an essay called Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. See Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays for a more complete explanation. My apologies for my error. Ubelowme _U ^Me 00:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are some demographic statistics I googled - I am sure there is more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Demographics

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/American_Wikipedia_reader_demographics Ottawahitech (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to this comment: "I can't quite see how keeping this article about a non-profit translates into more usage by seniors", it's quite simple, a lot of elders are Googling "Elder Helpers" or "elderhelpers.org" they seek to read about our organization and services therefor, elders would read Wikipedia more if they could find reliable information about organizations relating to them. Quite straightforward, let me know if I am missing a nuance in your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the article does not establish notability of its subject, in fact it does not even say what country it operates in. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about notable topics, not an advertising board for worthy causes, and I hope that this is not going to change. Maproom (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, an organization serving thousands of elders around the world IS notable regardless of the currently established and accepted editing policy. Wikipedia has a duty to inform, which is the goal of this article, not advertise. Furthermore, Wikipedia has the desire to increase its readership among elders and offering articles relating to the elderly is the best way to accomplish this goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question you have stated earlier that this organization attracts over 10,000 volunteers across the globe and now you say that it serves thousands of seniors. I wonder how you know that and why these facts not stated in the article itself, or at least on the organization's website? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. I cannot find any reference to a Wikipedia policy stating that it has the "desire to increase its readership among elders" (or any other identifiable group). Can you point me to that, please? (By the way, thank you for indicating that the article doesn't meet currently established and accepted editing policy; that will make the closing administrator's job much easier.) Ubelowme _U ^Me 16:16, 13 August 2012 (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.