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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headbands of Hope[edit]

Headbands of Hope (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)

Not a notable charity. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Written like a promo. Acnetj (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - not !voting because I have a COI with respect to the article (I have no connection at all to the subject itself, but it's on my watchlist because the article was started by some former students). There are issues with the article, indeed, but I don't think it's a case of WP:TNT and there's a decent case for GNG here. It's the subject of coverage on NBC News, Today, Women's Health magazine (winner of its "Game Changers" contest, it would seem; there was also this other one prior to that win, and a story in the regional paper of record about it), InStyle, the News & Observer... and then the less substantial coverage like a brief appearance on Good Morning America, a bunch of blog posts, other local coverage, etc. that aren't really worth mentioning. It's not a slam dunk, but it's clearly not the case that it has "no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: "Headbands of Hope has donated headbands to every children's hospital in the United States.", is a big statement and regional news would bolster notability. I am holding off a !vote in hopes there is a Mr. or Mrs. Hey out there. Even if the CEO becomes rich off of this the idea is a "tug at the heartstring". The current sourcing is lacking but we are actually supposed to !vote by what is "out there" as opposed to the condition of the article. I did not look at the COI listed sources (as of yet) but surely someone can take a gander. I have not looked at the Wikipedia procedures concerning someone involved in classwork and student work on articles. It would seem that at a point an editor in good standing can separate what was, what is, and what will or will not be. If it were me, not having a connection to the company or CEO, but properly claiming some COI, I would see if "proper sourcing" could be somehow nudged from the AFD page to the article. I am against paid editors or company and individual sponsored articles but I am all for class involvement and someone "watching" over an article but we need more than "...a decent case for GNG here". I have issues with the promo part also. It is written like an advertisement and the page states "Ekstrom is an outspoken advocate of social media as a means of advertising, stating that "we can show through pictures how purchasing headbands makes a difference." Purchasing headbands may make her rich (or richer) but making a difference is the little children proudly wearing them in the pictures so to me that PR wording sucks. Otr500 (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I am about to embark (now) on my weekly 14-hours-a-day work schedule or I would try to devote some investigating time into this. Otr500 (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Improving the article is always better than just linking to sources, granted, but explicitly not a requirement for the purpose of demonstrating notability re: deletion (i.e. if notability is the issue the existence of sources sufficient to pass GNG is all that's necessary). That said, if your reason for otherwise deleting would be promotion, that's another story. I don't think that absolutely all of the text is promotional such that WP:TNT would apply, though. I've been trying to find time to sit down and do something with this page, but this is the busiest month of my year (the only real editing I wind up doing much of in March is Art+Feminism-related). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Change of !vote, See below: Promotional (WP:SPIP) and not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). And thanks for the AFD 101. This is an article about a business. Everyone is always too busy. The lead starts out with "...is a company founded by college student Jess Ekstrom that gives headbands to children with cancer and funding to research.". Next: "For every headband sold, one is given to a child with cancer. Headbands of Hope has donated headbands to every children's hospital in the United States.". The first search I performed brought up a 2015 article on Headbands for Hope] that is not related. Two articles I found were one from Duke Department of Pediactrics written "By Jess Ekstrom for The Huffington Post" and the "Huff Post" blog I also found Project CHIC that is not related. Wikipedia is not a business listing and GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". Squeeking by, good arguments for notability, and other such reasoning is not a reason for keep but actual notability. Blogs written by the CEO does not advance notability. "She" says the company has given away 75,000 headbands does not cut the mustard. Two pages of searches brought up "things about Headbands of Hope" ---BY--- Heandbands of Hope. This is also BLP related so there is a mandate to go farther than "normal" on sources. "Many print publications have featured Headbands of Hope, including Seventeen, Women's Health, Cosmopolitan, Vanity Fair, People, and Good Housekeeping.", and I could not find one of these. Otr500 (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not see them either when I searched. I was trying to imagine why I would've been ok with students adding a list of sources like that without actually adding the sources themselves. I also didn't remember the image -- the students took a picture of one of the headbands themselves, and didn't get a promotional photo like the one in there now. Now I see that in the time since they wrote it it was overhauled by an account with an apparent COI, removing some sources, replacing them with primary sources, and adding both of the problematic statements you've picked up on (the "every hospital" claim and the list of magazines where it's allegedly been "featured"). I've restored the earlier version (and restored the afd tag of course). There are still a couple promotional elements (e.g. the mission statement quote box), but it's less egregious, I think. I should've checked the actual content before commenting here, rather than going by my memory of what it was. That said, if you aren't persuaded that it's notable by the sources in the article and the ones I linked above, this is unlikely to change anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Restored version prior to a COI account added the most problematic promotional content. Still could use some work, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look. Otr500 (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (from the change of !vote above): I didn't dig in far enough to see the change you found so I give you a hey on that. The notability of a subject (by sources) is not dependent on the state of the article or lack of sourcing therein. The article "is in bad shape and the only reference without issues is the one I added but the notability of the company is acknowledged by the sourcing found that goes beyond regional and even national. The company, of course, will be somewhat inherently promotional but when written like an advertisement it falls squarely in the middle of what Wikipedia is not and I feel this article has enough significant coverage to warrant stand-alone status. There is a fine line between Wikipedia coverage of the company or the individual, per the lead of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), but the sourcing that includes her basically as also the company front person always associates her with Headbands of Hope so that seems clear to me. I think all subjects should be scrutinized by the criterion found at NPEOPLE as the test: "..."worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia...". Otr500 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:HEY applied. Acnetj (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional puffery. The principle is NOT TABLOID, tho we have sometimes been known to violate if the cause is sufficiently virtuous and the matter pathetic. The "History" section is is typical of the nature of such human interest journalism. Maybe we'll remember we're an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep -- Clearly meets GNG. Aside from the sources already mentioned in this discussion we have e.g. Women's Health 2017, Rodale.com, and so on. A clear-cut case. For those arguing for deletion from the promotional tone of the article, you've established that it needs editing, but as a wise saying of my people would have it, AfD is not cleanup. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2018 (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.