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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IntoUniversity[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. organisation does not meet criteria for organisations at WP:ORG — Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Selection by royals is no real evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I had found sources at: [1], [2],[3], but I do not consider this to be sufficiently extensive coverage. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still hunting so please bare with me, this article should be better in about an hour or so :) Thanks! Pebkac (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I can find that are reliable offer only trivial coverage. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The charity has won several highly prestigious awards for the work it does. What else should I look for? Pebkac (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive reports in the press about them, for example, preferably on a national level. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Guardian Newspaper not a good exaple of national coverage? Pebkac (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... assuming it is more than a passing mention. A couple of sentences in a broader article isn't enough. Nor is reproduction of a press release. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian and The Times both featured entire articles about them; would that suffice? Pebkac (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so, yes... Keep Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article seems sufficiently notable, it just needs a review to ensure it conforms to WP:NPOV Wikipedian2 (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full length articles from two different national newspapers (both considered to be amongst the strongest of reliable news sources), plus coverage by the BBC; two significant awards and one (apparently) minor award. This is plenty of coverage to establish notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for your help everyone - does this mean that I can remove the deletion notice? Pebkac (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly not. The AfD tag will be removed by the admin who closes this discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I shall speak to Kudpung Pebkac (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't close this, because I started it. It must be closed by a non involved admin. Give it time, ~~someone will be here soon~~, it needs to run for a full seven days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's fab. In the mean time, is there anything that anybody thinks could be improved from a neutrality point of view? Pebkac (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2011 (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.