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.
Weak Keep Doesn't exactly fail anything. I'm going to have to say cleanup, however. I'm going to have to ask, however, that other users disregard the google presence, as WP:GHITS is a violation of concensus and doesn't prove anything. Cool BlueLight my Fire!12:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a proof of non-notablity, it is an indicator. For a notable organisation, I'd be expecting more. MER-C12:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having well-attended retreats across two continents, as well as partnerships and ongoing charity work makes this organisation notable enough to my mind. Lankiveil13:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, I suspect that many of the sources that would exist if this were a charity in the West do not exist because of the nature of the places where this organisation does most of its work. In this case, the lack of a Google presence does not indicate non-notability. MichelleG13:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Very thin sourcing. If they are notable, one would expect published 3rd party commentary on the impact of their work. Holding meetings, having partnerships and being charitable do not establish notability. EdJohnston15:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Work in Africa probably explains Google hits. It's work across several countries establishes enough notability to keep. Davewild18:02, 15 April 2007 (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.