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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See this search at Google News archive. There are many articles about the foundation in reliable sources. – Eastmain (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if rewritten. Currently reads like a vanity article about the founder, and none of the links work. But your Google search indicates that the foundation has some notability, at least locally in Indianapolis. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google searches indicates strong notabiity + seems to verify the information in the article. Lots of google hits + not just the same press release popping up on each site. Alter a few sentences on the founder and the article wil lose its hagiographic tone. tagging it for POV right now. Btw, this article still has the 'new article' tag on it- IMO it was bad faith to nominate this article before it had a chance to develop. --Brunk500 (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2009 (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.