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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transforming Faces (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)

no evidence of notability; this is apparently a promotional articles for the charity. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, moved to Transforming Faces per OTRS ticket 2015062910019478. Nakon 04:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ORG for lack of significant coverage by reliable independent sources. The article provides a single source, offline so we can't evaluate it. In a search I found only press releases and unrelated hits. --MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See links below. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Search for "Transforming Faces" at the Toronto Star had several mentions [1] and one with more coverage [2]. Currently cited 2005 article preview is here [3]. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find any coverage beyond that Toronto Star article and a handful of mentions. Sam Walton (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are more mentions. PubMed: "In recent years the situation has been significantly improved through the intervention of Non Governmental Organisations such as SmileTrain and Transforming Faces Worldwide participating in primary surgical repair programmes." [4] and some others [5] [6] [7] [8]. Plus links on Cleft palate organizations: [9] [10]. I realize this might not be enough for some to !vote keep, but I put the bar lower for charities than for commercial organizations. The article needs work to avoid PROMO, but that can be tagged and the article improved. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There was a ten-minute radio interview on the canadian version of NPR, which I think has not yet been mentioned.[11] Charity-benefit-cinema in 2014 for the entity.[12] There was a burst of WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions in protest of a poor remake-movie.[13][14][15] This is the Toronto Star, not sure if it is the same as the ones mentioned above, which covers the first recipient of a new program the charity introduced.[16][17] Same story, mentions two visits/surgeries were needed in 2011/2012.[18] Related story with mention of the big event, about financing such surgeries.[19] Maybe-WP:noteworthy mention as part of the obit of one of the senior advisors to the charity, but title of page says this was paid obit, so maybe does not count as wp:rs.[20] Counting the radio-interview, and glomming together the toronto star articles, we have a couple sources with decent depth. Does the charity-benefit-theater with proceeds going to Transforming Faces count? Kinda sorta. The burst of Cavendish-the-villian-related coverage has little depth, but does show that the charity is not ignored by the press, when something relevant arises. Seems like a case where notability is unclear, and maybe merging-n-redirect into a more generic parent article is the way WP:FAILN suggests... but which article would it be a subsection within? Cleft palate charity and facial reconstruction charity do not exist; maybe medical charities for children? Merging the content into a more-highly-trafficked generic article will also help cut down on puffery and WP:SPIP, methinks, but I don't know what the generic article might be, if so. We do have some in-depth coverage, so deletion/userfication seems the wrong way to go, per WP:PRESERVE. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep The Toronto Star article previously mentioned positively in a delete rationale is one of the two sources I see reaching WP:ORG, the other is the ParentsCanada article. I say weak, because the Toronto Star articles URL check at the bottom gives me a bit of pause about the neutrality of the article, but the Toronto Star is IME a pretty reliable source, and ParentsCanada appears to be a less known source, but a published magazine with an editorial process. But I think it's just past the bar. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, perhaps I'm a bit of a soft touch when it comes to charities, but I think the Toronto Star coverage plus the other sources mentioned probably just push this past the notability bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:52, 2 August 2015 (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.