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. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unite For Sight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I've declined a speedy on this one but I'm not sure it really warrants an article and a quick web-skim doesn't seem to show much if anything to expand it from. Procedural nom so I abstain.  – iridescent 17:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I created the article and abstain too. --Bensin (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you created the article, you are free to register your opinion here. If you have any info that would help other editors decide to keep/delete the article, this would be the place to list it (along with listing it in the article as well!). TN‑X-Man 17:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass on voting as a courtesy to the nominator who abstained, but since I created it I think everyone already knows my opinion. I always think it's sad when articles 5 minutes old is speedily deleted instead of improved. Unite For Sight is an organization that has helped more than 600,000 people and generates over 28,000 hits on Google. That merits an article. --Bensin (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The sources are indeed thin on this organization. Still, it has been noted in passing by a few newspapers although 2 of the sources that are in the article at present are college student publications. What's really going on here is that the wunderkind founder of the organization has won many awards, which then get picked up in articles, which in turn will make a passing mention of the organization. Most of the reliable sources that addressed the organization were of that type, or a human-interest type piece on a local volunteer with the group. I think that the combination of those just barely let's us get to notability under WP:CORP. Once there, there are a ton of primary source type materials that can flesh out the article. Take a look at the group's media page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done}

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the group seems to have received some coverage in RS[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and has also received a Brick Award, I am not really sure how prestigious that is but it does have a Wikipedia article and so cannot be entirely minor. - Icewedge (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2008 (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.