Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jer's Vision

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. Consensus as it stands is in favour of retaining this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jer's Vision

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

This article is not notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Been a year and a half since the last AFD, and there still isn't significant coverage by secondary sources to say more than "it exists." Previous concerns for lack of sourcing, probable lack of neutrality, etc., are still outsanding. Fails WP:ORG. Ray^Talk 21:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having just added a source, it appears that further sources are likely to be available. Nobody doubts this is a registered charity, NOTIMELIMIT applies. Ash (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's only a guideline. WP:NOT#HOST, WP:SOAP, WP:MYSPACE, WP:PLOT, WP:NFT (no proof they are a charity. I dispute it) and WP:ORG all apply. It fails all of them. delete Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since essays work for you, WP:GARAGE also applies. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You appear to be assuming that this charity is a hobby-horse of mine. In fact I had not heard of them until the article was raised for deletion and I have never even visited Canada. As you challenged the organization's charity status, you may like to know the information is easy to check based on official tax records at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca (the Revenue Agency). Here's the info if you can't be bothered to look it up:

JER'S VISION

BN/Registration Number: 863207981RR0001

Charity Status: Registered

Effective Date of Status: 2005-02-01

Designation Description: Public Foundation

Charity Type: Education

Category: Support of Schools and Education

Address: JEREMY DIAS 54 SOMERSET ST W., SUITE 1

City: OTTAWA

Province/Territory/Other: ONTARIO

Country: CA

Postal Code/Zip Code: K2P0H5

- - - Even if they have charity status, that doesn't make them notable. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I added the source to show they were a charity as you stated you disputed it. As for notability, Mayor Harvey Rosen stated that this charity was "Canada's first (and only) national organization to support and encourage the work of youth to address discrimination in their schools and communities" (see citation in article), this is sufficient to meet ORG. Ash (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and you get 37 results for "Jer's vision". Those results can't be for anything other than the organization. If it is notable enough for various news sources to mention, then that its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 00:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added a couple more sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, doesn't have multiple independent reliable sources establishing notability. Verbal chat

It certainly does have multiple independent reliable sources establishing notability; they're even right in the article and everything! Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; sufficiently sourced to reliable media organizations. Okay, maybe Lifesitenews is a bit iffy (or a lot iffy), but the Toronto Star and Xtra! certainly clear the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2010 (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.