Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lung Transplant Foundation

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lung Transplant Foundation

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

Speedy G11 contested by a third party on the grounds that the wording of lead paragraph has been cleaned. However, the rest of the article is still blatantly promotional, and no third-party references were used. A search in Google News yields no non-trivial references either, making the organization non-notable. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no more promotional than articles about other non-profit organizations here on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there are several third-parties that discuss the Lung Transplant Foundation (of these, the Hearld-Sun of Durham, North Carolina and Great Charities.org come immediately to mind). The organization is young, so it may not yet have received as much third-party coverage as other organizations, but it still has received some, and that makes it notable. Keep. Sterlsilver (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, but there is enough on google news alone to demonstrate notability. Feel free to edit it as to reduce anything that appears to be promotional. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At least half of both regular and news searches are about the Heart and Lung Transplant Foundation from Australia, and the rest are passing mentions and comments. The only good item is the one already on the article. These two news 1 2 might provide with something, but they are behind a paywall. Even then coverage would be minor, and the current content is unacceptable - frankieMR (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability. Much of the search results in Google News are either incidental mentions, or not this particular organisiation as pointed out above. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you who are not in need of a lung transplant will opt for a deletion. Those of us who will be facing this critical operation, would LOVE to continue to see it 'advertised' or ANY other capacity ON WIKIPEDIA. I vote for KEEPING, not deleting. JH in FREELAND, MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.31.22 (talk)
I've moved the above from the talk page as it appears to be meant for this discussion -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's multiple editors asserting keep with a claim that coverage in reliable sources exist. Could somebody please provide some specifics because I've looked and have not found the claimed coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of significant coverage. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2011 (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.