Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KIDPOWER

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. faithless (^speak) 05:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KIDPOWER

KIDPOWER (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

There's no indication that this organisation is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete there's a longer and more detailed history at their site, but neither that nor the article shows any particular reason why this should be included in an encyclopedia. 18 Google news hits, none of which seem to be primarily about Kidpower itself as far as I could tell. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs references added, but that is a reason to edit, not to delete, when references exist (even if behind paywall). Via Google News Archive search I found several which appear to show the notability of the subject of the article: The Record, 2001 , PR Newswire, 2006: SmithMicro supports Kidpower , Daily Herald, 1995 I read this via Newspaperarchive (subscription) and it is a story featuring the subject of this Wikipedia article. It says the organization is nationwide and active in many areas) , Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 1996- feature story about the organization , San Jose Mercury News, 1996 , San Jose Mercury News, 2002 , San Jose Mercury News, 1994 , The Gazette, 2000 , Daily Herald, 2004 , San Jose Mercury News, 2002 , Los Angeles Times, 1993 , San Jose Mercury News 1993 , St. Paul Pioneer Press 1994 , Deseret News 1997. There are a great many more articles there about this organization. Such easy finding of multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage from different areas of the U.S. and over a long span of years easily satisfies WP:N and WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There are way more than 18 Google News hits - you need to click on "all dates" on the left to get the full number - 329 when I just tried it, including lots of substantial ones on top of those already listed by Edison. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - as discussion shows, woefully inadequate nomination that brings the nominator's (sincere, but clearly not up to the task) judgement into strong question and suggests any other present and future nominations should be closely examined for possible removal as wastes of AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I beg your pardon?!?! Disagree with me all you want, and yes, Edison has made an excellent case for this article to be kept, but this comment is really uncalled for. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of sources exist for article expansion. Carcharoth (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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.