Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appleseed 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) The person who loves reading (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Appleseed Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page fails WP:GNG and also reads heavily like an advertisement, violating WP:CORP. WP:BEFORE check reveals a lack of secondary sources Let'srun (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient content to establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - found some references for the article, the subject is probably notable enough to qualify for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep with current referencing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep It satisfies WP:GNG although there's promotional language needed to be cleaned up. See the source assessment table for more details. The person who loves reading (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Cannot open the website.
|
? Unknown | |
| ~ NFL is somewhat affiliated with Appleseed Foundation. | 
|
~ Only partial coverage in this source. | ~ Partial | |
| ~ per reason above. |
|
 Only a few sentences talking about the subject of the article.
|
✘ No | |
| Harvard Law Record is not affiliated with Appleseed Foundation.
|
|
A long article covered many details about the foundation.
|
✔ Yes | |
| The foundation's own website.
|
|
Only listed Appleseed centres.
|
✘ No | |
|
|
|
~ Only partial coverage. | ~ Partial | |
|
|
|
|
✔ Yes | |
| Texas Appleseed has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune.
|
|
~ | ✘ No | |
|
|
|
|
✘ No | |
|
|
|
|
✘ No | |
|
|
|
Maybe partial coverage, but I think that there's significant coverage.
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
|
Maybe partial coverage.
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
|
|
✔ Yes | |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
- Keep per WP:HEY, it now satisfies WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2023 (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.