Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debt Advice 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. — Aitias // discussion 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debt Advice Foundation

I understand COI issues relating to the group have been resolved, but I see no evidence of the group's notability. A book it published got some brif mentions due to MP presence, but nothing that establishes notability per WP:ORG or WP:BOOK. Ghits just confirm existence, not notability. StarM 16:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A worthy campaign, but minor local media coverage for one event isn't enough, especially when the book appears to be a school project. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. The body was registered (no. 1095705) as a charity in 2003, but seems to have been mostly inactive for a couple of years; now, they've an annual income somewhere in the region of a few hundred thousand. They previously functioned as the "Debt Advice Trust", and to have close links with an existing quasi-charitable quasi-commercial organisation of that name - see eg/ an ASA complaint here. I am not sure quite what all this indicates, but turning over a third of a million seems to suggest they do a bit more than publish a single book - perhaps we should delve deeper? Shimgray | talk | 12:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was initially written in a way which made it look unambiguously like an attempt at using Wikipedia for advertising. Now that the blatant advertising has been removed we are left with a couple of trivial statements which do not indicate notability. The onus is on anyone who wishes to keep the article to provide evidence, and nobody has done so. The "references" only establish that the "Foundation" supported a book that a couple of scholgirls wrote, and that the publicity for that book included getting a government minister to meet the girls during a visit to the school: does this establish notability for the "foundation"?JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not likely that worthwhile material can be found to fix this non-article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summary of the ASA ruling below is simply a piece of misinformation. A contributor to DAF (which has no connection other than it has a similar sounding name), was censured by the ASA, not DAF. I also happen to know that the charity is in talks with government about central funding of the Money Diaries project and that Lancashire Education Authority has already widely distributed the teaching aids. This article simply misleading and damaging to the charity's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.145.221 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the book's notability, the standards for notability are given at WP:BK. Note that if you do manage to demonstrate the book's notability, that would only qualify for an article about the book, not the organisation who sponsored it. As for your complaint that things are being written in this AfD aren't putting DAF in a positive light, tough. Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences is pretty clear that if you create an article, you can't stop other people digging up information you'd rather keep buried. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The complaint about the summary of the ASA ruling is not really relevant to this AfD discussion, so I will not answer it here, but I have given an answer on the article's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk)
Chris, I understand your point and I agree with you. My point is that some of the edited information on here is a clear and blatant misrepresentation of the facts and I suspect has been put on by parties with a vested interest in damaging the credibility of the charity. I think it’s probably sensible (for the charity’s sake) that the submission is taken down until it has secured central government funding. I’m sure a teaching aid distributed nationally is notable enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.145.221 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I made a reply here to the above. I think it was a mistake to let myself be dragged into this discussion here: I should have stuck to my original decision to respond on the article's talk page. This proposal for deletion is about whether or not the organisation is notable: the validity or otherwise of referring to the Advertising Standards Agency has no bearing on the question of notability. However, the accusation that I was not acting in good faith and the suggestion that I had a conflict of interest stung me into responding. I have now decided I was mistaken, and am removing my response: I will put it in the proper place, on the article's talk page. User:JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the book's notability, the standards for notability are given at WP:BK. Note that if you do manage to demonstrate the book's notability, that would only qualify for an article about the book, not the organisation who sponsored it

That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. At least until the charity becomes more notable - there is ample info on their distribution within Lancashire (every primary school) and you mention plans to roll it out nationwide. johnnybriggs (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that sounds fair, I understand the need to view any new submissions with cynicism until credibility can clearly be demonstrated. James - The Eversheds address is a registered business address (you’ll find thousands of companies with the same registered address, usually that of their accountants - Eversheds are BIG). I know for a fact that Debt Advice Trust belongs to a commercial organisation called Fairpoint Group PLC whereas the charity Debt Advice Foundation is a wholly separate entity. I know this because six months ago I worked for Fairpoint and now I’m working for DAF! To be fair, the ASA have really muddied the waters with their wording so I can see where the interpretation has come from! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.31.85 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, response on the article's talk page User:JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2009 (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.