- 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. Notability has not satisfactorily been established. ChrisO 22:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Project Reach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Uncited article by single-purpose account showing clear conflict of interest. May be salvageable. But probably not. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At this time it appears unsalvageable to me. It is poorly written, unencyclopedic, and unsourced; it fails to establish notability. A search on "Project Reach" + New York yields over 33,500 hits, few, if any, of which are independent sources. This appears to be a local project with little national relevance. --Nonstopdrivel 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable Corpx 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This non-profit group works with marginalized minorities and has had an open-door approach welcoming gang-members, LGBT people, immigrants and street people since it's inception 35 years ago which, it itself, is surprising. The culture in which the group operates does not encourage self-promotion but collaboration and networking which they do seem to do. Thier clients are poor kids, immigrants and at-risk youth, none of who are likely to garner headlines but their work is recognized. If you modify your search terms to "project reach" + "new york" + "chinatown" you will narrow down rather quickly including about a dozen grants from foundations who believe in the work they do enough to give them money. They are also referenced in at least two books and with some digging I imagine more in depth articles will surface as well. Article certainly needs work but the material is there. I'll admit being newer to WP but I was a little surprised about the nomination for deletion rather than proding for notability. Isn't the article less than 2 weeks old? If article's creator is a newer user they might be encouraged more with a more with a less aggressive approach. Benjiboi 12:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, if brought to encyclopedic standards. That it has continued for 35 years *is* notable, but how many has it helped? Approximately how many are now involved in the project? The project website does seem to indicate that the numbers are not insignificant as a local organization and that it has some substantial partners and events. Evolauxia 15:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 11:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, weak delete. I was going to suggest a weak keep here, but I am having a hard time dredging up independent sources to establish any notability. A websearch is compounded by the fact that there appear to be dozens of groups/organizations/projects called "Project Reach". That any one of them are notable is questionable. If some reliable sources can be found prior to the end of this discussion I'll happily change my mind, but for now I must recommend deletion. Arkyan • (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move and expand. Searching together with the sponsor, it appears that "Project Reach. Youth Division of Chinese-American Planning Council" [1]. The main organisation has 17,000 ghits, & some seem usable NY Times [2] PBS [3] & [4].DGG 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Benjiboi. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 08:41, 30 June 2007 (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.