Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arca 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arca Foundation

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

Notability not established. Sources only mention it in passing. Most of the actual information, of which there is very little, is from a 20 year old hostile opinion piece in the Washington Times. BayShrimp (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After looking through the news results, none establish notability. They are all passing mentions. -- Dane ^talk 00:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising and I'll also note it seems the authoring user was part of a quite apparent advertising campaign; in this cases, we clearly apply WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 02:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no advertising problems in the article. Are there those you can identify? As for your issue with the author, that is not a WP:NOT policy issue. Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing any reason for this to be at AfD. The foundation was founded by the daughter of the R. J. Reynolds of tobacco fame, and a relative of the Reynolds of Reynolds Wrap fame. A 16 October 2016 article from Catholic Herald Online identifies Arca as "a left-wing charity opposed to many aspects of traditional Catholic teaching." The article serves to identify the organization in the places it is mentioned elsewhere in the encyclopedia. WP:BEFORE D1 on Google books shows hits that have not been mentioned and therefore don't seem to have been considered. Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Herald article then says it shares an address with another organization which it was talking about, and that's it.BayShrimp (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that would depend on if other sources connect Arca and CACG and liberal Catholics. Unscintillating (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question the facts presented, just if they are enough to make a worthwhile article.BayShrimp (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there problems with the article? It certainly didn't become a worthless article because I quoted from a snippet, from a source that turns out to be based in London! Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. $50 million foundation funding political lobbying is notable. It is a good function for Wikipedia to keep a roster of these. --do ncr am 02:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is definitely related to some known entities and its old. But age of an organizations or associations with known things or people does not establish Wiki standards we are setting. Light2021 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep $55 million private grantmaking foundation isn't that big, but at the same time, it is clearly much more than a private family foundation. That, combined with the small mentions here and there in sources pushes it to keep for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note As nominator I'm cool with default to keep, rather than wasting more time with it. BayShrimp (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2016 (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.