Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeward Bound (organization)

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, SNOW. (non-admin closure) Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homeward Bound (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Promotional article about an organisation not yet shown to meet WP:NCORP most of the sources focus on a single event or routine press coverage most of which has been derived from press releases or interviews. Ferkingstad (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article is written in a neutral tone, and independent and reliable sources in the article provide sufficient in-depth coverage for WP:ORGDEPTH, and are clearly not routine press coverage, nor simply derived from press releases or interviews. Beccaynr (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than adequately sourced (BBC, CBC, Reuters, etc.). Written in an adequately encyclopedic tone (any overly promotional language can be fixed with ordinary editing). This may be part of a spate of vexatious nominations. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. In addition to the pass of WP:NORG discussed above, this is one of nine likely bad-faith nominations in reaction to the deletion of the nominator's article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIDA Select. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Where do you think press coverage should be derived from if not press releases or interviews? Rathfelder (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly meets WP:NORG, has independent and reliable sources. Deus et lex (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Massively sourced. Canadian and British BBC's, CNN, Newsweek, APNews (the best) and much more. Where is the rationale that these are worthless and don't pass Wikipedia policies. Passes WP:ORG. scope_creep^Talk 12:16, 21 August 2021 (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.