Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aboriginal Literacy 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal Literacy Foundation

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

Contested PROD. While this organization may do excellent work, I have not been able to turn up any in depth secondary sources that discuss the organization. All of the sources on the page are primary sources. I don't believe it meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP unfortunately. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I still confirm my own speedy since literally everything here is blatant advertising with also no actual significance, there's simply nothing else beyond that especially since the summary is "This was clearly started for advertising". SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertisement written in the subject's voice. No third party articles or reports on the org, but they are registered with the ACNC[1]. 34% of their reported $496k AUD income in 2014 was spent visiting a single conference! (Not that that has anything to do with the AfD, but they didn't have a CharityNavigator entry, what was I supposed to do?) Jergling (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I removed the proposed deletion (PROD) tag, because I though deleting without a discussion might be controversial. Thye current page is on the borderline of disastrous. This group might be barely notable based on some sources online that I found: see some news articles and some book mentions. Whether they are significant enough coverage for notability is, as often is the case, in the eyes of the beholders. Bearian (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, each of these handful of results on Google are trivial, and merely mention the organization. They do not appear to discuss the organization in any detail. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 of the 6 cites on GScholar appear to be for a Canadian org called the National Aboriginal Learning Foundation, just for the record. The GNews is more significant than my searches turned up, though. A Parliamentary charity made ALF their recipient in 2014, although the committee itself seems pretty minor. Jergling (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thank you Jergling for the clarification. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 18 November 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.