Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidscape

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The result was keep as the nominator has withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kidscape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Advert, possibly requiring

• Keep. Quite plainly not an advert; it even has a criticism section! Well known UK children's charity, whose spokespeople are regularly quoted in the press when there is a bullying/child abuse story. Multiple coverage in reliable sources, here, here, here, here, here etc etc.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable charity do to coverage and awards. Dream Focus 17:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of ref's from very reliable sources not on the article at the moment, but that is not required to avoid deletion. Not even all that promo toned. Snow? John from Idegon (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well I've added the logo so that's something, As noted above plenty of sources, Needs some TLC not TNT. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources should really be added, but I must admit I did hesitate before creating the AfD. Withdrawn. (TLC not TNT is a pretty neat expression, by the way.--Launchballer 11:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reference in nom to
  wp:TNT is a strong indicator, in my view, of inappropriate AFD and seems offensive in several ways. First it is an implicit recognition that the topic is notable (it suggests blowing up the article and replacing it by a new article on the same topic). Offensive to call for editor attention to deletion of topic that the nominator implicitly suggests is notable. Second the call is offensive as it calls for violation of basic Wikipedia principle that contributions of editors are kept in history and contributors get credit thereby, e.g. if the article content is used elsewhere outside of Wikipedia. They will not get credit if article is deleted and re-created. Third, call for TNT is needlessly dramatic and mean, seeming to denigrate previous contributors, that their work is so bad it must be exploded. Why be mean? It makes me want to disagree automatically to the nomination. I object in principle to essay wp:TNT, which I had not heard of until recently, seeing it referenced in multiple recent nominations. Sounds dramatic to call for TNT here and elsewhere, but it is offensive and unjustified. About the article topic itself, there are multiple references in this article, obvious keep. --doncram 05:38, 10 August 2014 (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.