Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Lighthouse Society

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Lighthouse Society

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

Citations 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are primary sources. References 2 and 7 are brief mentions and quotes. This source has some information about this society, but is mostly about an individual lighthouse. It would be extremely rare for any organization with a budget of $700,000 to be notable. CorporateM (Talk) 03:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 15:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to keep—there are plenty of news sources out there that talk about the group. While many aren't about the group in specific and focus on its efforts, I'm still inclined to keep the article. The argument about the group's budget doesn't convince, as these articles do discuss the group's chapters. It would not be uncommon for a national organization with chapters to have a smaller budget because most of the money involved is handled through the chapters' individual projects. Imzadi 1979 → 20:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. if this article from the United Arab Emirates is talking about one part of the group's activities, I'm inclined to think the article can be expanded and salvaged. It isn't GA material now, but I don't think it's quite deletion-worthy either. This is about the group, as is this, so I think there is room to expand the article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I see that this article was nominated for GA, failed, and then was nominated it for AfD on the same day. That seems kind of strange and not a very good precedent if it puts a damper on GA nominations. Surely we don't want to imply that failure of a GA nomination may lead to AfD.

About the organization itself, it seems notable enough to me, given its national award and status as one of the largest organizations of its kind. The individual lighthouse in the cited source is a National Monument, which automatically qualifies as notable, as opposed to the thousands of merely Historic Places. The source also contains the words "...are to be congratulated. They truly have made a difference." This is the main criterion we are urged to consider in WP:ORGSIG, namely "whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects". According to the source, they have. WP:ORGSIG also says "Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." So I don't think the size of their budget should be a consideration. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2015 (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.