Deletion of Headbands of Hope

Comment: Headbands of Hope has donated headbands to every children's hospital in the United States."'', '''is a big statement''' and regional news would bolster notability. I am holding off a !vote in hopes there is a Mr. or Mrs. |Hey out there. Even if the CEO becomes rich off of this the idea is a "tug at the heartstring". The current sourcing is lacking but we are actually supposed to !vote by what is "out there" as opposed to the condition of the article. I did not look at the COI listed sources (as of yet) but surely someone can take a gander. I have not looked at the Wikipedia procedures concerning someone involved in classwork and student work on articles. It would seem that at a point an editor in good standing can separate what was, what is, and what will or will not be. If it were me, not having a connection to the company or CEO, but properly claiming some COI, I would see if "proper sourcing" could be somehow nudged from the AFD page to the article. I am against paid editors or company and individual sponsored articles but I am all for class involvement and someone "watching" over an article but we need more than "...a decent case for GNG here". I have issues with the promo part also. It is written like an advertisement and the page states ''"Ekstrom is an outspoken advocate of social media as a means of advertising, stating that "we can show through pictures how purchasing headbands makes a difference."'' Purchasing headbands may make her rich (or richer) but making a difference is the little children proudly wearing them in the pictures so to me that PR wording sucks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: from the change of !vote above): I didn't dig in far enough to see the change you found so I give you a | hey on that. The notability of a subject (|by sources) is not dependent on the state of the article or lack of sourcing therein. The article "is in bad shape and the only reference without issues is the one I added but the notability of the company is acknowledged by the sourcing found that goes beyond regional and even national. The company, of course, will be somewhat inherently promotional but when written like an advertisement it falls squarely in the middle of |what Wikipedia is not and I feel this article has enough |significant coverage to warrant stand-alone status. There is a fine line between Wikipedia coverage of the company or the individual, per the lead of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), but the sourcing that includes her basically as also the company front person always associates her with ''Headbands of Hope'' so that seems clear to me. I think all subjects should be scrutinized by the criterion found at |NPEOPLE as the test: ''"..."worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:ORGIN||WP:NOT||WP:ORGSIG||WP:NPEOPLE)

Comment: not !voting because I have a COI with respect to the article (I have no connection at all to the subject itself, but it's on my watchlist because the article was started by some former students). There are issues with the article, indeed, but I don't think it's a case of  and there's a decent case for GNG here. It's the subject of coverage on https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/college-game-plan/dorm-room-ceo-meet-jess-ekstrom-who-launched-headband-business-n516816 ''NBC News'', https://www.today.com/health/how-headbands-hope-help-young-girls-battling-cancer-1D79985516 ''Today'', https://www.womenshealthmag.com/life/jess-ekstrom-headbands-of-hope ''Women's Health'' magazine (winner of its "Game Changers" contest, it would seem; there was also https://www.womenshealthmag.com/style/game-changers-2017-headbands-of-hope this other one prior to that win, and http://www.newsobserver.com/living/article176152976.html a story in the regional paper of record about it), http://www.instyle.com/news/shop-cause-headbands-hope-helps-restore-confidence-young-cancer-patients ''InStyle'', http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/midtown-raleigh-news/article10340297.html the ''News & Observer''... and then the less substantial coverage like a brief appearance on https://www.yahoo.com/gma/gma-deals-steals-accessories-bracelets-120049272.html ''Good Morning America'', a bunch of blog posts, other local coverage, etc. that aren't really worth mentioning. It's not a slam dunk, but it's clearly not the case that it has "no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)