Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holistic moms network
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 01:40, 7 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 01:40, 7 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 no consensus. Default to keep. This is certain to be renominated if sourcing doesn't materialize. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Holistic moms network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No reliable sources cover this organization substantially enough. Whip it! Now whip it good! 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:ORG. No evidence of notability. shirulashem (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. Any organisation with 25,000 web hits and 350 news hits has got to be notable. Did you search for sources before nominating? e.g. Denver Post:[1]; Washington Times:[2]. There are stacks of stories about local chapters. Not my cup of tea at all, but the article needs improving, not deleting. This is obvious propaganda, but would make a good EL for info about them from their point of view:[3] Fences and windows (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny, I did google prior to nominating this for AFD, and there weren't that many reliable sources, all I found were mainly blogs, but maybe it's because I didn't look hard enough. If it is notable enough, then I agree it should stay. Personally, I really could care less about the merits of the organization itself, I'm able to keep POV out of this. Whip it! Now whip it good! 04:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Plenty of third-party sources available. They have chapters from coast-to-coast and have held national conferences for their members. Article just needs improvement.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Apparently there are enough sources. I too was a little surprised, because this sort of article is is usually difficult to source DGG (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2009 (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.