Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meatless monday

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 and cleanup. — CharlotteWebb 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meatless Monday

Article is a polemic essay (WP:NOT#SOAP) and even if it were rewritten it would still be non-notable promotion of a website (WP:N/WP:CORP)  AjaxSmack  01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - article is not a polemic, but I don't see any assertion that this program is at all notable, nor can I find any. --Haemo 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, over 100 Google News Archive hits for program, which is a public health initiative sponsored by a government agency and top hospitals.[1][2] and covered in major media.[3][4], more linked here. There are over 200 Google hits on .edu sites alone. I swear, it's like the usage of a search engine is a forgotten art. "Nor could I find any"? --Dhartung | Talk 03:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, but complete rewrite appears to meet WP:NOTE but as it stands it is completely unacceptable in tone and we probably have a WP:COI issue here too. Would almost prefer to delete and let it get made again without the promotional tone. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have cleaned up the article, removing (most of) the peppy language. It was not difficult. --Dhartung | Talk 08:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (with rewrite) Non-trivial coverage from the Washington Post and Seattle Post-Intelligencer satisfies verifiability & notability concerns. (I've fixed the capitalization.) Caknuck 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, even I have heard of this (and I'm not american, and I like eating meat!). But it does need to go along way for improvement, the sources mentioned should be used in the article for instance along with the formating of it improved. Mathmo ^Talk 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I really want to delete because of this link to a "search-engine optimization" site, which features the subject as a case study. Grr! But, unfortunately, notable per above. --N Shar 05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Kukini 08:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. Subject is notable per multiple nontrivial sources, but the article needs to show that notability and lose its promotional tone. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable campaign, supported by notable organisations. --Dweller 12:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite, notable campaign, but article needs to be cleanup as the current state makes the article look unencyclopedic. Terence Ong 12:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. Though public-healthism is a morally repugnant ideology, and I'd prefer to see it erased from the collective consciousness of the human race, this is a fairly noteworthy, if neglected (Deo gratias!), public initiative by the Nanny State. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Clearly keep. Vranak
• Keep and rewrite as mentioned above. Krimpet 08:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep - needs independent sources to establish notability, but they probably exist, as per Caknuck above. MastCell 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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.