Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Million Dads March Network

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 delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Million Dads March Network

Million Dads March Network (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Let me start off by saying that I realize that I'm probably throwing myself into the fire by nominating this. I found the link to this in another AfD...and tried to clean it up. After reading through parts of it, I don't see any out-and-out assertions of notability. Basically, the article says the organization exists, this is what it does...and it reads, very, very, very promotionally. This article has somehow been around for 3 years...I don't really know how. The founder has been making several edits to the page. More importantly, this fails WP:V by a longshot - I cannot find one single reliable secondary source. Or - quite honestly - any secondary source, period. It also doesn't meet any WP:CORP guidelines. I don't really see any way to salvage this one...or anything in it worth salvaging. Smashville^BONK! 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- Zero Google News Archive hits. The book that's cited is self-published through Xlibris. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I actually removed the link to the book because it linked to Amazon.com and seemed a little toooo spammy. --Smashville^BONK! 19:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete with extreme prejudice. Fails WP:CORP and WP:V, there's WP:COI problems in addition. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as failing notability and decent refs that establish that notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless references in independent reliable sources can be found. If they can, I would change my vote. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As per evidence by Smashville. BigDunc (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Sources are required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else, good catch Smashville. dab (𒁳) 17:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. No notability whatever. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment COI is not a reason to delete.—This is part of a comment by TableManners (of 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
  • I don't think anyone claimed COI was a reason to delete. In the nom I specifically said WP:V and WP:CORP. --Smashville^BONK! 20:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, COI was not mentioned by you, but One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs). Sorry about the ambiguity.[1] TableManners^C·U·T 03:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• And my mention of COI was after I said "Fails WP:CORP and WP:V". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete That being said, delete per WP:CORP. The article would need coverage by reliable secondary sources, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. TableManners^C·U·T 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete - fails WP:CORP, WP:V. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:42, 29 January 2008 (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.