Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Federation of Republican Women

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The result was nomination withdrawn. I'm sorry, I was sure I had checked Google. Evidently not. I request someone gives the article a quick clean, and apologies for the silly nomination. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Federation of Republican Women

National Federation of Republican Women (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable group, no reliable sources. A copyvio of the official website, but author claims to be the owner of the website. No evidence of this as of yet. Prod was removed when the copyvio-speedy was declined because the group asserted notability, which was a rather convoluted situation, but, anyway, I bring the discussion here. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• This deletion proposal is absurd. The National Federation of Republican Women is a large, established organization, albeit probably not well-endowed with the kind of members who edit Wikipedia (i.e., not young, not into computers)

The article has lots of problems. But it needs editing,not deltion.MercyOtis (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)MercyOtis

I hope the responses below help change your mind about the editors of Wikipedia. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The article needs to be cleaned up and sourced, but this group appears to be very notable. Articles about them include [1] [2] [3] [4]. Bláthnaid 13:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This is a copyvio, pure and simple. It can be recreated if and when the user who claims to hold copyright has settled the issue via the proper methods. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment there are hundreds of hits for this in Google books, and about 80 in Google scholar. So the outfit deserves a Wikipedia article. As for the copyvio issues, it would be better to rewrite the article now. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:25, 27 March 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.