Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RUOK

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 of the debate was Keep pschemp | talk 04:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RUOK

Delete 172 Google hits for "RUOK IVR", including Wikipedia and some mirrors. User who created the article has added external links from the same commerical web site to various related articles. It looks like RUOK was created as a hosting ground for those external links. Mrtea (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism change to Weak keep per the wub and Pgillman's comments --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. A google search for RUOK shows it seems to have been adopted by several police departments. Also an album [1] by Meat Beat Manifesto that appears to meet WP:MUSIC. the wub "?!" 12:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. (Author of Article) The arguments for deleting this article are flawed. "RUOK IVR" is not a legitimate search term for the program described in the article. (Probably less than 5% of organizations that refer to this service use IVR. Many communities provide this through volunteer service). Using the Google search term "RUOK Program" returns 34,000 hits and all of the results viewed in the first 5 pages are related to the exact program referred to in this article. And these are only a subset of the actual number, many of whom do not have websites or do not have information about their RUOK program on the web. These include police departments, fire departments, social services, private organizations, etc. Discussion regarding other external linking was noted on another talk session with Mrtea(talk). If links provided on this article (list of providers and private funding sources) are objectionable, offensive or inappropriate, then they can be removed without detracting from the substance and value of the article. At a minimum, the list of providers should be retained and perhaps included in the body of the article. This list of providers contains organizations that are categorized by state. Most of the police and fire departments consented to be listed with contact information on how individuals in their communities can subscribe to this nearly universally free service as well as testimonials about the individual lives that have been saved using the service.Pgillman(talk) pgaz 12:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per the wub. --BWD ^(talk) 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Royboycrashfan 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as a real organisation. JIP | Talk 06:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a (very, very rare) ad hoc exception to the rules on promotion in Wikipedia. Haikupoet 00:05, 29 March 2006 (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.