Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast cancer campaign


 * 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. Arkyan 17:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Breast cancer campaign

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:AUTO and WP:SPAM. May be notable, but makes no substantial claims as such, aside from monetary volume. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This article just needed to be tagged as I have taken the liberty to do. It does need a little wikification which I will also try and take care of. Doesn't need to be deleted though. It's also wrong to cite WP:AUTO as a reason to delete. Doesn't apply here. Carter | Talk to me 10:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean AUTO does not relate to deletion, or that this is not an autobiography? Potatoswatter (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I have edited this article slightly in order to better meet Wikipedia's guidelines and have also created references to back up information that has been included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.181.2 (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They're still not secondary sources, and it's no less AUTO, if the links are all to breastcancercampaign.org. Potatoswatter (talk)


 * Keep: Certainly notable, even though the article doesn't assert notability as well as it could ...... Dendodge  .. Talk Help 11:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – Has more than established Notabilty as shown here. . ShoesssS Talk 15:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep subject is notable, many instances of coverage and reference. WilliamH (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Although most AfDs follow arguments of notability, this does not. The problem with this article is systemic bias, even if you can't "see" it. At best it duplicates material from the Campaign's website. Interested readers should go to that website if they want that information. It is not a positive contribution here. This article looks fine, but WP:AB. Along with the verifiable broad stokes will be the embellishments of an insider. This organization does deserve an article, but the article should be written by Wikipedians with proper standards. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, just read WP:DEL :vP ... I suppose the specific issue I can point at is copyvio of the website, compared to the cross-"referenced" sections. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:28, 24 May 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.